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
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
The Minister for Equalities (Seema Malhotra)
While around 1.5 million women live with endometriosis, survey data shows that it can take more than nine years to receive a diagnosis, which will clearly have a significant impact on those women’s careers. We are acting so that women receive medical support earlier, ensuring that they can access diagnostic testing and are not dismissed by doctors. Measures in the Employment Rights Act 2025 will support women in managing the condition at work.
Mrs Blundell
Many women across the country living with endometriosis are forced to withstand immense challenges in the workplace, often culminating in them having to curtail their ambitions or leave employment entirely. That is because some workplaces are not putting in place proper protections to support working women, who frankly deserve better. What steps are therefore being taken, in consultation with the Department for Business and Trade, to ensure that our workplaces do not lose out on the immeasurable contribution that these brave women can make?
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the challenges that endometriosis brings and that workplaces cannot afford to lose such talented women. Action matters. That is why, as part of the Employment Rights Act, we are improving access to flexible working, making changes to statutory sick pay and opening up conversations about women’s health through the employer action plans that we launched last week. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and other Members to make that support a reality.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
One in 10 women have endometriosis, seriously impacting their ability to work. What plans does the Minister have to ensure that employers have clear guidance about the reasonable adjustments that they should be offering, not just for endometriosis but for all gynaecological issues that impact women’s work?
Seema Malhotra
That is an incredibly important question. It is why, with the action plans that we launched last week, we are looking for action to tackle gender pay gaps and a strategy for supporting women with the menopause. From conversations with employers, we know that will be important in helping to facilitate other conversations about women’s health and how women can have that vital support in the workplace.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Bridget Phillipson)
Tackling child poverty is the moral mission of this Labour Government. Background should not determine what we can go on to achieve in life, but inequality and poverty are barriers to opportunity. We are investing in our children’s futures through a massive expansion of Best Start family hubs, childcare, breakfast clubs and free school meals, alongside the end to the two-child limit, and our child poverty strategy will deliver the biggest ever reduction in child poverty in a single Parliament.
Afzal Khan
In families with disabled children, 25% of those children are living in deep material poverty. The recent uprating of universal credit will be a great help for children growing up in such households, but equipment costs and other expenses, such as specialist childcare, remain significant pressures. Will the Minister set out what more she is doing to address the inequalities felt by children growing up in households with at least one disabled child?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend is right. We recognise the disproportionate financial strain on families with disabled children, who often face significantly higher costs for essentials. We heard that during the development of the child poverty strategy, through many of the children’s rights groups and other organisations that contributed to that work. Our child poverty strategy sets out a plan to lift over half a million children out of poverty by the end of this Parliament. Alongside that, we are taking specific steps to support children with additional needs, providing £200 million of investment to ensure that every Best Start family hub has a dedicated practitioner for children with special educational needs and disabilities.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her answers, her positivity, and her commitment to making the necessary changes. When it comes to inequalities in the home, cases of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism, and behavioural issues, are so much higher in number than they ever were in my day when I was a youngster—and that was not yesterday, by the way. Given the pressures of the lives we live today, what will be done to help those categories of children in particular?
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this area. It is why, through our SEND consultation that will cover England, we want to make sure that support is available to children much more quickly. Of course, formal diagnosis will continue to have an important role and families will seek that, but we should not be waiting for diagnosis to put in place the support that children need. That is why, through the big investment we are delivering in SEND—an extra £4 billion—we will make sure that children get the support when they need it and where they need it.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Bridget Phillipson)
Our recent “Every Child Achieving and Thriving” White Paper sets out our ambition to raise standards for all children and to halve the disadvantage gap between poorer children and their peers at the end of their secondary school career, to make sure that where someone is from does not determine where they end up. We are expanding free school meals and scrapping the two-child limit to lift half a million children out of poverty—that is the difference a Labour Government make.
Mr Rand
Poverty and economic inequality scar the education and life chances of children. Is it not right that by lifting the two-child limit, delivering 30 hours of free childcare, rolling out free breakfast clubs and family hubs and opening new school-based nurseries, including at Altrincham Church of England primary school in my constituency, this Government are investing in equality for children, and that that investment will be repaid many times over, when every child has the support they need to reach their full potential?
Bridget Phillipson
Yes. Tackling child poverty is not just a moral imperative; it is an investment in our country’s future and in our own economic security. That is why we are determined to give every child the best start in life. The Conservatives might not like that: on their watch record numbers of children were pushed into poverty but this Labour Government will lift half a million children out of poverty.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
On the Secretary of State’s watch, the proportion of young people not in education, employment or training in Gosport has now reached around 5%—the highest in 15 years. Is that any wonder when so many of the job opportunities that used to be there for our young people, such as in retail, hospitality, and hair and beauty, are being battered by this Government? Surely one of the best ways to tackle inequality and poverty is to give people the right education and the right job opportunities, so what are her Government and her Department going to do?
Bridget Phillipson
We face a serious challenge about the big numbers of young people who are not in education, employment or training, and we are committed to tackling that. That is why Alan Milburn is leading a review for this Government of what more we can do to support young people, why we have launched our schools White Paper, why we are investing in further education and why we are expanding new routes into apprenticeships. I would say that this problem did not emerge overnight: it has developed over many years, and the Conservatives would do well to reflect on the contribution that they made to the shocking numbers of young people who are NEET.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
The Minister for Equalities (Seema Malhotra)
Cabinet colleagues have marked International Women’s Day by highlighting what we are doing to support working women, to halve violence against women and girls and to build a better future for every woman and girl. Last week I was proud to formally launch employer action plans, alongside the Minister for Women and Equalities. Our ministerial colleague, the right hon. Baroness Smith, is currently attending the UN Commission on the Status of Women. We are putting women at the heart of our missions in Government and our foreign policy, because we recognise that progress on gender equality must know no borders.
Andrew Cooper
This International Women’s Day I commend the work in my constituency of the Her-Place charitable trust, which supports women’s wellbeing and creates spaces to facilitate conversations about health and other challenges. Her-Place says that many women, especially in deprived areas, visit their GP with poor mental health, but are given medication without any meaningful discussion about what is happening in their lives. With Healthwatch England reporting that many women feel unheard and that those in deprived areas facing 20 fewer healthy years, how will the Government back community-based wraparound services to close those gaps?
Seema Malhotra
I join my hon. Friend in commending the work of Her-Place and all community-based support. We are rolling out neighbourhood health centres across the country, prioritising areas with the greatest need. Local authorities and integrated care boards will work together to design those services to reflect the needs of local women. Mental health funding has increased by £688 million this year, and is backed by almost 8,000 extra staff, new mental health centres and talking therapies, which will ensure that women receive the personalised support that they need.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Following International Women’s Day and with English Tourism Week approaching, I have been meeting female entrepreneurs across Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, including Kathleen at the Navigator Hotel, who featured on “The Hotel Inspector” only last week, and many others through my business club. These businesses are vital to coastal economies, but many women say it remains difficult to scale and grow. What assessment has the Minister made of the barriers facing women entrepreneurs in sectors like tourism and hospitality?
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Member for that brilliant question. We have to do everything we can to support women entrepreneurs, and it is vital that we look at the challenges we see women facing in a range of sectors. That is why we have work continuing through the Women’s Business Council and why we have the investing in women code, which has been backed by our first female Chancellor. That is also why we want to see the progress of women both in entrepreneurship and in the workplace as a priority. I was proud to attend the 30% Club’s International Women’s Day breakfast this morning in the House.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is sad but true that International Women’s Day rings hollow for far too many women, particularly the three brave women I have just met. They are survivors of Epstein and, for them, important days like that come and go. What is the Minister doing to ensure that we do not just mark important days for women and girls, but give them the protection and justice that they deserve? What is she doing to hold perpetrators such as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to account for not just reports of sharing state secrets, but the trafficking and sexual abuse of women and girls?
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The focus must absolutely be on the victims of these appalling crimes and on putting in place support for women and girls who have faced horrendous violence. Multiple police forces are assessing allegations arising from the Epstein files. The National Police Chiefs’ Council has established a national co-ordination group and appointed a senior investigator to support forces in reviewing the extensive material and progressing the resulting investigations. The senior investigator will work with UK forces, the National Crime Agency, specialists on violence against women and girls, the Crown Prosecution Service and US authorities to ensure a consistent and evidence-led approach.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
It has been almost a year since the Supreme Court ruling, and I come here time after time to ask what progress has been made. I was going to ask today if the Government can confirm that every Department is fully compliant with the ruling, but honestly there is almost no point; we know that the answer is no. In the week of International Women’s Day, is it not the truth that the former chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission had a point when she said that the Labour party seems to have “completely abandoned” women’s rights?
Seema Malhotra
I do not think it will surprise the shadow Minister that I disagree with her. It is important to say we have been clear that all service providers must follow the law, as clarified by the For Women Scotland ruling. As she knows, the EHRC has given the Government the code of practice, which we are working through. It is also important to say that any suggestions of delay are completely wrong. She knows that it is a lengthy document, covering all the protected characteristics. We take this matter seriously, and we are working to get it right.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
On International Women’s Day this year, many of us reflected on the scandal of group-based sexual exploitation of young women and girls in Britain. Will the Minister commit that, by International Women’s Day 2027, the Government will have implemented the key interim lessons from the independent inquiry into grooming gangs and from other reports commissioned on this matter by Members of this House?
Seema Malhotra
This is an incredibly important topic. The hon. Gentleman will know we have always been clear that our paramount objective is to root out the horrific crimes of grooming gangs, punish perpetrators and protect children from harm. It is important to note, as he will know, that the Home Secretary made a statement accepting the recommendations of Baroness Casey’s audit into group-based child sexual exploitation, which included a national inquiry into grooming. We are committed to changing the criminal law around adults penetrating children under the age of 16. We are also absolutely committed to ensuring that we root out these evil crimes with our work across Government.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
We are delivering the commitments set out in the cross-Government “Freedom from Violence and Abuse” strategy, published in December 2025, which sets out actions to prevent violence, pursue perpetrators and support victims. A ministerial group bringing together 14 Departments provides strategic oversight of delivery, driving progress, addressing risk, and ensuring collective ownership of our commitment to halve VAWG within a decade.
Warinder Juss
I recently visited Wolverhampton girls’ high school in my constituency of Wolverhampton West, and was pleased to see posters promoting the “Orange Wolverhampton” campaign, which is working with community partners in the fight against gender-based violence and abuse. While the criminal justice system of course has a part to play in tackling violence against women and girls, does the Minister agree that we need to do more to achieve community-based early intervention and prevention, and that educating and raising awareness among our young people—especially our young boys—about VAWG can benefit not only the victims, but the perpetrators and our justice system?
Jess Phillips
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. This weekend, I was with Black Country Women’s Aid, celebrating its 40th anniversary, and its staff mentioned how my hon. Friend had been incredibly supportive of them. The first of the three aims of our strategy is to stop violence before it starts, focusing on the prevention that he talks about. We will focus on young people, supporting parents and working with schools to challenge misogyny and promote healthy relationships. We will also engage with industry and take decisive action to safeguard young people by making the UK one of the hardest places for children to access harmful content and misogynistic influence.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Will the Minister undertake to consult with the Northern Ireland Justice Minister? Violence against women and girls continues to increase, with another woman killed in the past few days in Northern Ireland, and we need to take positive action to stem this misogynistic abuse of both women and girls.
Jess Phillips
The hon. Gentleman highlights another incredibly sad case. Of course, I work with the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland—we work very closely with all the devolved Administrations to make sure we are working together to deal with this problem collectively.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
Despite incomplete responses from police forces and nothing from Police Scotland, “Healthcare Today” reported back in 2025 that Women’s Rights Network found via freedom of information requests that one in seven sexual crimes committed in hospitals—that is 266—were committed on hospital wards, and that two in five female medical students reported sexual harassment or assault at university. With just 4% charged for these offences, perpetrators are getting away with it, and are surely committing more attacks. Against the backdrop of Labour’s shameful choices on jury trials yesterday—all appalling—when will the Minister and this Government act to protect women on wards?
Jess Phillips
If the hon. Lady were to read the violence against women and girls strategy, she would see that there is a specific section on healthcare workers and workers across the community, specifically targeting the issue of sexual harassment within the NHS. I would also point out to her that the charging rate for sexual crimes fell to a historic low under her Government, and I am very pleased to tell the House that it is now increasing.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
Last month, The Guardian revealed that suicides following domestic abuse may be vastly under-reported, with research in Kent suggesting that they could be 15 times more prevalent. There has been just one manslaughter conviction from such a death in the whole of UK legal history. Liberal Democrats in the other place recently tabled an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, supported by Women’s Aid and Advocacy After Fatal Domestic Abuse, which would require police to investigate suicides as potential homicides where there is a reasonable suspicion of a history of domestic abuse. Given the Government’s reluctance to support that measure, will the Minister commit to making the College of Policing’s published guidance on this matter statutory, so that these cases are properly investigated across all forces?
Jess Phillips
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Once again, I point to this exact issue being covered in the violence against women and girls strategy, with the need to improve police responses. That is why the Government have invested £13.1 million into a policing centre that focuses specifically on VAWG. On this specific issue of suicide following domestic abuse, it has undertaken some absolutely groundbreaking work that I very much hope will lead to change and further convictions, which we all want to see.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Bridget Phillipson)
Following International Women’s Day, this Government are taking another step towards a fairer Britain. We have published guidance for businesses encouraging them not just to report their gender pay gaps but to set out plans to tackle them, because reducing the gender pay gap is good for women and good for growth as well. We are expanding childcare, introducing new workplace protections, and implementing a landmark strategy to tackle violence against women and girls.
Mohammad Yasin
The latest report from Endometriosis UK shows that the average diagnosis time in the United Kingdom has risen to eight years and 10 months. Constituents of mine in Bedford and Kempston, including a staff member with a rare form of the condition, still face long delays for treatment. Will the Minister set improved targets and mandate GP training on recognising endometriosis in the women’s health strategy to speed up diagnosis?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend is right: women often spend years being dismissed, being misdiagnosed, or just not being listened to. That is unacceptable, and we are determined to tackle it. In order to improve early diagnosis of the condition, we continue to roll out community diagnostic centres, and our renewed women’s health strategy, which we will publish soon, will focus on speeding up diagnosis and treatment of both mental health and gynaecological conditions, including endometriosis.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
Within an hour of the Government’s publication of their Islamophobia definition this week, there were calls from within the Labour party for it to be weaponised to stifle free speech, but we know that there have been multiple cases of our public services being too scared of being called Islamophobic to speak freely to save women and girls from serious harm. Can the Minister explain why the Labour party thought it was worth trading the safety of women and girls for their own narrow political interests?
Bridget Phillipson
What absolute rubbish. This is a serious issue. We know that there are people who want to pull our country apart, but I am proud that we live in a multi-ethnic, diverse and tolerant nation where we celebrate our shared values. It is right that we take action against anti-Muslim hatred in our country, as we take action on antisemitism, and we have set out further steps in that regard. It is completely unacceptable that anyone should face intimidation or harassment on the basis of their faith, but that is not in conflict with our fundamental belief in the right to freedom of speech.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
The cross-Government violence against women and girls strategy to which my hon. Friend has referred contains an ambitious package of measures to prevent and tackle economic abuse and to support victims. It includes exploring how to prevent joint mortgages from being used as a tool of abuse, ensuring that coerced debt is reflected accurately and that the severe problem of victims’ credit files is addressed, and piloting the use of the economic abuse evidence form within the Government to improve our response to victims of economic abuse.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Bridget Phillipson
I welcome the hon. Lady’s interest in this issue. Good progress has been made on developing the policy, and we will publish the Government’s response as soon as we can, as well as setting out next steps in respect of legislation that we will present. This was a key manifesto commitment, and we will deliver on it.
Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
The Minister for Equalities (Seema Malhotra)
I firmly agree that women’s equality and economic growth go hand in hand. That is why I was pleased to join the Minister for Women and Equalities in formally launching the action plans last week, so that large employers will be encouraged to set out the steps that they are taking to narrow their gender pay gap. This will ensure that women are able to thrive in the workplace across the country, including on the Isle of Wight.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
Our armed forces are working day and night to protect British lives and British interests in the middle east. RAF pilots have flown over 230 hours of defensive operations over multiple countries, shooting down multiple drones and protecting British lives and our allies. We thank them for their courage and professionalism.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Sureena Brackenridge
Strengthening Britain’s defence capability and rebuilding our industrial base have never been more important. Will the Government’s £1 billion helicopter investment with Leonardo UK support skilled jobs across the UK, including at Tata Steel in Wednesfield and throughout the supply chains in Wolverhampton North East, where we are immensely proud of our Black Country steel and manufacturing heritage? Will the Prime Minister ask relevant Ministers to meet me to discuss securing more of those good jobs in Wolverhampton and Willenhall?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to arrange the meeting that my hon. Friend asks for. Our £1 billion investment in new helicopters is good news for steelmakers in her constituency, and secures thousands of jobs across the United Kingdom. We are making defence an engine for growth and jobs. We are building helicopters, new Typhoons in the north-west and new frigates, and creating a decade of shipbuilding on the Clyde—a Labour Government investing in our armed forces.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Why does the Prime Minister think now is the right time to increase the cost of petrol?
The Prime Minister
We are not increasing the cost of petrol. We are absolutely clear in taking the measures that are necessary to deal with the impact of the conflict in Iran. We are dealing with that with other allies. We are taking the necessary action, but the best thing that we can do is to work with others to de-escalate the situation.
As I said to the House last week, I took the decision that we should not join the initial US-Israeli offensive against Iran. The Leader of the Opposition attacked me for that decision relentlessly. She said that the UK should have joined the US and Israel in the initial offensive strikes. Yesterday, in the wake of the economic consequences, the Leader of the Opposition totally abandoned her position. She told the BBC:
“I never said we should join”.
She told the BBC:
“I haven’t said we should have gone in with the US”.
That is the mother of all U-turns on the single most important decision that a Prime Minister ever has to take: whether to commit the United Kingdom to war or not.
Mrs Badenoch
The mother of all U-turns is the Prime Minister saying that the Government are not increasing fuel duty. That is news to us, because last week the Chancellor stood up and said that fuel duty was going to increase in September. The Prime Minister told us at the start of the year that the cost of living was his No. 1 priority. Can he explain how a rise in fuel duty helps with the cost of living?
The Prime Minister
Fuel duty is frozen. It is going to remain frozen until September, and we will keep the situation under review in the light of what is happening in Iran. But the most important issue is de-escalating the situation.
I come back to the Leader of the Opposition’s position, because this is one of the most important decisions that a Prime Minister or Leader of the Opposition ever has to take: whether to commit your country to war. The day after the initial US-Israeli strikes started, her shadow Foreign Secretary said that the US-Israeli initial attacks were absolutely right and that
“it’s a position my party supports.”
She asked why I have “not actually worked with” America
“to be much more proactive”.
Last Wednesday, the Leader of the Opposition said:
“we are in this war whether they like it or not. What is the Prime Minister waiting for?”—[Official Report, 4 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 803.]
Then yesterday she says, “I never said”—[Interruption.] I know the Conservatives don’t want to hear it. [Interruption.] I wouldn’t want to hear it if I were them. After all that, she says—
Mr Speaker
Order. Enough is enough. I cannot hear it. [Interruption.] Who wants to lead the first ones out? Right. We will have a little bit more silence.
The Prime Minister
After nine days of saying, “Join the war, join the war, join the war”, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition says:
“I never said we should join”,
and
“I haven’t said we should have gone in with the US”.
I will tell you what has happened, Mr Speaker: she and the Reform leader have been spooked, because they realise they have jumped into supporting a war without thinking through the consequences, and now she is furiously trying to back-pedal.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister seems to be answering last week’s questions. This week I am asking about fuel duty. He has said that he wants to help—[Interruption.] He has said that he wants to help with the cost of living. My constituents live in a rural area. They rely on their cars to get to the shops, take their kids to school or see their elderly parents, and they tell me that the rising cost of petrol is the single biggest cost affecting family finances. Does the Prime Minister not understand how important cars are to people in rural areas, or does he just not care?
The Prime Minister
We are working across all Departments and with allies to deal with the impact of the conflict in Iran, as the House would expect. If I had asked the Leader of the Opposition last week, her position would have been, “We support the initial strikes and we want to join the war.” This week, she says, “We don’t want to join the war.” I am sorry, but that is a screeching U-turn. Mr Speaker, in this job, you do not get a second shot at making the right call on taking your country to war. If she were Prime Minister, we would be in the war, and she would be coming back to Parliament a week later to say, “Oh, sorry. I got that one wrong.”
Mr Speaker
Order. Order! I am sorry I am interrupting you, but unfortunately we have to stick to Prime Minister’s questions, not Leader of the Opposition’s questions.
Mrs Badenoch
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, “If she were Prime Minister”, but if I were Prime Minister, HMS Dragon would have left a week ago. The only time—[Hon. Members: “More!”] The only time, he has taken decisive action was stopping Andy Burnham standing in the by-election.
Let us talk about what the people out there are worried about. I heard from a builder who has 115 employees using 75 vans. With the jobs tax, sky-high energy bills and now a hike in petrol prices, that builder is having sleepless nights. How does the Prime Minister justify a rise in fuel duty to that small business owner and millions more like him up and down the country?
The Prime Minister
There has not been a rise. Fuel duty is frozen. It is frozen until September.
The Leader of the Opposition mentions HMS Dragon. First, can I start by thanking those in the Royal Navy who are serving on HMS Dragon? Secondly, what has been happening is that it has carefully been loaded with the anti-strike ammunition and capability that it needs, and the Navy and civilians have been working 22-hour shifts. But in relation to those who are taking the action to defend us, what does she say? They are just hanging about—just hanging about. That is how she described our pilots in the region. Let me tell her what they have been doing: flying sorties in seven of the 10 countries in the region day and night, taking out incoming strikes and protecting the lives of others, while risking their own. If she had any decency, she would get up and apologise.
Mrs Badenoch
Mr Speaker—[Interruption.] Hang on. I think they should wait for it. I have never criticised our armed forces. I have criticised the Prime Minister. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Swallow, you’re going out. I’ve had enough—week in, week out. Either leave now or I will name you.
Mrs Badenoch
I have never criticised our armed forces; I am criticising the Prime Minister and his decisions. Let me remind the House of his record on the armed forces. This is the same man who worked with Phil Shiner, a traitor to this country who made up evidence to put our soldiers in prison for crimes they did not commit. That is his record, so I will not take any lectures from him. By the way, military families in this country are also worried about petrol prices, and he has nothing to say on that.
There is another group of people who have been hammered by this Government: farmers. I spent all last year telling the Prime Minister that his family farm tax was killing British farming. Now, those farmers are being punished with higher fuel prices. Does the Prime Minister think that is fair?
The Prime Minister
No apology to our pilots who are risking their lives. And I am not going to take lectures from someone who says we should join the war and a week later says, “Can I change my mind? I got that wrong.” That is deeply embarrassing. But she is not the only one. Last week, the leader of Reform said we should be
“part of this with the US and the Israelis…We have to get rid of the regime.”
He said:
“We should do all we can to support the operation. I make that perfectly, perfectly clear.”
Until yesterday—screeching U-turn—when he said we should not
“get ourselves involved in another foreign war.”
Two parties packed with failed Tories, led by leaders who are not fit to be Prime Minister.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister does not want to talk about fuel duty, because he has absolutely no answers. The Conservatives are on the side of farmers. We are also on the side of drivers. We froze duel duty every year from 2011 and, in fact, we cut it in 2022, because we care about the cost of living. Labour thinks drivers are a cash cow and now it is hiking fuel duty for the first time in 15 years. Everyone in this House knows the pattern: first, he will march his Back Benchers up the hill, then they will be forced to defend fuel duty rises in the local elections, and then there will be another humiliating U-turn. Why does the Prime Minister not just stand up, admit he has got it wrong—again—and scrap the fuel duty hike now?
The Prime Minister
In the last two weeks, I have made two of the most important decisions a Prime Minister can make. The first is that we should not join the war in Iran. The second is that we should protect British lives and the British national interest. The Leader of the Opposition decided that we should join the war against Iran and a week later that we should not join the war against Iran, and to insult our armed forces. She has utterly disqualified herself from ever becoming Prime Minister. Thankfully, she never will.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises a really important issue and I know that it is not only his mum who will be watching, but his constituents whom he serves very, very well. Our supercharger will significantly reduce costs for thousands of major industries. Eligibility for the scheme is being reviewed this year. I can tell my hon. Friend that we are working with the ceramics industry on whether the scheme can be extended to more firms. Under the previous Government, industrial energy prices doubled and over 1,000 jobs were lost in the sector. We will not tolerate that.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for her powerful and courageous speech in the debate on jury trials yesterday—I really hope the Prime Minister was listening.
Thirty years ago this week, a man carried four handguns into Dunblane primary school and murdered a teacher and 16 children. I was deeply moved by the BBC documentary about it last night and by the courage of the parents who campaigned for a ban on handguns to keep other children safe, including Mick North, who lost his five-year-old daughter, Sophie, on that dark day. Mr North has rightly called on the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) to renounce his description of the handgun ban as “ludicrous”—something the hon. Member still refuses to do. Mr North has also called for a review of firearms legislation to close any loopholes. Does the Prime Minister agree?
The Prime Minister
I certainly do. We must never forget the horror of Dunblane and we must never forget the young children and their teacher who did not come home from school. The campaign that families fought to make this country a safer place is a lasting legacy, and we should be enormously grateful for their courage.
Ed Davey
I thank the Prime Minister for his reply, and I hope the Government will close any loopholes.
This week, families across the country have seen petrol prices rise at the pump, mortgage rates go up and fixed energy deals get more expensive, all because of a war they did not start and do not support. The Leader of the Opposition has been competing with the hon. Member for Clacton to be Donald Trump’s biggest cheerleader, and the Prime Minister was right to reject their costly warmongering. Last week, I asked him to guarantee that energy bills will not rise by hundreds of pounds in July. He did not answer, so let me try again: will he give people that energy bill guarantee now?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this matter, because people will be really worried about the impact on them. To reassure households, the cap is in place until the end of June—until July—so that deals with the situation for households. We are working with the sector and others, and with allies, to do everything we can to ensure that energy bills do not rise. We are working around the clock on that. The most important and most effective thing we can do is to work with our allies to find a way to de-escalate the situation.
The right hon. Gentleman is right about the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of Reform. Last week, they were urging us to join—[Interruption.] This is serious. [Interruption.] If they had been leading the country, we would be in a war. They have now come to Parliament to say—
Mr Speaker
Order. Who said “lying” again? I want that withdrawn. Is that withdrawn? [Interruption.] I will deal with it, thank you. I do not want any more from those on the Front Bench. We take this very seriously; calling another Member a liar is not acceptable.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right; families are crying out for change, which is why it is critical that we get this right. Our reforms will fix the broken SEND system, where parents have to fight for support, replacing it with tailored support that is personal to a child’s need. A Best Start family hub in every local authority with a dedicated SEND practitioner will also help families with the face-to-face support they need. My hon. Friend is a great advocate on this issue, and I am happy to ensure that he gets the meeting he is asking for.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Let us be clear on this. Donald Trump’s war in Iran is illegal and the situation that has unfolded since is verging on insane: oil is falling from the skies; sewers are exploding; and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is indiscriminately attacking both civilians across the region and cargo ships, as well as potentially even mining the strait of Hormuz, the economic consequences of which will be stark not just for the global economy, but for every single person living on these isles. Whether the Prime Minister accepts it or not, he did take us into that war when he allowed the Americans to use UK bases last week. [Interruption.] I have a specific question for him. He will have seen the same footage that I have of an American Tomahawk missile landing on a primary school, killing 110 children. Does he believe that to be a war crime?
The Prime Minister
We are all concerned by that footage, but let me absolutely clear with the right hon. Gentleman. We have 300,000 UK nationals, including Scottish citizens, in the region. Strikes, missiles and drones are being fired into the region, putting those people at great danger. We are taking action to protect them. I am astonished that the SNP is saying, “Don’t take action to support Scottish citizens in the region.” That is outrageous.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for campaigning for his constituents who are obviously concerned about this matter. As I understand it, National Highways has concluded that the best option for all users—pedestrians and cyclists—is a new crossing. I thank him for raising the points, and I am happy for Ministers to continue discussing the options with him.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising that really important issue. I discussed it with my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) last night, particularly the approach of the all-party group. I thank her for her important work on this issue. I am very happy to meet the APPG and the victims; it is very important to do so. She will know that there is an ongoing police investigation, but that does not mean that we cannot have the meeting and listen to those who need to be listened to.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Derby is part of our industrial heritage and has a bright future. Initiatives such as Team Derby are so important to strengthen key sectors like defence, creating jobs and growth. Our £9 billion deal with Rolls-Royce to boost our fleet of nuclear submarines is testament to that, creating more than 1,000 jobs and safeguarding 4,000 more. Those who oppose all that must answer to the working people whom they claim to represent.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
We are putting in place the youth guarantee, which helps young people into work. It is a serious issue. I remind the hon. Member that on the Conservatives’ watch one in eight young people were not in education, training or work.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. The Conservative party gave nothing but false promises for a decade. We will deliver the biggest transformation of transport in the north for a generation, providing up to £45 billion of funding. We are taking forward all the recommendations from the NAO report; that does not change the planning or trajectory of the project.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member for raising that case. I do not know the particular details, but I will ensure that the relevant meeting is set up so that they can be explored.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Russia’s continued assault on Ukraine has devastated its healthcare system: hospitals are under extreme pressure and there is a critical shortage of specialist staff to treat the injured. That is why I, along with other British physiotherapists, travelled to Ukraine to train clinicians who are working under unimaginable strain. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking Tanisha Sandhu, Daniel Simm, Kay Joe and Anju Jaggi for their remarkable work? Will he commit to expanding UK-Ukraine clinical training partnerships?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I will. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and the rest of the delegation for their commendable work in Kyiv. We recently announced a new package of support for Ukraine enabling highly skilled British surgeons, nurses and physiotherapists to mentor Ukrainian clinicians treating complex battlefield injuries. On one of my recent trips to Kyiv, I went to one of the hospitals where they were treating the burns of those returning from the frontline and it was humbling to see the work being done. I was extremely proud to know that the UK was helping in treating those who had such awful burns.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
We all want certainty for energy security, and oil and gas will be part of the mix for many years to come. I remind the hon. Member that 70,000 jobs were lost under the SNP and the Conservatives in the last decade. We want energy security, and we see new nuclear as part of that. What does the SNP do? It blocks that.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Silently and in semi-secrecy, London and the south-east of England are experiencing the largest mass eviction by a private landlord in decades. Criterion Capital has issued at least 130 no-fault eviction notices across its portfolio, including in Britannia Point in Collier’s Wood in my constituency. Those affected have done nothing wrong. They have paid their rent, looked after their homes and worked hard, and they are simply the victims of a voracious landlord that always wants more. Will the Prime Minister ensure that in the final weeks before the abolition of no-fault evictions his Government do all they can to hold Criterion Capital to account?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that case. Renters should have security and I condemn any unfair evictions. I am proud to be abolishing section 21, a practice that has pushed thousands of renters into homelessness. I will make sure that the Housing Minister looks at the case that she has raised.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Fuel duty is frozen and it will be frozen until September. In the light of what is happening in Iran, of course we will look carefully at the situation. The right hon. Gentleman’s constituents need to know, and it is right that they know, that fuel duty is frozen until September—not fearmongering.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
The devastating fire on Union Street in Glasgow has destroyed small businesses and an iconic part of the city’s heritage, but the exceptional skill and courage of our emergency services prevented an even greater tragedy. We need a rapid, thorough investigation, with urgent implementation of recommendations. Local businesses, commuters and residents are already feeling the impact, and recovery must be a shared priority. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking our emergency services and in supporting efforts to rebuild that vital part of Glasgow?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that devastating incident for Glasgow. My thoughts, and I am sure everybody’s thoughts, are with those who have seen their businesses and their livelihoods destroyed. I thank the emergency services, which responded so quickly to the situation. The people of Glasgow have seen far too many historic buildings suffer terrible fires over the last few years. We are investing to protect heritage buildings in England, but we will keep a careful eye on the situation that he raises.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
I will not make any apologies for spending more money in Scotland or in Wales to improve people’s lives. There has been record investment under this Government into Scotland. The question is: where’s the money gone, John?
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
Last week, Members from across this House and the other place felt compelled to write to Jo Boydell, the chief executive of Travelodge, following reports that in 2022 staff in one of the company’s hotels gave a man a keycard and the room number of a woman staying alone. He then entered her room and sexually assaulted her. Most alarmingly, statements made by Travelodge implied that staff had acted fully in line with the company’s security and safety protocols and within industry standards. Will the Prime Minister join me in urging Ms Boydell to take us up on our invitation to meet all interested Members of this House and the other place to outline what action Travelodge is urgently taking to meet its duty to safeguard women staying in its hotels?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this absolutely shocking case and for talking to me last night about the details. My thoughts are with the victim, who had a right to be safe and who was failed in the most appalling way. Travelodge must take serious action to ensure such an appalling incident can never happen again. I am concerned at reports that the company has not met Members of Parliament; it should do so. I should add that the Safeguarding Minister wants to meet the company as well, and it should do that too.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue. I know there are strong views, and I acknowledge her personal connection, which shows how serious the issues are. It is a matter of conscience. It is for Parliament to decide the passage of the legislation and any changes. Scrutiny is a matter for the other place. We have a responsibility to make sure any legislation is workable, effective and enforceable.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
Is it about PMQs? The right hon. Lady did not ask a question, so is it relevant? Points of order come after statements and UQs—[Interruption.] I will make that decision. We now come to the urgent question.
Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation
(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
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask what assessment the Minister has made of the impact of Royal Mail’s failure to meet its universal service obligation on service users’ wellbeing and on the company’s recent decision making, which has contributed to this situation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising a question that I know is on the minds of hon. Members across the House. The Government have been clear that Royal Mail’s service has not been good enough, and we recognise the terrible impact that delayed time-sensitive deliveries, particularly relating to medical and financial matters, can have on the users of postal services, especially vulnerable users.
Obviously, Royal Mail is a private company and Ofcom, as the independent regulator for postal services, secures the provision of the universal postal service and sets and monitors Royal Mail’s service standards. As part of that monitoring regime, Ofcom publishes annual post-monitoring reports that consider developments in the sector and users’ experience of postal services, as well as the complaints and compensation data that Royal Mail is required to publish.
I have regular discussions with senior officials from Ofcom as the regulator, and in fact I am meeting Ofcom later this afternoon to discuss these concerns. Ofcom fined Royal Mail £21 million in October for failure to meet standards for 2024-25. This was double the previous year’s fine and the third consecutive annual fine for poor performance. Ofcom continues to monitor Royal Mail’s performance carefully to ensure that it is providing the service that customers expect. It has told Royal Mail that it must publish and deliver a credible plan that delivers significant and continuous improvement.
Ofcom is the regulator, but in response to concerns raised by hon. Members across this House, I met Royal Mail’s chief executive officer, Alistair Cochrane recently to set out the volume of complaints reporting service delays that I had received from colleagues.
In addition to that meeting, the Secretary of State has met Daniel Křetínský, the CEO of Royal Mail’s parent company EP Group and chair of Royal Mail’s board, to raise concerns about Royal Mail’s performance. Senior officials from Ofcom met Mr Křetínský that same day. The chief executives of Royal Mail and its parent company agree that there is more to do to meet service delivery targets and improve stability and reliability for customers. I know that hon. Members will continue to raise their concerns about the service in their areas, and for my part, I will continue to raise this matter, because the current situation is simply not good enough.
Ian Lavery
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, but this goes beyond the delay of a few inconsequential letters. It is not simply a case of receiving post; it is about that being timely and about sending post as well. In my constituency, these failures have led to people missing medical appointments and having financial issues, and to the hindering of democratic participation. One of my constituents missed urgent medical correspondence, turning a routine appointment into a potentially life-threatening emergency. It is not acceptable.
This is happening up and down the country in every single constituency. Allegations from within Royal Mail suggest that these failures may be intentional, designed to pressure the Government into weakening or removing the USO requirements. Royal Mail’s recent letter to the Business and Trade Committee denies operating a parcels-first policy, contradicting repeated internal testimony. It flies in the face of local evidence from the workforce. The letter also reiterates calls for USO reform, reflecting a long-running corporate direction. Over the past few years postal workers—key public servants, who were heroes during covid—have seen their terms and conditions eroded to the point that some can no longer buy additional holiday because doing so would take their pay below the minimum wage.
The Government need to take serious action against Royal Mail. Is it not an option to bring Royal Mail back under public control? This is approaching a situation where one of our constituents will lose their home, their health or their life through these persistent failures. The Government can and must take steps to maintain this critical national service.
Blair McDougall
I think my hon. Friend’s anger is shared by hon. Members around the Chamber when they hear the stories of people not just missing hospital appointments, but finding themselves with county court judgments and in other such situations that are entirely not their fault and due to failures of delivery. We have told Royal Mail it is not good enough, the Select Committee has told them it is not good enough, and Ofcom has told them it is not good enough. The seriousness with which we take this issue is exemplified by the fact that, as I said, the Secretary of State has convened that meeting. I have called in Royal Mail and, as I mentioned a moment ago, I am meeting Ofcom later today to raise exactly the issues that my hon. Friend raises.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) on securing it. We can see from the number of Members who are interested in this topic just how serious it is across all our constituencies. I can testify to the fact that I have had an enormous amount of casework on this issue, which started just before Christmas, involving hospital appointments being missed, and children’s birthday cards, condolence cards for recently widowed individuals and postal voting forms not arriving. This is an absolutely critical issue.
I reiterate that the universal service obligation is an obligation. It is an obligation set out in statute, and it is an obligation to every household in this country. We can all testify to the fact that it has been systematically broken, and that the turning point was when the new owner bought Royal Mail, with this Government’s approval, in April 2025.
The letter from Royal Mail received by the Business and Trade Committee yesterday revealed that over 200 million letters have been delivered late this year. In addition to the meetings the Minister has listed with Ofcom, what assessments has he made of all the stress being caused to our constituents and the impact on people’s wellbeing? Has he had a critical discussion with Ofcom, because it appears that it is not really doing its job as a regulator? The public are paying more but getting less, and the fines he has listed do not reflect the deterioration we have seen recently. In my discussions with Royal Mail, it has said that parcels overwhelm the service at Christmas, but that situation is carrying on into March. Is it not the reality that parcels are much more—
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Lady is over time. I was trying to push her along to finish her question, but there seem to be more pages. Can we now end?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
We can certainly now end by asking for the Minister’s plan in terms of—
Mr Speaker
Order. We have had enough—I don’t need that backchat. I call the Minister.
Blair McDougall
I hope that the hon. Member can tell from my body language and tone that I share the anger and frustration of Members across the House. As I mentioned, I am meeting Ofcom later today to raise the very issues she mentions. I slightly take issue with the year zero approach she took. There are very long-standing issues with Royal Mail driven—in fairness—by the changes in consumer habits and the things we are sending and not sending any more. She mentions the new ownership. As part of that deed of undertaking, this Government got the assurance from the new owners that they could not take value out of the company until service improved. That shows that we take this matter seriously.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
It is not just the customers who are rightly angry; it is postal workers as well, because they take pride in their job and the service they give. The last time I was in Corby delivery office, six deliveries never went out that day. The time before that, a postal worker volunteered to cover his own delivery on his day off. He was told that he could not, and when he went back in the day after, the work was still there; the delivery had not gone out. We now have a two-tier workforce, which is leading to a recruitment and retention crisis, and it is a standing joke in the job that the quickest way to get a letter delivered is to put it inside a parcel. Does the Minister agree that instead of Royal Mail imposing top-down changes by people who have never done the job before, it should listen to its workforce, sit down with the union and sort this mess out?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to do what I have not done so far, which is to say that whatever criticisms hon. Members across the House have, they are in no way a critique of the work of our heroic posties up and down the country. I mentioned earlier that the Secretary of State brought together management and unions; Royal Mail is a private company, and we are not seeking to insert ourselves and become mediators, but that was a signal of how seriously we take this matter and how seriously we take the need for management and the unions to come together and address, through mutual understanding, exactly the issues he raises.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
In each year since 2023, Royal Mail has been fined by Ofcom over delivery delays, amounting to nearly £40 million. Following recent announcements, it would not surprise me if it were fined again in 2026. When Royal Mail was reprimanded in 2023 and 2024, its leadership promised that reforms would be made to improve its services, but following the £21 million fine in October 2025, the company said it could not publish its improvement plan until negotiations with the Communication Workers Union concluded.
The takeover of Royal Mail, which this Government supported, seems to have done nothing to improve the service so far. Over the past several years, an average of roughly one in four first-class letters arrives late, and recent reports suggest that 219 million letters may arrive late this year. These letters are sometimes urgent and hold important information, so it is clear that Royal Mail is repeatedly failing to meet its universal service obligation. Despite that, its stamp prices have consistently risen. That includes next month’s planned rise of 10p to the cost of first-class postage, taking the cost of a stamp to £1.80. The sorry saga of Royal Mail has gone on for far too long. Does the Minister believe that the British public should be paying more for their postal service, despite Royal Mail repeatedly failing to deliver their letters on time?
Blair McDougall
Paying more for postage is obviously part of the journey towards financial sustainability for Royal Mail as a critical piece of national infrastructure, but I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady that if our constituents are paying more for their stamps, they expect those letters to arrive, and it is not good enough if they do not. As I said, I am meeting Ofcom later on. It has asked Royal Mail for an improvement plan, which we think is long overdue. One issue that I will raise with Ofcom is progress on that improvement plan.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a proud son of a local postie. We know that this is not the fault of the workers; they work day in, day out to get letters out, but are being told to prioritise parcels. Like many Members, I tried to go to my local mail centre just before Christmas—I know that you do the same, Mr Speaker—but I was denied access. An excuse was given, and the visit was never rearranged. Workers in that centre said to me, “They are trying to hide how bad the mail centre is from you, the local MP.”
Will the Minister tell the House and my constituents how we can turn this situation around? I fundamentally disagree with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), who said that this started with the new owners. It started with privatisation—end of. How can we get the service back on track? Will the Government consider nationalising it so that our residents can get the letters that they desperately need for their appointments?
Blair McDougall
I am troubled to hear that my hon. Friend has not been granted access to talk to his local sorting office. I think visiting the sorting office at Christmas and other times is a diary staple for all MPs—it is a really important part of the job. He refers to the anger that posties themselves feel about this. It is not just a job for them. They feel that this is a service, and they recognise as much as anyone else that this situation is simply not good enough. Ofcom examined the prioritisation of parcels a few years ago and found no evidence that it was a central policy, but I have heard stories from so many Members about the prioritisation of parcels, so I intend to raise it with Ofcom this afternoon.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I met the Minister some weeks ago and suggested that he might have to come back to the House if Royal Mail had not improved its services. May I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question and the Westminster Hall debate next week, which was secured by another Member?
I raised this issue on the 13 January as a point of order, as you will know, Mr Speaker, and clearly the problem has got worse rather than better. I put on record my thanks to all posties. I think the whole House would like to thank them for all their work in our constituencies. This situation has had a huge social and economic impact on people throughout our constituencies, but what concerns me is that the Minister has referred to being unable to intervene in a private company, and the regulator is of course independent. So what can he do? If there is nothing he can do, perhaps he will come back in a few weeks’ time to repeat that there is nothing he can do, but how does that help people who are waiting for medical results and other important information?
Blair McDougall
That is a very fair question. As I mentioned, the Secretary of State brought together the ownership and management to stress the need to get an agreement on reforms to improve service standards. Those things are all connected. I have stressed, in no uncertain terms, my dissatisfaction with current levels of service. On NHS letters, I and Department of Health and Social Care colleagues are pressing to ensure that more NHS bodies take advantage of the barcode system, so that those letters are prioritised. Royal Mail is a private company, but we are exercising the pressure that we can in order to ensure that standards are improved.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
My understanding is that letters must not be treated less favourably than parcels, but that is happening at the moment through internal Royal Mail targets. That is the case at the Fotherby Street sorting office in Grimsby, where a tracked-first policy is in place, meaning that parcels take priority, while letters and non-tracked mail are not prioritised. First and second-class cards and letters are left sitting in frames for days and weeks. That builds up, as other Members have said.
Route revisions are also an issue for posties, some of whom regularly walk 30,000 to 40,000 steps a day. That is causing exhaustion, injury and illness. It is not acceptable in any way for the Government to say that they cannot do anything. What will they do to force Ofcom to take action that will get things moving and change a policy that leaves people’s letters sat in their frames for days?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend voices her frustration—which is shared across the House—about the disconnect between what she is hearing from local sorting offices and the stated company policy. As I say, I will raise the prioritisation of parcels with Ofcom later. On the wider issue of working conditions for posties, the Secretary of State has brought together the owners and the company to stress the importance of progressing those issues and getting to a situation in which quality of service improves and the workforce feel properly rewarded and respected.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The postal delivery landscape is a fast-moving one, as the Minister will recognise. That is evidenced by the fact that Denmark very recently ended its postal service entirely—everybody now has to use a private courier. What weight does he put on the words of Royal Mail when it says that it recognises the problems and is working hard—does he take that in good faith? A critique from Royal Mail, which clearly recognises that there are problems, is that Ofcom’s slow responses to Royal Mail suggestions are disjointed from a fast-moving landscape in a very competitive sphere. When he meets Ofcom this afternoon, will he urge it to respond speedily and progress issues as they manifest themselves?
Blair McDougall
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful and practical suggestion. I will certainly add it to the agenda for the meeting, and report back to him on the outcomes of those discussions.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for asking this urgent question because, as he will know, too many constituents are suffering this situation. When this first started, I asked Royal Mail why it was happening. I got polite replies, but frankly, at this stage, fine words butter no parsnips. We really need some action. May I urge the Minister to push Ofcom to take action on this issue?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend is, as ever, a doughty campaigner for everyone in the communities she represents. I will certainly be pressing Ofcom on these issues, and I will continue to press Royal Mail directly as well, stressing that we want to see an improvement in standards. The current standards of delivery are simply not good enough.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
In rural parts of the country such as North Shropshire, where broadband, mobile signal and public transport are poor, people really depend on their postal service. Constituents have contacted me to say that they have missed court documents and NHS letters—important things that they need in order to get on with their lives. I have visited the sorting office. Beyond the prioritisation of parcels, which posties have told me about, the rounds are too long and working conditions for postal workers are not good enough, so there are issues in recruitment and retention. What can Ofcom do to ensure that Royal Mail puts in place the resources to ensure that letters can be delivered on time in rural places, like North Shropshire?
Blair McDougall
Unfortunately, the story that the hon. Lady tells is familiar, because I have heard it from so many hon. Members around the Chamber. As I say, we have been bringing together workforce and management for talks on reforms to get the business on to a sustainable footing and improve service quality. We will bring that together. I will raise the issue of prioritisation of parcels with Ofcom this afternoon.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank all postal workers in Stockport and across the UK. It is important to highlight that it was the coalition Government—the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives—who privatised Royal Mail. I ran an online survey about Royal Mail services in my constituency. Some 89% of respondents said that they were unhappy, angry or disappointed by the service in Stockport. There was one example of mail not being delivered for almost two weeks, until it was all delivered on the same day, meaning that important information and appointments were missed. What will the Minister to do improve services for the approximately 3 million people in Stockport and Greater Manchester?
Blair McDougall
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to posties in Stockport and Greater Manchester. Like posties all across the country, they go the extra mile in incredibly difficult circumstances. As I mentioned, we are bringing together unions and management for talks, to make sure that we get to a resolution and progress the future of the business. We are also pressing Ofcom on the enforcement action that it can take to progress the improvement plan that Royal Mail has committed to producing.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
Just recently, Royal Mail in Tonbridge introduced a new working model that has been, quite frankly, an abject failure. I welcome the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) asking this urgent question, because this is quite clearly a matter for not just one constituency or community, but the whole country. I am grateful to the Minister, who is assiduous in his role, for taking it up. Will he raise with management that while we all recognise that this is about not just privatisation or ownership, but the change in the way that people use the post, and our use of emails and so on, the problems have a very real effect on people’s lives, particularly in communities like mine in Tonbridge? I am not the only one who has missed an appointment because the letter arrived weeks, or even months, after I was supposed to attend.
Blair McDougall
I know from my talks with officials that the right hon. Gentleman has been in discussions about the issues in Tonbridge, and that Royal Mail is seized of those. He is absolutely right. Members have mentioned hospital appointments; it is worth mentioning the important post that we hon. Members send to often very vulnerable constituents. That is a reminder that the post is a central part of our national life and economy, and we have to see it improve.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for securing this urgent question. In my constituency, we have had a massive uptick in complaints about not only letters being delivered late, but priority service not happening when people have paid for it, and constituents being advised to collect post from delivery offices without prior notification of an attempted delivery; essentially, they are asked to become their own Royal Mail. Having met local workers over Christmas, I know that they are working incredibly hard to keep on top of this, and they are just as frustrated as my residents. My biggest concern is that when Members have raised the issue with Royal Mail, its response has been, quite frankly, rude, dismissive and a bit lacklustre. Will the Minister please outline what he will do to ensure that postal services are protected in my community, and communities across the country?
Blair McDougall
I thank the posties in Croydon for their efforts; they do an extraordinary job. My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. We sometimes might have lower standards for other delivery operators in the economy, but we expect a certain level of service from Royal Mail. When people are paying more for stamps, or are paying for special delivery, they absolutely should expect to get what they pay for. As I said, I am raising these issues directly with Royal Mail. We are bringing together the workforce and management, and I am meeting Ofcom later today.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
As has been well established today, the blame for failures does not lie with postal workers, who are doing all they can to deliver a service. It lies with a private company that is telling its staff to prioritise parcels, but then pretending that is not its policy. My Chichester constituents have received hospital appointment letters four days after their appointment was due to take place. One constituent in Selsey received their letter for a specialist appointment in London an hour before it was due to take place. What can the Minister do to put pressure on Royal Mail, so that my constituents’ health is not put at risk as a result of its failures?
Blair McDougall
The hon. Lady’s constituents in Chichester deserve better, frankly. That is why it is so important that the Government send a clear message that we expect improvement. It is why I am having conversations with Ofcom. It is also why, when the new ownership took over Royal Mail, we received an undertaking that it would not be able to take value out of the company until it improved. That was done to ensure that there is an incentive for it to do better.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
The Communication Workers Union reported chaos and demoralisation among its members as a result of the imposition of poorer pay and conditions for posties, and the company’s decision to prioritise potential job cuts over service when it comes to USO reform. Will the Minister outline what the Government are doing to ensure that Royal Mail customers and workers are not made to pay the price of the mismanagement of our postal services, and whether the Government will use any powers allocated to them as holders of the golden share?
Blair McDougall
As I said a moment ago, when the new ownership took over, part of the deed of undertaking was that we would not allow it to remove value from the company until service improved. On the impact on the workforce, obviously the negotiations are between the workforce and management, but the fact that the Secretary of State has been convening meetings between them shows that we take this issue very seriously, and it is a priority for our Department.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
Like other hon. Members, I have had many constituents get in touch about poor mail service. One constituent in Kelsall reached out to Royal Mail after experiencing deliveries once per week at best, only to receive a reply stating that service levels in our area are good. The same constituent later received a hospital appointment letter after the appointment, which is certainly not good. Does the Minister share my concern that Royal Mail appears to be dismissing legitimate complaints, while failing to meet its universal service obligation, and what more can be done to hold Royal Mail to account?
Blair McDougall
The hon. Lady has previously pressed me on another aspect of postal services—the availability of post offices in her constituency—and she continues to campaign for her constituents. I share the frustration felt whenever a Member of Parliament who raises a concern is told that everything is fine and not to worry about it. It is precisely because I share this concern that I am having the meeting with Ofcom later today.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Royal Mail excuses are wearing very thin, are they not? I have constituents who are going to the sorting office and being presented with piles—weeks’ worth—of letters, and others who are getting those same piles delivered in one go. The Minister said he is meeting Ofcom today. Does he think that the regulator needs additional powers? It is clear from his answers so far, and from the fact that we are still discussing something that has been going on for months, that something is not working. I encourage him to consider whether the regulator needs more, and what he can do.
Blair McDougall
I will certainly talk to the regulator later today in those terms, and will ask that question. As I say, the business is regulated through Ofcom, but where the Government have power, we are taking it; for example, there is our insistence on putting in the company’s deed of undertaking that money cannot be stripped out of the company until service improves.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Whether it is the failure of Royal Mail to meets its USO or the skyrocketing price of heating oil, it seems that rural communities, such as those in my constituency, are most impacted. We all agree that despite the often heroic efforts of the workforce, the service provided by Royal Mail management is totally unacceptable. The Minister knows that we are 60 days from a Scottish parliamentary election in which 1 million people will vote by post. How confident is he that Royal Mail will be able to cope, and what measures is he putting in place to ensure that it does?
Blair McDougall
I have relatives in the most remote parts of Scotland, so I know that while these issues might be an inconvenience for the rest of us, for rural customers, they can be the stripping away of a lifeline. We have sought reassurances from Royal Mail that the current issues with service across the country will not impact postal voting in the upcoming elections. I know that the chief executive of Royal Mail has a meeting in Scotland to discuss preparations in the days ahead.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
I would like to put on the record that, despite testimony to the contrary, it is Darlington’s postal workers who are the best in the country. They deliver their service to the best of their abilities, and they also provide a social service; their visit is often the only one that residents get. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to two quite shocking cases that constituents have brought to me. One constituent, despite using the tracking system, has had their application form to join the Royal Navy go awry, which is obviously causing huge delays. Another constituent successfully gained compensation from Royal Mail for a late delivery, but the cheque, which was sent in the post, bounced. I would like the Minister to allay some of our fears about crucial public services, and the postal communications from our Departments and arm’s length bodies.
Mr Speaker
That was a very late delivery. I am going to finish this urgent question at 1.30 pm, so let us help each other by being speedy. The Minister will show me how quickly he can reply.
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend makes an important point, although I notice that everything seems to be the best in her constituency. The problem is not just missed post, but missed opportunities, like the one that she described. That is exactly why we will continue to pressurise Royal Mail, directly and through the regulator, to improve the service in areas like hers.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Posties in my constituency have reported to me that one of the most serious problems is staff absence. Staff go off sick because they have been overworked, and as a result, deliveries do not take place. The final straw for one of my constituents was when they received a Christmas card on 28 February that had been franked before Christmas. Clearly, there is a serious problem, not just in rural areas but in suburban areas. Will the Minister seek an urgent action plan from Royal Mail on getting this right? Otherwise we will be back here in a month’s time with the same problem.
Blair McDougall
The hon. Gentleman could be mistaken for a CWU trade union official. He will be crossing the Floor. He makes an important and serious point: issues around staff conditions are directly related to the quality of service. That is exactly why the Secretary of State has been convening the meetings that I have mentioned to progress the talks.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
My constituents in Dulwich and West Norwood, particularly in the SE22 and SE24 postcodes, have been suffering the consequences of Royal Mail’s failings for years. Residents in SE24 recently had no mail for four weeks. A key problem in holding Royal Mail to account is that it is required to report performance data relating to only the first part of the postcode. That means that the failures of individual delivery offices are disguised in the sub-regional data. Will the Minister raise that issue with Ofcom, and ask it to look again at the reporting requirements on Royal Mail, so that it can be held properly to account?
Blair McDougall
As a former resident of SE23, I pay tribute to the posties in that part of the world. I will certainly add my hon. Friend’s suggestion to the agenda of the meeting later today.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Does the Minister recognise that meeting the universal service obligation is a challenge because of poor recruitment and retention? That poor recruitment and retention is no surprise, given that Royal Mail offers new postmen and postwomen little more than minimum wage, and sites are really not fit for purpose.
Blair McDougall
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point that is core to the talks that are going on right now between unions and management. That is exactly why we are so keen to ensure that the talks are productive and come to a settlement that deals with the issues that he describes.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his constructive engagement with me over the past few weeks on Royal Mail’s poor services in my Bolton West constituency. I know that he shares my utter frustration at the current service provision. May I flag with the Minister a letter that I sent to Horwich constituents on 13 February, updating them on the progress that I had made with the Minister on this matter? A constituent got in touch to say that the letter was only received on 25 February, some 12 days later, alongside missing correspondence from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the NHS and the Department for Work and Pensions. Another constituent in Bolton received a Christmas card on 7 March that had been posted before 14 December. When will my constituents see an improvement in Royal Mail services?
Mr Speaker
Can we try to shorten the questions? Some people are not going to get in, and that really worries me, as this subject matters to all of us—especially me, as I have the best post offices and the best posties.
Blair McDougall
I reassure my hon. Friend’s constituents that his efforts to transmit their dissatisfaction have been heard at the highest level. If there is a prize for dark irony, I think he has probably just won it. It is because we want this situation to improve as quickly as possible that we are taking the action that I have described, and continue to put on the pressure.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I pay tribute to the posties across Bromsgrove, but not to the management of Royal Mail. My constituents need action, not more platitudes, like Royal Mail saying to me that it is “very sorry” that letters have not been received. I implore the Minister to get together with the management of Royal Mail and Ofcom to deliver an action plan, for which Royal Mail is accountable to us, via the Minister, so that we see an improved service for all our constituents.
Blair McDougall
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have communicated exactly the frustration that he describes, which I have heard from so many hon. Members, to Royal Mail, and I will communicate it to Ofcom later as well.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Having spoken with postal workers from across Alloa and Grangemouth, I know that morale is at rock-bottom because of years of savage cuts, and restructuring that has negatively impacted their ability to do their job. Does the Government accept that the erosion of the service and workforce morale is due to privatisation, and that an essential public service like Royal Mail should be under public ownership, for the public good? When will the Government effectively hold bodies like Ofcom to account, because its inaction and impotence is costing our constituents dearly?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that the situation is a result of long-standing structural issues in Royal Mail, and with postal services more generally. My focus later today with Ofcom will be to ensure that it is pressed to deal with exactly the issues that my hon. Friend describes.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I align myself with the stories that everybody has told. Constituents in Sturminster Marshall received two postal deliveries in the whole of January, and then Royal Mail tried to blame letters not being delivered on the flooding, which happened at the beginning of February, so I do not trust anything it says. I am concerned about my posties, who are literally being brought to tears on the doorstep. They are being told that they cannot have any overtime even though posts are being advertised, and they cannot complete their rounds. They have explained to me that they are being expected to manage their decline. What is the Minister doing to stand up for these frontline workers who are key to our communities?
Blair McDougall
The hon. Lady is right to pay tribute to her local posties. It is because we recognise the connection between the sustainability of the Royal Mail and the postal service and the conditions of workers and the importance of the talks that are going on, that the Secretary of State has been convening the meetings that I have mentioned, and he will continue to do so.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
This situation is completely intolerable, as everybody has described. Will the Minister confirm that if the owners continue to fail to discharge their obligations as a matter of urgency, the option of taking Royal Mail back into public ownership will be fully considered, because that is popular with the public?
Blair McDougall
Our focus is on ensuring that the talks that are under way are productive, and that they end with measures that will get the delivery service improved and the business on to a sustainable footing. As I have mentioned, we have an undertaking that the owners are not allowed to take value out of the company until service standards improve.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
My constituents who have lodged complaints with the local Royal Mail are receiving messages that say:
“We’re sorry to advise that deliveries in parts of the DN31-DN37 postcodes are being disrupted due to resourcing issues at the Grimsby Delivery Office.”
Will the Minister give an assurance that, if he has not already done so, he will urge Royal Mail to deal with these staffing resources? It is an acceptable reason in the short term, but not in the long term.
Blair McDougall
Whenever hon. Members raise local delivery issues with me, I raise them directly with Royal Mail officials. I will certainly do so for his area because his constituents deserve a better service.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
People across Morecambe and Lunesdale are suffering from late Royal Mail deliveries. In fact, one constituent was told by a frustrated, overworked postie that second class letters were being delivered once a week, at most. What steps is the Minister taking to address that problem?
Blair McDougall
The service that my hon. Friend’s constituents are getting clearly is not good enough. We have met Royal Mail to say that the situation is not good enough, we are bringing together workforce and management to progress the talks that will enable us to improve those standards and, as I say, I will be meeting Ofcom later today to express her concerns.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
My criticism is of Royal Mail’s senior leadership; it is certainly not of our local posties. In Upper Bann, the posties are excellent and so is my liaison officer in Royal Mail, who has gone above and beyond to get information flowing. Staff are at breaking point, there are absences and gaps—we have 10 vacancies in Banbridge depot—and letters are delayed. You know the score, Mr Speaker. The big issue is with hospital letters, so will the Minister liaise with health and social care trusts in Northern Ireland?
Blair McDougall
I will raise the issues at Banbridge sorting office directly with Royal Mail. In addition to my work with the Department of Health, I will ensure that we are having that conversation with health bodies in Northern Ireland.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Given that the Government used the National Security and Investment Act 2021 to extract a golden share, because they considered Royal Mail to be national critical infrastructure, I find it slightly odd that, having recognised its importance, we think there is nothing that we can do. Will the Minister commit to, or at least consider, taking powers that he might need to make a direct intervention to ensure that our constituents, including mine in Stoke-on-Trent Central, get their letters when they want them: on time?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend is right to speak on behalf of his constituents and demand better service. As for what we can do, as I said, we are working through the regulator to ensure that services improve, and I am meeting it later today. We are also intervening to bring together the workforce and management to ensure the talks that are crucial for making those improvements progress.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I concur with Members across the House that the fault does not lie with our individual posties. I pay tribute to Dean and Aaron, who have been fantastic as my posties in Brampton in my constituency. I have been written to by Royal Mail employees in my constituency about the new contract and the pressure that it puts on, with 50% of new postal workers leaving in their first year. Can the Minister guarantee that he will speak to Ofcom about equalising pay and conditions to ensure that we do not see as many staff leaving?
Blair McDougall
The question of equalising pay and conditions is a matter for those talks. That is why, through the Secretary of State, we are bringing together the owner and the trade unions to have those discussions. I also pay tribute to Dean and Aaron, who can now say that they have had their names mentioned at the Dispatch Box.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I am a proud member of the CWU. Posties in my constituency are clear that the problems at Royal Mail are the previous board’s financial mismanagement, along with lower wages, longer hours and poorer conditions. The Conservatives and the Lib Dems were warned that that would happen, but they privatised Royal Mail anyway. Will the Government commit to ensuring that the new owners stick to the agreement with the CWU and the Government, meet the universal service obligation and ensure that my constituents get the service that they deserve?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend is right. Her constituents absolutely deserve better, and she is right to highlight the long-standing issues that we are trying to deal with. Royal Mail should absolutely meet all the obligations that it has entered into.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Hundreds of my constituents have written to me about Royal Mail failures. I have raised them with Ofcom, but it tells me that it cannot investigate local complaints, and Royal Mail will not act on them. Will the Minister commit to reviewing Ofcom’s powers to hold Royal Mail to account at a local level?
Blair McDougall
As I said a moment ago, I will certainly ask Ofcom for its assessment of its powers in this space, and I will keep the hon. Lady updated.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
Before I became a Member of Parliament, I worked for the CWU at the time of Royal Mail’s privatisation, and I am sad to say that much of what we feared would happen has come true. Residents in Grain in my constituency reported receiving no first-class or second-class mail for weeks, similar to the reports of other Members.
I will highlight an incident in which Network Rail had to hand-deliver letters to residents to ensure that they were aware of the impending closure of a critical rail crossing, because Royal Mail service could not be relied on. Does my hon. Friend agree that the service to my constituents is completely unacceptable? Royal Mail needs to focus on addressing its significant recruitment and retention challenges, which have been made worse by the introduction of a two-tier workforce in 2022-23.
Blair McDougall
The example that my hon. Friend gives about Network Rail is a reminder that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) said a second ago, this is critical national infrastructure that we rely on at moments like that. The issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) discusses in terms of the terms and conditions are exactly why we have made that a priority. The Secretary of State is bringing together the management and workforce to discuss those issues.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I had the opportunity to meet senior management at Royal Mail yesterday, after constituents in Symington and Thankerton in the Clydesdale area of my constituency received no mail at all for more than 10 days. I want to return to the issue of postal voting in the Scottish elections and other elections. I do not think that reassurances from Royal Mail are enough; the Minister and others need to see a plan so that we know postal votes will be delivered, collected and taken to the electoral authorities. Will he reassure us that he will get such a plan?
Blair McDougall
We continue to seek those reassurances and the plan behind them. As I mentioned, with regard to the Scottish elections, a specific meeting between the management of Royal Mail—its CEO—and the election authorities in Scotland is coming up to discuss exactly the concerns that the right hon. Gentleman raises.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
I met a resident at my surgery at the weekend who has a long-term health condition. They have been sent testing packs by the NHS, which arrive late, and appointment letters have been delayed, which is having a huge impact on their health. When the Minister meets Ofcom later, will he raise the serious impacts of unacceptable Royal Mail delays on not just our residents, but our national health service?
Blair McDougall
I will certainly raise my hon. Friend’s concerns about important medical post with Ofcom. Royal Mail is part of the critical national infrastructure and can reach every part of the country, and its ability to deliver such things is a business opportunity, and it needs to get that right.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
On Monday, it was my privilege to visit the Helston sorting office, where I discovered staff burdened with remote, counterproductive micromanagement of their work and inadequate plans to deal with the inevitability of staff absences. I was distressed to hear them describe that they had been abused and threatened when undertaking their work on the frontline. Does the Minister agree that frontline workers should be praised and have management systems that empower them to resolve matters locally?
Blair McDougall
I think the hon. Gentleman can tell from the comments around the House how much respect and affection there is for posties around the country, and I am disturbed by what he describes. Ultimately, the only sustainable future for Royal Mail is in bringing together a workforce who are really passionate about what they do and a management who are seeking to get the company into a financially sustainable position. That is why we are prioritising the talks going on at the moment.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
Gloucester residents have been let down by Royal Mail for years; it is prioritising parcels over post and profits over our posties. I have a visit to Gloucester North delivery office on Friday, and I was shocked to find out from the frontlines that it is offering overtime to clear the backlog before I get there. Ofcom has proven to be utterly toothless in this matter; it is not regulating properly, and Royal Mail is baking the fines into its business plans. What more can we do to give Ofcom the bite that it needs to improve service for Gloucester residents?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend has been a constant campaigner and is constantly in my ear on these issues on behalf of his constituents. As I said, I will be talking to Ofcom later today about its role in this matter, and I will keep him updated on that.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Residents across my constituency, particularly those in the SM1, SM2 and SM3 postcodes, have been reporting issues with their deliveries for years. Local social media is full of people reporting one-day-a-week deliveries and asking which other roads that is occurring on. I have visited my delivery office for the last two Christmases, meeting hard-working posties who have been let down by the system. Let me give a particular shout-out to Timmy, who has been delivering to my road for decades and is approaching retirement—my congratulations to him. Will the Minister add Sutton to the list for his agenda this afternoon? Can he also report back next Wednesday in the Westminster Hall debate, which I imagine he will be coming to, with clear actions from his meeting this afternoon?
Blair McDougall
I pay tribute to Timmy and thank him for his years of service. It is exactly because this service is full of people like him who are passionate about their jobs that we need to ensure that Royal Mail’s quality of service is reformed and improved.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Phil from Brereton told me that his wife’s jury service letter arrived too late for her to defer; Colin from Brereton had a hospital letter that arrived three days after the appointment; and Michael from Rugeley waited weeks for a new debit card. Those were first-class letters, so planned reforms to the universal service obligation would not have made much of a difference. Will the Minister impress upon the leadership of Royal Mail the human impact of these delays on posties and residents?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend makes a powerful case about how delays and failings in Royal Mail standards impact on so many different aspects of his constituents’ lives. I will certainly use those examples when I next meet with Royal Mail.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I want to make a quick point about hospital appointments. When someone misses their hospital appointment, they go to the back of the queue and start again, and might have to wait another two years. When the Minister has his meeting with Royal Mail today, can I ask him to convey to its representatives that they should have meetings with health trusts, patient groups and representatives of Northern Ireland to ensure that those who miss appointments due to delays in the Royal Mail will not be disadvantaged, which they clearly are at the moment?
Blair McDougall
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. As I mentioned a moment ago, we are working with the Department of Health and Social Care here to ensure as many health bodies as possible take advantage of the barcode service, to make sure that their letters get through. I will certainly make sure that the issues he has highlighted are raised in Northern Ireland.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
Lots of letters are late. One that stood out to me, which a constituent raised, was a parking fine that had almost doubled in price by the time it arrived. Locally, the Royal Mail tells me that it is recruiting 12 new postal workers, but if that does not fix the problem, what should we try next?
Blair McDougall
Continue to speak to me. My hon. Friend grabbed me during the votes the other night to raise local Royal Mail issues, and I know she will continue to do so.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
Many residents and fantastic posties in Exeter have raised exactly the same concerns as other Members of the House. Can the Minister give an assessment of how he thinks Ofcom has dealt with this issue so far, and does he have confidence in Ofcom to get a grip on it?
Blair McDougall
We rely on Ofcom as the regulator of Royal Mail, which is exactly why we are having a meeting later today to discuss what more it can do to deal with the widespread concerns that exist across the House about the quality of service.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
It is clear that the NHS barcode prioritisation system broke down, but the problem is not limited to NHS letters. I want to highlight the Government’s Tell Us Once service following a bereavement. Many hon. Members will know the urgency and distressing nature of that correspondence, so will the Minister—who has been extremely active in dealing with constituency concerns—look at the issue of prioritisation of non-NHS letters?
Blair McDougall
In a previous life, I was very proud to have worked on the Tell Us Once service at its inception, and I know how important that service is to people at the worst possible time of their life. I will certainly raise the issue that my hon. Friend has highlighted.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
As the Labour Member of Parliament for Bournemouth East, I stand by my posties here in the House of Commons and thank them for their dedication and diligence, which stands in sharp contrast to the management of the Royal Mail. The trial that is under way has failed, and the new approach will spectacularly fail if it is put into effect. When the Minister meets Ofcom later, and when he meets the Royal Mail, will he say that he will not stand for the Royal Mail becoming yet another gig economy parcel courier that exploits its employees and lets down customers?
Blair McDougall
This is a Government who are improving the working conditions, standards and rights of workers across the economy. My hon. Friend makes the important point that there is wisdom and experience within the workforce. The talks that are going on at the moment are about bringing that together with the ambition and responsibilities of the management, which is why we are taking the actions we are.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
Southend sorting office was part of the original pilot for these changes to the USO. It failed, and nine months later it is clear that it is still failing, so today I have summoned the management to meet me and my constituents to hear at first hand the challenges this is causing. Following that meeting, will the Minister meet me to hear that feedback and take it right up the chain?
Blair McDougall
I certainly will. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue, as well as all the other hon. Members who have brought to me local intelligence, which informs my own understanding of the issues across the postal service.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Residents in Ardsley, Robin Hood, Lofthouse, parts of Tingley and Morley are complaining that they have been waiting up to three weeks for their postal service. It is obviously not the posties’ fault—it is a question of leadership and management. Following the Minister’s meeting with Ofcom, will he meet me to see the evidence for himself? What can he say to reassure my constituents now?
Blair McDougall
I reassure my hon. Friend’s constituents that we are expressing the frustration and anger that he has expressed to me directly to Royal Mail and through Ofcom, and of course I will happily discuss developments with him.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I agree with residents across Wolverhampton and Willenhall that Royal Mail’s delivery service is just not good enough, but we stand with our frontline postal workers, who are working incredibly hard and bearing the brunt. I call on the Minister to challenge Royal Mail’s leadership, and to have a look at the two-tier employment model and wider issues that are affecting the recruitment and retention of our hard-working staff.
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend’s constituents absolutely deserve better, and posties deserve dignity at work, given the essential job they do for our society and our economy. That is exactly why we are convening meetings between management and unions to make sure that those talks progress.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
My speaking notes talk about excuses from Royal Mail. Now that I am in the Chamber, though, I do not think that is the language I will use, because people across Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages are sick of being lied to by Royal Mail. I met Royal Mail just before Christmas to complain to it about the total lack of a postal service in Lichfield—we were probably the worst area in the country at that point. When I had that meeting, I was told that all the first-class mail went out last week, but that was a lie—it was an absolute lie, because my constituents told me so. Royal Mail clearly does not have a handle on this issue. It is either not measuring its performance or it is covering it up, so I ask the Minister to use the golden share we have to force Royal Mail to be honest, fess up and fix it.
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend shows passion and anger, which he has also shown to me in private when raising these issues. Again, that speaks to how frustrating it is for us as Members of Parliament to raise a problem—on any issue—and then to be told that it does not exist when our constituents are telling us otherwise. Royal Mail has a responsibility to address the problem in a direct and straightforward manner, because if we are not recognising the problem, we will not deal with it.
Mr Speaker
This has been an excellent debate, and I thank Members for the way it has been delivered on behalf of all our constituents. Royal Mail’s management has a problem, and that has certainly been highlighted today.
Protest Policing
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on public order.
The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Mark Rowley, has requested a prohibition on processions relating to al-Quds Day under section 13 of the Public Order Act 1986. I have consented to that request, placing a ban on those processions for both protesters and counter-protesters that will now last for a month. This is the first ban since 2012, so I wish to explain to the House today why I have done so.
It is important that we start with the context. Initiated by Iran’s then leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, in 1979, al-Quds Day is an event held on the last Friday of Ramadan. The day is marked worldwide by rallies and demonstrations in support of Palestine, including here in Britain. Plans for a procession this Sunday in London have been led by the Islamic Human Rights Commission, an organisation that has been closely associated with the Iranian regime. Of course, this year’s event interacts with the ongoing conflict in the middle east. It comes at a time when the Iranian regime is attacking British forces and bases, as well as those of our allies. It also comes just days after the arrest of four individuals as part of an investigation led by counter-terror police. Those individuals were arrested under the National Security Act 2023 for allegedly spying on Jewish communities on behalf of the Iranian regime.
This context creates clear challenges for the police: heightened attention and therefore larger expected attendance, and heightened tensions between protesters and counter-protesters and therefore greater potential for conflict. The expertise on whether and how those challenges can be safely managed rightly sits with the police, and the legal test is clear. Any request to prohibit a procession must only be lodged with the aim of preventing serious public disorder that could not otherwise be prevented by imposing other conditions on a public procession under section 12 of the Public Order Act. Section 12 conditions typically include specifying the route, location and times of a protest. Under normal circumstances, they are sufficient to ensure protests remain peaceful and the public are kept safe.
However, the commissioner has clearly stated that the Metropolitan police’s view is that serious public disorder cannot be avoided unless a prohibition under section 13 is introduced. That assessment is grounded in the tensions created by international conflict, the scale of the expected march, and the presence of protesters and multiple counter-protesting groups all seeking to march at once.
My first duty is to keep the public safe. Having carefully and thoroughly considered the risk assessment presented to me by the Metropolitan police, I am satisfied that an order under section 13 is necessary. For one month, there will therefore be a prohibition on processions in London related to al-Quds Day involving protesters and counter-protesters, which will come into effect today and end on 11 April. Should the commissioner consider that a further extension is required, he will be able to make a further submission at that time.
I must be clear about what this prohibition does not do. The police and the Home Secretary only have the power to prohibit a public procession. Section 13 cannot be used to ban a static protest, referred to in the legislation as a “public assembly”. Should a static demonstration proceed this weekend, the police will not be able to stop it. Instead, they will be able to impose conditions, such as dictating the precise location and timing. People will therefore be able to exercise their right to peaceful protest, although the full force of the law will be enforced if hate crimes, or other crimes, are committed.
Today’s announcement is confined to specific circumstances, but I know that it will excite scrutiny of the wider issue of policing protests. The House will be aware that I have appointed Lord Macdonald of River Glaven to carry out an independent review of public order and hate crime legislation. His review is ongoing, and I will update the House on its findings at the earliest possible moment. I do, however, want to make a wider point about the right to protest in this country.
What I have announced today is narrowly focused on specific circumstances in a unique moment, but it does not alter an enduring fact. In this country, we rightly pride ourselves on our freedoms, including the right to peaceful protest. It is a precious right and one that I revere, as it sets us apart from autocracies of all kinds across the world. This prohibition is therefore limited and specific. It bans marches, but not static demonstrations, in relation to al-Quds Day. Equally, I must add, there is no prohibition on protesting against the plight of Palestinians, and there never will be. Hundreds of protests have already taken place across the country this year in solidarity with Palestinians, and the Met alone has policed 32. Peaceful and lawful protest, whether for Palestine or for Israel, or for any other cause, must be cherished and protected, and this Government will always defend that sacred freedom.
At the same time, as Home Secretary I have a solemn duty—and it is my first duty—to keep the British people safe. I have been presented with the assessment of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police that he cannot guarantee the security of our capital and prevent serious public disorder without a prohibition on processions relating to al-Quds Day. I have reviewed his assessment, and it is clear to me that my duty to the public and their safety dictates that I must accept his request. It is right that we prohibit these processions, while continuing to uphold our ancient commitments to the freedoms of which we are rightly proud. That is the balance that I have sought to strike today, and I commend my statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I fully support a ban on this march. The police assessment of the risk is right, and, in fact, I wrote to the commissioner a week ago urging for exactly this ban. However, the problems with the al-Quds march go beyond simply the risk of serious disorder. In 2024, 10 people were arrested for the assault of an emergency worker, inciting racial hatred, and public order offences. Chants at al-Quds marches in the past have called for intifada and revolution. Calls for intifada and revolution are calls for violence, and calls for violence have no place on our streets.
A leading speaker at these marches has been Nazim Ali, a man who has demanded that Israel
“be wiped off the map”.
Speaking at a previous march, Ali even blamed what he called “Zionists” for the Grenfell fire. He also said:
“"We are fed up of the Zionists. We are fed up of their rabbis. We are fed up of their synagogues.”
The reference to rabbis and synagogues shows that when this despicable man says “Zionist”, he means Jews. That is clear antisemitism. Speech inciting violence and speech inciting antisemitism, which we have heard at these marches in the past, has serious consequences.
Antisemitism is now rampant. Jews are 10 times more likely to be victims of hate crimes than Muslims. We saw an Islamist-motivated murder at a synagogue in Manchester just a few months ago. In the past 25 years, 94% of all terror murders in the UK have been committed by Islamist terrorists, who also make up 75% of counterterrorism caseloads. Does the Home Secretary share my concern about the fact that that the Prevent caseload is only 10% Islamist in nature, and if she does, what does she propose to do about it?
The organiser of the al-Quds march is the so-called Islamic Human Rights Commission, which, as the Home Secretary rightly acknowledged, is in essence a front organisation for the Iranian regime. A former Iranian Deputy Minister of Culture, Aliasghar Ramezanpour, has said that there is a network of Islamic charities in the UK which are, in his words, not autonomous but funded and controlled by the regime in Tehran. Does the Home Secretary share my concern about that, and what does she propose to do about it? In opposition, the Labour party—I think, rightly—pledged to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Will the Home Secretary update the House on the implementation of that pledge?
I am also deeply concerned about the many events that have been held recently, particularly at universities, lamenting the demise of Ayatollah Khameini—a man who in the last few weeks was directly responsible for the murder of 30,000 of his own people; a man who supported and sponsored terrorism around the world, for instance backing Hamas and the atrocities on 7 October, and who backed various regional wars. Will the Home Secretary join me in condemning those who mourned his demise and celebrated his evil acts?
More generally, the al-Quds marches are a troubling symptom of a growing division in our society, whereby some people define themselves primarily by their religion or their ethnic heritage, and we have seen that spilling over into the conduct of elections. This is deeply troubling and deeply divisive. It undermines the very foundations of our nation, which depend on a shared identity and shared values. I should be interested to hear the Home Secretary’s views on that, and I hope the House will return to the topic.
Let me finish with a broader point. Extremism has no place in the UK. Support for terrorism or violence has no place in the UK. Religious and racial hatred, including antisemitism, have no place here. I believe that when someone who is not a British citizen expresses extremist, violent, pro-terror or racist views, they should have their visa revoked and be expelled, as set out in section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971. The Home Office’s own guidance makes it clear that support for
“extremism or other unacceptable behaviour”
meets that statutory test. Will the Home Secretary use those powers to expel extremists who are not British citizens?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his comments and his questions. He began by talking about some of the unacceptable acts of violence and incitement to violence that have taken place at various marches, not just marches relating to al-Quds Day. It is not unusual for multiple arrests to be made at all the different types of protest marches that take place. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will join me in supporting the police as they ensure that the full force of the law is applied at all times and in all circumstances. I have, of course, recognised that there are some complexities in the legal framework and an inconsistency of application. I have asked Ken Macdonald to carry out a review to ensure that there is much more consistency of practice across the UK, and that there is clarity for the police about what they can and cannot do when it comes to some of the things that are said when protests take place. I hope that we can continue to work together across the House on those matters.
The right hon. Gentleman asked a specific question in relation to Prevent. I do of course keep under review the way in which the Prevent programme is functioning. A large number of recommendations have been made over many years, with many reports on the functioning of Prevent. It is important that Prevent referrals are made in line with the statutory requirements and the guidance, and that they are picking up those whom we want to take away from a mindset and an ideology that could ultimately result in harm. I do not think it appropriate for us to set percentage requirements for what should happen in terms of referrals, but it is important that the right referrals are made. We always work with partners who deliver the Prevent programme, and with local authorities and others, to ensure that that is done properly.
On the Islamic Human Rights Commission, the trust that is responsible for that charity is currently subject to a statutory inquiry by the Charity Commission, and it is important that that work is allowed to continue. Once the Charity Commission has reached a determination, I am sure that it will be discussed in the House.
On the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the right hon. Gentleman will know—we have had this discussion many times at the Dispatch Box, and the answers are not all that different from when the positions of our parties were reversed—that we do not comment on matters relating to proscription, but this Government have accepted the recommendations made by Jonathan Hall KC. We will take forward that work at the earliest available opportunity.
In relation to those who are publicly mourning the death of Khamenei, the deceased supreme leader of Iran, this is where free speech butts up against what most of us would consider to be appropriate conduct. I do not mourn the passing of Ayatollah Khamenei, but it is for others to decide what they do and do not support. I am absolutely clear that, whatever methods people use to express their political views, they must do so in line with the law of this land. That law should always be enforced without fear or favour, and I will always support the police in ensuring that that is the case.
The right hon. Gentleman asks about how we work as a society, and I think his questions are about citizens’ responsibilities in this country. I do not think it is for a Government to dictate to their citizens what political views they are allowed to hold or how they should express themselves or their identity, regardless of whether that is religious, ethnic or something else. It is the job of Government to ensure that we have a set of rules and values that are equally applied—our respect for democracy and the rule of law, and all the norms by which our society operates. That means that we accept free speech and people’s ability to have views that might be offensive. Many of us might disagree with those views, but people are still allowed to express them. I would not want to see these very troubling events lead to a clampdown on the freedoms that are so precious to us. There is always a judgment to be made and a balance to be struck, and it is important that the Government always try to strike that balance in the right way.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s final point, this Government have already taken action, and I will always use my full powers under the law to ensure that those who would cause harm in our country with their extremist views are not allowed to enter our country. I will not hesitate to use my powers under the immigration legislation to exclude from this country people who have no right to be here.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s decision to ban this weekend’s al-Quds march. Al-Quds was founded by the ayatollah 40 years ago. It has repeatedly featured support for the Iranian regime and terrorist groups, and often promotes dangerous antisemitism too. Given the growing threat to Jewish communities across the UK, will the Home Secretary now move to proscribe the IRGC, consider sanctions on regime-linked assets, and outline what further steps have been taken to protect the Jewish community?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend will know that the IRGC is already sanctioned in its entirety. As I say, we do not comment on matters relating to proscription, but we have accepted the recommendations made by Jonathan Hall KC. The Government will take those forward at the earliest available opportunity.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The Home Secretary is aware that we have concerns about her authoritarian tendencies. We have particular concerns about this Government’s enthusiasm for restricting the right to protest and their use of terrorism legislation to proscribe protest groups. The Liberal Democrats place a much stronger weight on the right to peaceful protest than the Home Secretary does. That is her right. The right to protest is a fundamental freedom, and any decision to ban a march must only be made in exceptional circumstances.
On this occasion, however, it is right to take a cautious approach. The Islamic Human Rights Commission has very concerning views on Iran. The organisers of the al-Quds march have expressed support for the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and have claimed that he stood on the right side of history. Clearly, these values are at odds with those of the British public, who would rightly condemn the ayatollah’s oppression of the Iranian people and sponsorship of terrorism across the world. At a time when Iran is putting the safety of British citizens in the middle east at risk with its indiscriminate attacks, it would be inappropriate for the march to go ahead.
Nevertheless, the decision to ban the march highlights a deeper failure by the Government to tackle the underlying threats that fuel such tensions. Labour has dithered and delayed over the proscription of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the organisation responsible for much of the violence and terror emanating from Iran, and for attacks abroad. It is utterly ridiculous that the Home Secretary has already sunk almost £1 million of taxpayers’ money in fighting in court to keep Palestine Action proscribed while dragging her heels on the IRGC’s proscription, even when the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has urged immediate proscription. Will the Home Secretary commit to confronting the threat of the Iranian regime by immediately proscribing the IRGC? If not, will she give the House a date for legislation?
Shabana Mahmood
I have to say that the hon. Gentleman’s opening remarks were rather disappointing. Let me remind him of what I have actually said and done in relation to the right to protest. I have allowed the cumulative impact on communities that are affected by protests to be one of the reasons why police can place additional conditionality on a procession or public assembly under sections 12 to 14 of the Public Order Act 1986. I am very disappointed that the Lib Dem spokesperson thinks that is an authoritarian tendency, because we are responding to repeat protests that create real tension in our communities.
We are creating the conditions to enable those protests to go ahead, but with additional conditions as to their location and time, and we are ensuring that that framework is very clear for the police. That is actually an argument for allowing the protests to happen, but not in a way that creates real fear among minority communities in this country. I am very disappointed to see that the Lib Dems have set their face against that and would characterise it as authoritarianism. They are wholly wrong. These are the necessary steps to protect our vital freedoms, as well as our minority communities. The law in this area always requires a balance, and this Government are seeking to strike that balance in exactly the right way.
The only other remarks I have made in relation to protests were immediately after the terrorist attack at the Heaton Park synagogue in Manchester. I suggested that marching the very next day in support of the Palestinian cause is perhaps not British because we should show some compassion to those who are suffering. Those are the only two acts, and the hon. Gentleman set his face against both of them in his opening remarks.
I have already addressed the point about proscribing the IRGC, which is sanctioned in its entirety. We will take forward the recommendations made by Jonathan Hall KC, but the hon. Gentleman knows that that requires legislative change. We must act at speed, but also with care, and this Government will do so. It is important that we do not conflate different issues. A lot of these issues are causing tensions across the country, but the situation in relation to the Palestine Action group is different from the matters that we are discussing today. Members of other parties should not seek to conflate those to score political points. I will leave my remarks there.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I represent the area affected by the Home Secretary’s intervention on public order policing, which I welcome. I listened carefully to her statement, which made it clear that this prohibition is specific, discrete and focused. What I heard was a balancing of the challenges that she and public order policing in London face every single day. The centre of London is home to dozens of synagogues, mosques and prayer rooms, and it is important that I take seriously the responsibility of ensuring that everybody is safe. Over the last week, I have been in regular contact with my constituents on this very topic. Will the Home Secretary work with me to articulate clearly the rules and legislation that are in place to address the very challenging issues that we all face?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks and her question, and for the work that she has done on this issue, which I know has affected the people she represents. It is important to note, as she rightly does, that we received a very specific and discrete request from the Met police, who have huge experience in dealing with multiple protests on multiple occasions and who have good policing experience. I take seriously the fact that this is the first time in many years that they have sought such an order, and they have done so because of the unique challenges posed by the planned marches in a few days’ time, particularly the threat of both protests and multiple counter-protests all moving through London at the same time. That represents a very unique policing challenge, but I pay tribute to the Met police for the work that they have been doing to ensure that our freedoms in this country are protected.
My hon. Friend will know that we have already commissioned Lord Macdonald to look at the legislation in this area, and to make recommendations on clarifying the legal framework. I look forward to working with her on all that work once his review is in.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s decision, but as my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary made clear, this speaks to a much wider problem. What steps is the Home Secretary taking to ensure that the United Kingdom cannot be used as a safe haven for the wealth, influence networks or political activity of senior figures connected to the Iranian regime, with specific regard to recent reports that the new so-called supreme leader of the Iranian regime is linked to a network of high-value London properties acquired through associates or shell companies? What steps will she take to close any loopholes or strengthen such sanctions?
Shabana Mahmood
We are obviously looking very carefully at the allegations that have been made, and we would of course expect the police and our security services to respond appropriately. We will always work closely with them to ensure that they do so.
The hon. Member raises a broader point about the state threat represented by Iran, which has been discussed in this House on many occasions. He will know of the public comments made by Sir Ken McCallum, the director general of MI5, and others. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that this Government take all levels of state threat very seriously. We work very closely with our security agencies to make sure that we are always taking the necessary steps to keep our country safe.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
The al-Quds Day march, glorifying a despicable, blood-soaked regime, has long been a cause of great concern to my constituents in Hendon. That is why I wrote to the commissioner of the Met asking for the march to be banned, and why I thank the Home Secretary for her resolute action today. However, the threat posed by the Iranian regime to our Jewish community has not ended. Following the arrest of four men for allegedly spying on our Jewish community on behalf of the Iranian regime, what steps have been taken to keep our Jewish community safe?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend will know that a live police investigation is taking place, so I cannot comment or give any additional details on that case to this House until the criminal justice process is complete. However, let me assure him that we work very closely with our colleagues in Counter Terror Policing and our security services to monitor the threats posed to individuals and organisations in our country and take all appropriate measures to keep our people safe.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The Home Secretary may know that I and other Opposition Members have signed at least two letters to the Prime Minister in recent months calling for recognition of the state of Palestine, but I also support the decision the Home Secretary has taken today. I think she has demonstrated seriousness of purpose in taking a very important decision, which clearly commands huge national support. One can be in favour of the decision she has taken and also in favour of the rights of the Palestinian people; the two are not alien to each other.
The Home Secretary mentioned that a static protest could take place in lieu of the march. Does she or the Metropolitan Police Commissioner have the power to limit the time of that specific event, to ensure that ordinary people going about their business are not disrupted and that huge blockages do not take place in the capital in lieu of a moving march?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the hon. Member for the points he made. He is absolutely right—let me agree with him on the first part of his remarks—about the right of people in this country to support the Palestinian people, their right to self-determination and their desire for an end to conflict and recognition of their own state. No decision that this Government have taken prevents anyone from being able to express those political views or to take part in peaceful protest to draw attention to that cause, and all that can continue.
The hon. Member is right about the static protest. There are powers under the Public Order Act for the police to place conditions on static protests, which can relate to both time and location, as well as other measures. Those will be operational decisions for the Met police to make in the coming days.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I thank the Home Secretary for this action, which is proportionate; she seems to have been taking lessons from the Liberal Democrats on that. I reiterate Liberal Democrat calls to proscribe Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and encourage her to come forward with a timetable for that legislation to be delivered. What steps have been taken to ensure effective policing of the static protests, which will go ahead on Sunday, to protect Londoners and our police from potential clashes?
Shabana Mahmood
The House will be pleased to know that I decline the invitation to learn any lessons from the Liberal Democrats—not just on this occasion, but for evermore.
Let me reiterate the point about the IRGC. We will bring forward measures as soon as we can. We obviously have to proceed with care, because these are complex matters, and we have to get the balance right in the action we take. However, we have accepted the recommendations made by Jonathan Hall KC, and the Government are working at pace to move forward with delivery.
The conditions that might be placed on a static protest that may or may not take place are operational matters for the Met police. However, I and the whole House should have every confidence in our police, not just in London but across the country. Police forces have been dealing with a huge increase in the number of protests, the variety of protests and the multiplicity of counter-protests that take place, and I think we should pay tribute to the work day in and day out of our hard-working police officers, who manage to keep our country safe while allowing respect for our fundamental freedoms.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I agree with everything the Home Secretary has said, especially as she is one of the best Conservative Home Secretaries we have ever had! Will she forgive me for asking her to stress just one part of her statement? I have noticed an increasing tendency to say that we should ban marches because we find the views of the marchers thoroughly offensive. Frankly, I find most of the marches in London fairly offensive, because most of them are left wing, but I would defend to the death the right of those people to march. Can she emphasise that there is a very high bar, and that marchers will be banned only if they might incite or cause violence?
Shabana Mahmood
I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but I am Labour all day long. I enjoy swatting Conservatives, Lib Dems, Greens and everybody else at my leisure, and I will continue to do so.
The Father of the House is right about the law. There is a high bar for any banning order to be requested or granted under the framework set out in the Public Order Act. He is absolutely right that it should be a high bar. People are allowed to have their own views, and we should not be seeking to shut down views which, although offensive or provocative, are still within the law. It is important that we always ensure that the law is followed, and any attempts to interfere with freedom of expression or assembly should always meet a high bar. I am very satisfied that, in the specific and unique circumstances set out for the public procession that had been planned, that test has been met. Of course, the other protests can and should go ahead, and the full force of the law will always be applied.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
What consideration did the Home Secretary give to compliance with articles 10 and 11 of the European convention on human rights on the right to protest? What discussions did the Metropolitan police have with the organisers of this planned march to ensure that it could go ahead safely and would be properly stewarded and properly run? In my experience, the police are very accommodating and keen to have long discussions with march organisers to make sure that the right to protest is maintained in our society. There is a slippery slope here, because banning a march that is not necessarily a very popular march may lead to draconian banning orders on all kinds of protests within our society.
Shabana Mahmood
First, on the European convention on human rights, the right hon. Gentleman is right that articles 9 to 11 are relevant to the matters we are discussing. However, those are qualified rights—they have always been qualified rather than absolute rights—which means that the state can limit them in specific circumstances as long as the legal tests of proportionality and so on are maintained. I am confident that the legal arrangements we have in this country, as set out in the Public Order Act, are fully in compliance with our convention obligations, and that there is a very high bar for the powers in section 13 of the Public Order Act. I am satisfied that that high bar has been met on this occasion.
The Met police have been policing the al-Quds Day procession for many years. It is an annual event, and they have policed it even when there has been huge opposition to its going ahead. They have faced a lot of pressure over many years to seek a ban, and they have never done so. I am very confident that they have assessed the risk posed by this procession in the current context, particularly the range and number of counter-protesting marches planned for the same day; managing five different marches at the same time in the same bit of London presents a unique challenge for policing. I think they have made a fair point and a strong case, and I have agreed with them on this occasion.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I very much welcome the statement and I commend the Home Secretary’s judgment on this occasion. The Islamic Human Rights Commission will seek to exploit the loophole offered up under section 13, around the ability to protest in a static way. Has a likely location yet been identified for the static protest? Does she agree with me that it should be away from where it would discommode the general public and somewhere that will not place undue burdens on our policing resources, which are finite?
Shabana Mahmood
Any conditions that may or may not be placed on a static protest are matters for the police—those are operational matters. They have the powers available to them and I am sure they will make use of them, in the way they have been doing with protests that have been taking place across the capital for some time now. They would, of course, take into account many of the factors that the right hon. Gentleman raises in his question to me.
Let me caution a little on the description of the difference between a static protest and a moving procession of public assembly. It is not a loophole. The law deliberately treats the two things differently, because the policing challenges of a static protest are different in nature from the challenge of policing a march that is moving from one location to another. The Public Order Act recognises the difference between those two things. The police have the powers to place conditions on the way a static protest takes place. In my opinion, they have made use of those conditions very well to date and I am sure they will continue to do so.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
Notwithstanding my liberal instincts, I too agree with the Home Secretary’s decision to prohibit this march given Iran’s targeting of UK nationals abroad and our allies overseas. That targeting also occurs here in the UK. It occurred in my constituency with the stabbing of an Iranian dissident journalist two years ago. What specific steps is the Home Secretary taking to protect Iranian dissidents here in the UK who might be targeted by the Iranian state?
Shabana Mahmood
I will bank the fact that the hon. Gentleman agrees with my instincts on this one—perhaps I am not so authoritarian after all. He raises a more serious point about dissidents. We know the threat posed to dissidents here on UK soil by the Iranian regime. He rightly noted an earlier case. Let me assure him that we work very closely with Counter Terrorism policing and our security services on monitoring the threats posed to all individuals in the UK by foreign states. We are always ready to take any appropriate action. Indeed, the police and the security services take action every day.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
I very much welcome the Home Secretary’s decision. Iran has a track record of hostile activity in the United Kingdom. We have so many Iranians who have had to flee their home country for safety here in the UK, yet we still see charities effectively operating as proxies for the terrible regime in Tehran. What further action will the Home Secretary take to clamp down on organisations that masquerade as charities?
Shabana Mahmood
The Charity Commission has powers to launch its own inquiries and enforce compliance. It has a full suite of powers to take action if it thinks someone has fallen outside of our rules. There is an ongoing Charity Commission investigation into the overall body relating to the IHRC—the trust, rather than the organisation we are discussing here today. I am sure that once the Charity Commission has completed that work it will take appropriate action, and I know that that will be the subject of further discussion in this House. Let me assure the right hon. Gentleman that we recognise the desire by some to use our charities legislation and to find gaps to pursue ends that are not charitable and for which the law was not intended. We will not hesitate to take further action in that area if we need to do so.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Will the Home Secretary care to explain a contradiction? She has taken to ban a peaceful march that has been happening for over 40 years, citing serious public disorder, while the Government continue to permit the far right, who call for serious public disorder outside hotels housing asylum seekers, to protest outside those hotels. In September 2025 at the Tommy Robinson “Unite the Kingdom” march—the Home Secretary might like to know that he is a big fan of hers—violence was sighted, in particular against Muslims. Will that march be banned in future as well?
Shabana Mahmood
Each case has to be dealt with on its own facts. The “Unite the Kingdom” march was very large. The police did not seek this power because, based on their own risk assessment, they assessed that it was possible for that march to take place safely and that they could police it safely, as well as the counter march that took place, which was smaller in nature. If they had made such a request, I would obviously have had to consider that request based on the full facts disclosed to me in the risk assessment.
The hon. Gentleman should not conflate multiple different things. There is a very specific risk that is being posed by the march on this occasion, given the international context and given that there will actually be five marches; there is the main march by those behind the al-Quds Day rally and then there are the four counter-protesting marches. He must recognise the unique challenge posed by five marches taking place at the same time in this international context. That is different from every other kind of protest and march that has taken place. I would hope that he does not conflate the two, because that could cause a loss of confidence across our communities.
Marches take place every day on a whole range of issues—international and domestic in nature—but the police almost never ask for those to be banned. In fact, such a request has never been made of me. I think the last time this power was used was in something like 2010 or 2012—many, many years ago. This is a unique situation, given the current context and the unique policing challenge of five different marches at the same time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can focus a little more on the facts, rather than the hyperbole with which he began his question.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I stand, and we stand, for an Iran free of the ayatollah, free of the IRGC, free of a despotic regime that carries terrorism all over the world, and free of the regime that killed 35,000 of its own citizens in January this year. With that mind, may I thank the Home Secretary very much for her decision to ban the al-Quds Day march? It is very important that we in this House take a stand to show that we support those in Iran who are fighting for freedom.
In the light of repeated concerns of law enforcement and community organisations about the risk of public disorder and clashes with protesters, what further steps will the Home Secretary take to prevent groups promoting extreme ideologies from organising events that will incite intimidation or violence against minorities or other vulnerable groups in the United Kingdom?
Shabana Mahmood
We already have strong laws and other measures in this country on inciting violence, and I would expect the police to always bring the full force of the law on anybody found to be contravening our laws without fear or favour. It is important that we respect and rely on our legal framework, because we do have one of the strongest legal frameworks in the world on all these matters. The Government will always take further action if it is necessary, but I do believe our current framework allows us to strike the right balance on protecting individual freedoms. Even if they are offensive and even if they are provocative, they should still be protected, but as long as that is within the confines of the law.
Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister comes to the Dispatch Box to make the statement, it has been brought to attention of the Chair that it is possible that information has not been shared in due time. The requirement to provide a copy of the statement to the Opposition before it is made is set out in the ministerial code—in chapter 9, if the Minister wants to refresh himself. I am not responsible for policing the ministerial code, but it is clearly a discourtesy to the House not to make information available in good time. Those on the Treasury Bench, and no doubt the Ministers responsible, will have heard me and will ensure that this does not happen again.
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones)
I apologise to the House if we were a few minutes short of the standard 45 minutes to an hour prior to the statement in publishing the documents, but I can confirm that they have now been laid before the House and are available on gov.uk.
With permission, I will make a statement to update the House on the Government’s response to the Humble Address of 4 February. The Government committed to responding to that Humble Address, and I can today confirm that we are releasing a first tranche of documents, which have been laid before the House in advance of this statement, and are now published on gov.uk for the public. There are further tranches of documents to come as officials work through the full scope of the Humble Address.
It is important to recognise the strength of feeling across the House—my own included—in our disgust and horror at the nature and extent of the relationship that Peter Mandelson maintained with Jeffrey Epstein despite Epstein’s criminal conviction for abusing a vulnerable young girl. This included encouraging Jeffrey Epstein to fight that conviction.
Jeffrey Epstein was a despicable criminal who committed the most horrifying and disgusting crimes that destroyed the lives of countless women and girls. What he did is, of course, unforgivable, and I know that his victims will be in the thoughts and prayers of all Members across the House as we debate these issues today. Those victims will always be our first priority. Peter Mandelson’s behaviour was an insult to them and their suffering, and I am sorry that these events leave them with no choice but to relive their horrors, with still too little justice being served. That is why there is cross-party consensus in this House for full transparency and accountability, why anybody with knowledge must co-operate with inquiries, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, and why the Government are therefore committed to publishing all documents relevant to the Humble Address.
The Prime Minister has taken responsibility for Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the United States. He has acknowledged that it was a mistake and has apologised, not least for believing Peter Mandelson’s lies. As the Government have said previously, there are specific documents that this Government would like to have been able to disclose today, but which the Metropolitan police has asked us not to publish yet in order to avoid prejudicing its ongoing criminal investigation into Peter Mandelson. We have agreed to that request and will therefore publish those documents in the future, as soon as the Metropolitan police has confirmed that they will no longer prejudice its investigation.
As the House already understands, the Government must also carefully assess the risk of prejudicing UK national security or international relations posed by the release of any official documents. Any such material will be, and is being, referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. I thank the Committee for its assistance in this matter and can confirm to the House that it has agreed with a limited redaction, requested by the Government, in relation to one document that we are publishing today. Outside of that arrangement, this process does not change the important and well-established constitutional principle that national security and international relations judgments are, ultimately, for the Government.
The documents released today relate specifically to the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States and the discussions that subsequently led to his dismissal. They include: the Cabinet Office due diligence report, which was passed to No. 10 prior to Peter Mandelson’s appointment; information provided to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as to whether full due process was followed during Peter Mandelson’s appointment; papers relating to Peter Mandelson’s appointment as His Majesty’s ambassador to the United States and minutes of meetings relating to the decision to appoint him; and details of the severance payments made to Peter Mandelson after the Prime Minister instructed that he be withdrawn as ambassador, thereby terminating his employment by the civil service.
While the documents point to public reports of an ongoing relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein, the advice did not expose the depth and extent of their relationship, which became apparent only after the release of further files by Bloomberg and then the United States Department of Justice. After the Prime Minister reviewed the Cabinet Office due diligence report, which noted public reporting on Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, questions were put to Peter Mandelson by advisers in No. 10, as right hon. and hon. Members can see referred to on pages 8 and 94 of the bundle, and Peter Mandelson responded. These are matters that are currently the subject of an ongoing police investigation, and we will publish this document when the investigation allows. When we do, Members will be able to see Peter Mandelson’s answers for themselves, which the Prime Minister regrets believing. Peter Mandelson should never have been afforded the privilege of representing this country, and I reiterate to the House that the Prime Minister deeply regrets taking him at his word. It was a mistake to do so.
I can, however, confirm to the House—as agreed with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Mr Speaker—that we have shared the documents that are with the Metropolitan police with the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee on terms agreed by the Metropolitan police, to ensure as much transparency to this House as possible.
As soon as the truth became apparent, following reporting by Bloomberg, the Prime Minister acted to withdraw Peter Mandelson from his role. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members across the House will also read in these documents with interest how Peter Mandelson conducted himself after his withdrawal as ambassador. As the documents show, Peter Mandelson initially requested a sum for his severance payment that was substantially larger than the final payment—not just two or even three times, but more than six times the final amount, despite the fact that he was withdrawn from Washington because he had lost the confidence of the Prime Minister.
The Government obviously found that to be inappropriate and unacceptable. The settlement that was agreed was to avoid even higher further costs involving a drawn-out legal claim at the employment tribunal, given Peter Mandelson’s employment as a civil servant, rather than a Minister. As the House will know, Ministers can be dismissed without recourse to the employment tribunal, but civil servants are treated differently.
The Government are committed to complying with the Humble Address, and further work is ongoing to compile the rest of the information in its scope. The Government recognise the urgency with which this work must be completed and will keep Members updated as that work progresses.
We know that these documents also reveal that the due diligence process fell short of what is required. We have already taken steps to address weaknesses in the system and to ensure that when standards of behaviour fall short of the high standards expected, there will be more serious consequences. We have launched the Ethics and Integrity Commission to promote the highest standards in public life and we are changing the process for direct ministerial appointments, including politically appointed diplomatic roles, so that where the role requires access to highly classified material, the candidate must have passed national security vetting before such appointments are announced or confirmed.
Ministers will now be expected to forgo severance payments following a serious breach of the ministerial code, and we have given the independent adviser the power to initiate investigations into ministerial misconduct without the need to seek the Prime Minister’s permission first. The Prime Minister has also strengthened the ministerial code, with stricter rules on gifts and hospitality, and we have asked the Conduct Committee in the Lords to review the code of conduct to consider what changes are required to ensure that peers can be removed when they have brought the House into disrepute in the other place. We are also exploring whether the Committee can tighten rules on lobbying and paid advocacy to bring the Lords in line with Commons procedures.
I want to note that the vast majority of individuals who apply to public service do so with the best of intentions. However, it is right that following the Peter Mandelson case, we have asked questions about how we can further strengthen the rules and processes that underpin the operation of government. We have appointed Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent in the upper House to support this work on standards and constitutional reform as a new Minister in the Cabinet Office. I can also announce that the Prime Minister has asked the Ethics and Integrity Commission to conduct a review of the current arrangements relating to financial disclosures for Ministers and senior officials, transparency around lobbying and the business appointment rules, and we are conducting a review of the national security vetting system to ensure that we learn the lessons from the policy and process weaknesses related to Peter Mandelson’s case.
Let me conclude by reiterating that the whole House will agree that Jeffrey Epstein was a disgusting individual, and that Peter Mandelson’s decision to put their relationship before his victims and the vulnerable was reprehensible. As the Prime Minister has said,
“the victims of Epstein have lived with trauma that most of us can barely comprehend. They have had to relive it again and again. And they have had to see accountability delayed and too often denied.”
We must all learn this hard lesson and end a culture that dismisses women’s experiences far too often and too easily. Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed, and the Government will comply with the Humble Address. I will update the House further in due course. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your remarks at the outset of this statement. I also thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement, which I received at 1.30 pm. This whole business is really about transparency. The Government have had to be dragged to do this by Members on both sides of this House, so producing a 135-page document and putting it online 23 minutes before this debate is really not acceptable at all. I respect the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for coming to the Chamber and making this statement, but it really ought to be the Prime Minister sitting there, because all of this is about the Prime Minister’s judgment. It is very convenient that this document was published after Prime Minister’s questions, during which the man who made the decision—the man whose judgment is in question—could have been put under scrutiny by hon. Members. Very many questions arise from the documents published. I will put a few on record, and then return to the central theme.
There is the issue of severance pay, to which the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister referred. Why did Ministers agree to any severance pay, given what had happened? Many of our constituents will be disgusted that Peter Mandelson received £70,000. Will his full declaration of interests, which he was supposed to have handed over when he was appointed, be published? I do not believe that they are included in the tranche of documents published today. Is that because of a police request, or is it for some other reason? Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister publish a register of withheld and delayed documents, so that the House can be aware of what is being held back? Will he give us a little more information, either now or in the future, on redactions? It is important that this House understands who is deciding on what will be redacted.
This awful saga involving Jeffrey Epstein continues. I understand that, as this House meets, one of his ranches in New Mexico is being investigated because there are reports that bodies are buried there. At the centre of this scandal was a very rich and powerful man who despicably abused his position, and he was helped to become rich and powerful by his associates, one of whom was Peter Mandelson. Although I of course associate myself with the remarks made by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister about Epstein’s victims, it is very clear that those victims were not in the Prime Minister’s mind when he appointed Peter Mandelson. The Prime Minister has already admitted that he knew Mandelson had maintained his friendship with Epstein even after the latter’s conviction for his terrible crimes. That was a bad choice, and it is a choice that we can now read about in black and white on page 11 of the publication. It says:
“After Epstein was first convicted of procuring an underage girl in 2008, their relationship continued across 2009-2011, beginning when Lord Mandelson was Business Minister and continuing after the end of the Labour government. Mandelson reportedly stayed in Epstein’s House while he was in jail in June 2009.”
The Prime Minister claims that he was lied to; he was not lied to by this due diligence document. It may be that Mandelson denied those claims, and if so, perhaps the Prime Minister was lied to, but by an inveterate liar who had been fired twice before. We are supposed to believe that the Prime Minister, who was once the chief prosecutor in this country, could not see through this nonsense. It beggars belief.
Over the coming hours and days, we will see whether these documents reveal why the Prime Minister’s judgment failed so badly, but we must suspect that it was because his then chief of staff was Mandelson’s protégé. Morgan McSweeney had set up Labour Together, the Prime Minister’s private campaigning organisation. Peter Mandelson had advised Morgan McSweeney on the establishment of that organisation, which had been responsible for breaking electoral law so that it could hide the sources of its funds from the public and from the Labour party. Labour Together then sought to intimidate and smear journalists who revealed that wrongdoing, and it provided hundreds of Labour MPs and many of the top brass in the Cabinet with free money and free services. This was the ultimate “jobs for the boys”. The Prime Minister knew all that he needed to know. It was on him; it is on him now. He let his party and his country down. I very much doubt that either will trust him again.
Darren Jones
The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asked me a number of questions, which I shall take in turn. The first was on the severance payment. He asked me why that payment had been made, and who approved it. As I set out in my opening statement, Peter Mandelson was employed as a civil servant, not as a Minister. That meant that on his summary dismissal by the Prime Minister, he had the right to take a claim to the employment tribunal. As we can see in the documents, Peter Mandelson asked for a much larger sum, with the implied threat that there would be legal proceedings, with associated costs. The Government would not have wanted to pay £1 to Peter Mandelson, but they reluctantly agreed to the award, given the contrast between the cost to the taxpayer of employment tribunal legal fees, and the cost of a payment; in the advice, the latter cost would have been higher than the amount that was given. The Prime Minister has since said that Peter Mandelson should either return that money or donate it.
On the question of who approved the severance payment, the House will see from the documents that the request from the Foreign Office was made to the Treasury. The payment was approved, in line with Treasury business rules, albeit reluctantly, and with an express condition that a non-disclosure agreement was not allowed in these circumstances. For the sake of completeness, there is reference in the bundle to that business case requiring my approval. I can confirm to the House that I did not receive that request, or indeed approve it.
The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asked me about some of the documents, namely about redactions and a register of withheld documents. On the question of a register of withheld documents, I would need to take advice from lawyers in the Metropolitan police before I could say whether these documents are being held for their criminal investigation. I hope that the House is somewhat reassured by the mechanism that we have been able to establish with the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which has sight of these documents, albeit in a contained and controlled way. Government redactions to the documents are to protect only the names and contact details of junior civil servants, as is the practice. Other redactions that relate to international security and international relations are done with the approval of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Lastly, the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asked me about the report from the Cabinet Office to the Prime Minister. As I said in my opening statement, the Prime Minister did ask subsequent questions of Peter Mandelson following that report being submitted by the Cabinet Office. His advisers at No. 10 undertook to answer those questions. Although that is a document that we cannot publish at this time, the Prime Minister is very clear that he regrets having believed the lies that Peter Mandelson put before him.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Clearly, Peter Mandelson’s associations bring a real stench to the appointment process, but I want to know about the business associations, and how they are scrutinised in the process. We know that Peter Mandelson’s public relations company, Global Counsel, had as a client Palantir, which has won lucrative contracts from successive Governments. I want to understand whether the papers demonstrate those associations, and the associations that Peter Mandelson then brought into Government.
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend will see from the documents that are being published today that those commercial interests were raised by the Cabinet Office, and that established processes were in place that meant that new members of the civil service had to remove such commercial interests before taking office. There is some commentary in the bundle about the conversation that was had with Peter Mandelson in advance of his appointment as ambassador to the United States, specifically about that question. Having said all that, part of the review that we are taking forward is another look at the business appointment rules, to make sure that the processes that were applied were robust enough in the situation that we are discussing. If we need to further strengthen them, we stand ready to do so.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. It is a stain on our nation that we are even having to go through this. It is right that we keep Epstein’s victims, survivors and families at the front of our mind.
Today marks the first day of Britain’s own Epstein files. For a close friend of Epstein to have been made Britain’s ambassador to the United States is a shameful part of this affair; that is the Prime Minister’s responsibility. It is disappointing that the Prime Minister is not here to answer for that, and for his catastrophic failure of judgment with respect to Mandelson.
Peter Mandelson’s close relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, and the fact that it continued long after long after Epstein’s conviction for child sex trafficking, had been reported by both Channel 4’s “Dispatches” in 2019 and the Financial Times in 2023. Has the Prime Minister told the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister personally how those reports made him feel, and why he still felt it was right to appoint Mandelson anyway? Mandelson’s £75,000 payout is an insult to Epstein’s victims—if he had a shred of decency left he would donate it to charity—but the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister’s explanation of why the Government made that payout simply will not wash.
With a very limited number of documents being released today, the wait goes on for the rest of Britain’s Epstein files. That includes the documents relating to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor required by the Liberal Democrats’ Humble Address, which was passed a fortnight ago. I very much hope that the Government will get those documents out as quickly as possible. It has taken five weeks from the Mandelson Humble Address to publication today. Will the Chief Secretary guarantee that the first Andrew papers will be published within the same timeframe, and by 31 March at the latest?
Darren Jones
As I have said to the House, the Prime Minister regrets having appointed Peter Mandelson ambassador to the United States. It was the wrong decision, and he has apologised for it.
On severance, as I said, the Government would not have wanted to give £1 to Peter Mandelson, but it was the quickest way to remove him as ambassador and a member of the civil service. As the leader of the Liberal Democrats said—the Government agree with him—the honourable thing to do would be to donate that money to an appropriate charity.
On the Liberal Democrats’ Humble Address, that is being managed by the Department for Business and Trade; it is working on that now, and will come forward with updates in due course. As I said in my statement, the Cabinet Office will come back with a further tranche of documents in relation to the Humble Address as soon as possible.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
If one of my constituents told me they had lost their job or been sacked because they had lied during the application process and they wanted compensation, I would tell them they had absolutely no chance of getting it, so I really struggle to understand why we paid a penny. I understand what the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said about not wanting to make a payment, but the risk of an employment tribunal claim in such circumstances is minuscule. He is right that the money should have been paid to a victims charity. Will he now press Mandelson to do the right thing and give that money to the victims of abuse?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend and the House will see from the bundle of documents published today that the Government acted on the basis of legal advice in awarding that settlement payment, but I agree wholeheartedly, and repeat from the Dispatch Box that the honourable thing for Peter Mandelson to do would be to donate the payment to an appropriate charity.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I acknowledge what the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said with regards to my role as Chair of the Committee looking at documents pro tem on behalf of the House. As he knows, that will be done properly.
Following the point made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is right that under the civil service rules, Mandelson could have made a claim to a tribunal, but the hon. Gentleman is also right that anybody doing so who has secured a position by deception would find themselves on the thinnest of thin ice; they would have no chance at all. Mandelson’s original claim just underscores the shamelessness of the individual in question.
As the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has admitted that the Prime Minister was lied to—that is deception—was legal advice sought as to the likely outcome of any employment tribunal case brought by Mandelson? If it was, what was that advice? If it was not, why not?
Darren Jones
The advice is in the bundle of documents published today; the hon. Gentleman will have to forgive my not being able to refer him to precisely the right page. While it is not for me to defend the claim that Peter Mandelson was making against the Government, one of the issues would of course have been the legal fees in defending that claim at the employment tribunal, which would have been a cost to the taxpayer even if in the end the Government would have been successful. Those considerations were put to the Government in advice, which is why that settlement figure—a much lower figure than the legal fees and potential settlement being asked for—was the case.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
I have listened to the Minister, and some of his points were relevant, but this is not just about technicalities and lapses of judgment. This is about a wider, rotten political culture: a 30-year project where proximity to wealth and power is not a means to an end but the end goal. That is what Peter Mandelson represented. This is not just about him being the ambassador or being selected to be ambassador; he was at the heart of the political project around No. 10. That has to change. Do the Government understand that out there, this is about not just one bad set of decisions but a political culture, which Peter Mandelson represents, and that it is destroying mainstream party politics in this country? Do we get that? Do we understand that? Will we change?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend and I are members of the labour movement because we share the same values. We are here to represent the voices of working people and those across the country who have no power and no access. That is what our movement was created to do, and we share that ambition. Do I recognise that we are still operating in a system where power and wealth can lead to these outcomes? Absolutely. Do we have a shared ambition to tackle that? Yes, we do.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The Minister will know that the Government have a Bill about the duty of accountability and candour going through the House; one of his colleagues on the Front Bench will confirm that that requires Ministers to answer questions with candour. Several weeks ago, three Members of this House asked him what Mandelson’s pay-off was, and he refused to answer. I ask him to reflect on whether he acted with candour.
Back to the question of whether Mandelson deserved a pay-out, is it not the truth that the Government know that this tissue—this story or suggestion that they were lied to and that there was no possible way they could have found out the truth—would have been torn apart in an employment tribunal, and that is why they did not want to take the case to one?
Darren Jones
That was not the rationale. The documents will speak for themselves.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
The statement has truly been sickening. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree that the sickening behaviour and conduct of Mandelson is in part a symptom of structural misogyny? Will he use his office to drive structural misogyny out of Whitehall and Westminster?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is right to raise the bigger issues in question about the process of appointment, disclosure and deceit, and the rules that are in place. Above and beyond all that, unfortunately, is a country and a world in which the voices of women who are subject to male violence are not heard and the abuse of power and privilege is still rampant. I think all of us—in any party and in any part of the House—would want to suggest that that is not how we wish the world to operate. We should all do what we can to change that. That is why the Government are committed to halving violence against women and girls, and it is why we talk about how we tackle structural misogyny, whether at the heart of our political system, in business or elsewhere. I know that my hon. Friend and I share those ambitions and will do all that we can to make them a reality.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
If I listened to the Chief Secretary correctly, which I think I did, he said, “His victims must be our first priority.” Let us be clear: for the Prime Minister, they were not. On 11 December 2024, he received advice that says,
“Epstein was first convicted of procuring an underage girl in 2008”.
The following sentence says,
“Mandelson…stayed in Epstein’s House…in June 2009.”
I repeat: the victims were not the Prime Minister’s first priority.
That being the case, how can the Chief Secretary stand at that Dispatch Box, with a straight face, and say,
“We must all learn this hard lesson and end a culture that dismisses women’s experiences”,
when it was the Prime Minister who chose to ignore those experiences, ignore those facts and appoint Peter Mandelson in the first place?
Darren Jones
Forgive me. The right hon. Member will have heard from my statement that in response to the reported allegations that are listed in the Cabinet Office due diligence—at the time they were, of course, allegations—questions were put to Peter Mandelson by No. 10 advisers. His responses to those questions are part of documents that we would have liked to publish today but are not yet able to. Since then, the Prime Minister has made it very clear that Peter Mandelson lied to him. He regrets believing those lies and if he had known the depth and extent of that relationship, which nobody in this House understood until the Bloomberg publication of documents and the US Department of Justice disclosures, he would never have appointed him in the first place.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
The release of documents outlining what was known about Mandelson’s association with Epstein is welcome. Mandelson’s avarice, his business connections and his malign influence within the Labour party are simultaneously why he was made ambassador and why he was useful to Epstein. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should be seeking to distance ourselves from flawed democracies that are drifting towards authoritarianism, such as the United States, rather than using those associated with sex offenders to strengthen such relationships?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend will know from the statements of the Prime Minister and the documents published today that he regrets having ever appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. In our country, we rightly respect the rules that are in place and that need to be observed, and there must be clear consequences for people who breach them. As I have said in earlier answers, even in our country, we have much further to go to tackle violence against women and girls and structural misogyny, and we should all have a shared ambition to tackle that as quickly as possible.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Chief Secretary deserves our admiration for always being calm and courteous, even in the most trying circumstances, but he really must not take us for fools. Peter Mandelson had a reputation as one of the most slippery and sleazy characters in modern British politics. The Chief Secretary confirms that the Prime Minister was warned about what Mandelson had done in continuing a relationship with Epstein after he had been sent to jail for abusing a young girl. He is saying, “Well, the Prime Minister did not know the depth of this relationship.” Does he really expect us to believe that a shallow relationship with a convicted paedophile is okay?
Darren Jones
At the time of the appointment, there were public comments from Peter Mandelson—I think they were in a Financial Times interview—saying that his relationship had ended much earlier than documents now show to be the case. On the back of the Cabinet Office reports about those newspaper stories, the Prime Minister had further questions put to Peter Mandelson, documents for which we will be able to publish in due course. That is why the Prime Minister says that he regrets having believed Peter Mandelson’s lies and wishes he had never appointed him in the first place.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
The appointment of Lord Mandelson was not just a catastrophic error of judgment that has caused profound damage to this Government’s reputation; it was the result of a clique at the top of the party, as we have seen with the Morgan McSweeney and Labour Together scandal, which I and colleagues on the Labour Benches have called on the Prime Minister and the general secretary of the Labour party to launch an independent investigation into. Will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister outline what structural safeguards are being implemented today to ensure that cronyism never again overrides the national interest in high-level appointments?
Darren Jones
I refer my hon. Friend to the list of changes that the Government are undertaking in my statement earlier, from the work of the Ethics and Integrity Commission and a review of the business appointment rules to looking at the role of lobbying and transparency, to make sure that there are consequences for the few people who seek to breach those rules. Alongside the duty of candour Bill, which has been mentioned in the debate, that will be the widest range of changes to our ethics and standards framework in many, many years, if not a generation. I reiterate, as I said in my statement, that the vast majority of public servants serve the public for the right reasons and adhere to the rules. Evidently, when there are those who seek to evade them, we need to ensure that we are more effective at catching that in future.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I find this faux outrage about Mandelson astonishing. He is a man who had been closely involved with the leadership of the Labour party ever since Tony Blair and very closely with the current Prime Minister since 2020. They must have known his character; they must have known what he was like. In the documents that the Government are now producing, will we know every piece of advice that was given to the Prime Minister by his officials and by the Foreign Office? Specifically, will there be a record of any verbal briefings given to the Prime Minister before he made the calamitous decision to send Mandelson to Washington? The public need to know why the Prime Minister, despite all the knowledge about Mandelson, felt the need to go ahead with the appointment.
Darren Jones
The tranche of documents today that relate to the appointment and then the dismissal of Peter Mandelson as ambassador is inclusive of all the documents held by Government, bar those that have been held back by the Metropolitan police for its criminal investigation. There are no further documents that have not been published.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
The Prime Minister rightly called for the removal of peerages from disgraced peers. Will the Chief Secretary set out to the House when we might have an update on the proposed legislation in that regard?
Darren Jones
As the House knows from previous statements on this issue, we want to ensure that where people break the rules, there are consequences for that behaviour. One of the areas where that was not the case was the appointment of life peer in the other place, as there were no provisions for taking a peerage from somebody in any circumstance. That has been a problem in the past in relation to criminal convictions and other disreputable behaviour. It is right, therefore, that the Government are working with the other place to bring forward legislation to give the authority and powers for that to happen in future, and we will come forward with those proposals in due course.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Two Global Counsel clients benefited from direct Government defence awards and Global Counsel staff flew to Washington parties to join Peter Mandelson. Will the Minister confirm that, either in this bundle or in future documents, there will be a rigorous report to Parliament of the background to those awards and to all the parties, with guest lists, so that Parliament can see what happened and how we improve things and make sure it never happens again?
Darren Jones
I confirm that all other documents that are in scope of the Humble Address that are not being published today will be, subject to the Metropolitan police and clearance from the Intelligence and Security Committee, published in the next tranche.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I hold in my hand the advice that was given to the Prime Minister before he made the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the USA. Reading that advice document, it is clear that the Prime Minister would not have given the go ahead for this individual to stand as a Labour candidate for town council. Instead, he was elevated, despite what is in the document and despite what was known, to this most important of positions.
There is a whole section entitled “Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein”. The question that has to be asked is: how did it even get to the stage of the Prime Minister interviewing Mandelson and considering him for the job? The simple answer is political. It is because it suited the interests of a tiny faction in the Labour party, funded by big business, which wanted Mandelson at the heart of things in order to shift a Labour Government away from the agenda that a real Labour Government should have. That is why Mandelson was popular with these people, that is why he was one of their favourite sons and that is why, despite his despicable character, despite his greed and his avarice, he was put in that position despite what was known. Is that not the case?
Darren Jones
It is not for me to speak on behalf of Peter Mandelson, but evidently he put himself forward for this role, which is how he ended up in the process in the first place. To the question of his appointment, as I have said to the House, the Prime Minister regrets his appointment and apologises for it, and had he known what the House now knows, he would never have appointed him in the first place.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
In his remarks, the Chief Secretary mentions policy and process weaknesses in our political system, and he is right to do so, but surely the real failure is that of the Prime Minister’s judgment. He also talks about the depth of Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein not being known, but Mandelson’s character was, and it was known for a long time. There was a long-standing interview exercise when somebody was applying to be a press officer for the Liberal Democrats. They were told: “Peter Mandelson has resigned in disgrace again. Draft the press release.” It is difficult to legislate out poor judgment, but the Chief Secretary has talked about legislating for policy and process weaknesses. When does he plan to bring forward this legislation?
Darren Jones
A number of changes can be made without legislation, and I will be able to update the House on that in due course. That will of course be quicker to implement as a consequence of its not requiring statute. Where we specifically need statutory changes, which I think at this stage will predominantly relate to the removal of peerages from those who bring the other place into disrepute, we will bring those forward in the coming months.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and also for the tone in which he has brought it here today. It has been quite an open statement in terms of the discussion. As a Government, we are serious about the whole agenda of violence against women and girls, and I just cannot conclude that giving Mandelson £75,000 is compatible with that, so I hope that he repays it. Constituents in Edinburgh South West are really concerned about Epstein’s links into the British establishment, particularly given the allegations against Mountbatten-Windsor and Mandelson himself. I know that a live court case and investigation are under way, but can the Government commit to a public inquiry into Epstein’s links into the British state, once these court cases are over?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend will know that there is an ongoing criminal investigation in this country and that investigations are happening in the United States, in Congress and elsewhere. As the Prime Minister has said, anybody who had any relationship with Jeffrey Epstein or any connection to the events or organisations that he hosted should be readily putting themselves forward to answer any questions and trying to help bring justice to the victims, who have been waiting for too long.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
When will the Government release Mandelson’s declaration of interest, and why is it not included in the documents released today?
Darren Jones
All the documents that are available in relation to Peter Mandelson’s appointment and dismissal are published in the tranche today, subject to those that have been held back by the Metropolitan police. All further documents that relate to the Humble Address will be released in the second tranche, which will be in the coming weeks.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary rightly referred to a wider set of reforms on openness, accountability and transparency that will now be considered, and I welcome Baroness Anderson’s appointment to support that work. Can he assure me that lobbying reform writ large will be in scope of the Ethics and Integrity Commission review, and that that will include looking at previous Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee reports, including the PACAC recommendations on the Greensill David Cameron lobbying scandal that still have not been responded to? Does he also agree that the antidote to the distrust that we have seen in politics can be better public participation? I want to acknowledge the launch of the citizens assembly yesterday, and I personally believe that more citizens assemblies will bring power closer to the people and away from power and wealth in this country.
Darren Jones
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his years of work on that issue. I can confirm that the wide-ranging set of reviews that are taking place today will happily receive submissions from him and others in this and the other place, should they wish to make them. We will be looking at current and previous reports from the relevant Committees in the normal way.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
These papers show that, on 11 December 2024, just nine days before the Prime Minister confirmed Mandelson as the new ambassador, he was specifically advised of the J.P. Morgan report from 2009, which expressly said that Mandelson maintained a “particularly close relationship” with Epstein after Epstein’s conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor. Yet the Prime Minister, a former chief prosecutor, chose in those circumstances, with that information, to believe the lies of Mandelson. How could that be? And given that it is, what does it say about the judgment of our Prime Minister?
Darren Jones
The Prime Minister has said that he regrets believing the lies of Peter Mandelson and that, had he known the depth and extent of the relationship that we now all know and have confirmed, he would never have appointed him in the first place. That is why the Prime Minister has apologised and acknowledged that this appointment was a mistake.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Epstein was a truly despicable criminal and Mandelson’s lying and actions with Epstein shamed the nation, but does the Chief Secretary agree that what we must not do right now is to compromise the criminal investigations that the Met is currently undertaking? To do so would be to fail the victims of Epstein and their families. Can the Chief Secretary also reassure the House that, as and when documents become available, they will be published in a timely manner?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The victims of Jeffrey Epstein have for too long had justice delayed or denied, and the very worst that we could do is to undermine a criminal investigation that may at last bring some justice for the horrors that they have suffered. That is why the Government are working closely with the Metropolitan police to ensure that we do everything we can to not prejudice that investigation. It is why there are some documents that we have chosen not to publish, at the request of the Metropolitan police, even though we might like to do so. I am grateful to the Metropolitan police for agreeing to allow us to put those documents before the Chair of the relevant Select Committee so that in some way, on behalf of the House, there can be independent verification that we are not misusing that process in any way to withhold any documents, when we are completely committed to full transparency.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Like all statements, it is not just what is in but what is left out. We learned today that the due diligence, which has not been spoken about in any detail in the statement, provided to the Prime Minister before Peter Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador, warned that it would pose a “general reputational risk”. This is not just about the Prime Minister sitting down and having a chat with Mandelson and not believing him. He was warned that this would pose a “general reputational risk”. My question to the Minister is very simple. Which failing does he think the Prime Minister suffers from: ignorance, arrogance or both?
Darren Jones
The Prime Minister has apologised for appointing Peter Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States. He believed the lies that Peter Mandelson put to him in response to questions about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. As soon as all of us, including the Prime Minister, became aware that those were indeed lies, with the publication of the documents from Bloomberg and the United States Department of Justice, he was dismissed promptly.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
In my investigations into Palantir, it has been brought to my attention that 20 years ago Peter Mandelson was lobbying the Government very hard to take on board a strategic supplier from the United States that was not an obvious choice at the time. That sort of decision is something that a financier like Epstein would have taken advantage of and made money from. We see the same things with influence and persuasion from Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. Will the Government commit to following the money and the money trail to ensure that we are not continuing to pay into Epstein’s estate through the deals that we are doing with large American contractors such as Palantir?
Darren Jones
I am not familiar with the details of the case the hon. Gentleman raises, but if he wishes to write to me with those details, I can commit to him that we will look at them.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
The Minister has said that he wants to be open with us. I tabled a series of parliamentary questions about when Peter Mandelson ceased employment at the Foreign Office and I never got a response. They were first tabled on 4 February. There was a flurry of emails on 4 February without any context to them at all. Will he provide the context? Is it a coincidence? Why could the Minister not answer my question previously? And if he does want to be open, then let us try another one. He said that Peter Mandelson was fired because he told lies, but he has been given a £75,000 pay-off: £35,000 of that was a special severance payment; £30,000 was tax-free. Why on earth was it tax-free?
Darren Jones
In relation to the tax-free treatment for payments following dismissal without recourse to the employment tribunal, those are the tax rules that exist in all circumstances in this country. The Government did not have the legal powers to override them. On the parliamentary questions, I think the documents the hon. Gentleman is hoping to see are being published today and they of course speak for themselves.
Points of Order
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Cabinet Office questions on 5 March, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister informed me that the appointment of the new director general of the propriety and ethics team was made on an interim basis and in line with the rules. However, I have now received a copy of the civil service recruitment framework, which states that a temporary promotion, managed move or the appointment of a single applicant within the senior civil service, must require ministerial authorisation either from the Prime Minister or the relevant Minister before an appointment can be made without an external competition. Given the importance of the transparency and confidence in this Government’s propriety and ethics system, can you please advise the House how Members can seek clarification when there appears to be a discrepancy between a Minister’s statement to the House and the provisions set out in the civil service recruitment framework 2022?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. He will know that, as Chair, I am not responsible for the answers given by Ministers—
Darren Jones
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not recognise the discrepancy. As I have said to the House previously, there was a temporary appointment to the role in question within the rules. Permanent appointments to that role will be subject to the normal recruitment processes, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me with more detail, I will happily respond to him in writing.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I hope that satisfies the hon. Member, otherwise he can obviously pursue this further.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Has the Speaker received any notice of a statement from the Government following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) to the Prime Minister this morning regarding the contents of a memo from the Prime Minister to Cabinet members advising them to disregard opposition from devolved Governments to direct interventions by Westminster Ministers. Can you advise me how the long-standing Sewel convention, which enshrines the protocol that Westminster Governments do not intervene in devolved matters in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, has been respected in this matter, and can you direct me to which bin this has been filed by the Government?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. I have received no such indication from the Government—
Madam Deputy Speaker
But I can see that the Chief Secretary wishes to respond in person once again.
Darren Jones
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The issues raised in the Cabinet note that has, I understand, been leaked to journalists are important and the Government take them seriously. The Sewel convention is an important framework for the role in which the UK Government respect the devolved responsibilities of devolved Governments, one for which I am the responsible Minister, which is why I have repeated engagement with the First and Deputy First Ministers of the devolved Governments about our relationship working together. I just remind the House that devolved Governments are important but in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland there are two Governments—the UK Government and the devolved Government—and that is why we retain the right to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland as well as in England.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. First, I apologise that I have not been able to give you notice of this, but it is in reference to the earlier response and to the documents. I tabled a written parliamentary question about when Peter Mandelson left his employment on 4 February. The emails on 4 February show that officials knew the answer to that question on 16 October. Not only was it late coming back, and I had to table a second question, but no answer was forthcoming. We have a role and a job to hold this Government to account. They knew the answer to the question and they did not answer that question, and I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will take that extraordinarily seriously.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Although I did not get prior notice of the hon. Member’s question, I can appreciate how anxious he would be. It is incredibly important that Members, who are sent here by their constituents, have their questions answered quickly—
Madam Deputy Speaker
The Chief Secretary wishes to respond in person; that is very fast indeed.
Darren Jones
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can only apologise to Members of the House if answers to parliamentary questions have not been quick enough to meet their expectations. I just remind Members and the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) that all the documents that have been published today have had to be subject to checks with the Metropolitan police and the Intelligence and Security Committee so as not to prejudice criminal investigations, which, as I am sure he and all Members across the House will agree, we do not want to interfere with inappropriately.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am sure if responses to Members were forthcoming, the Chief Secretary might not have to respond at the Dispatch Box to points of order.
Lord Advocate
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the role and functions of the Lord Advocate; and for connected purposes.
Chaos and decay are priced into the lives of people in Scotland as they suffer under the yoke of the Scottish National party Administration at Holyrood. However, the latest crisis there strikes at the integrity of Scots law, and so demands action this day—and not mere indifference.
The Lord Advocate is the most senior law officer in Scotland, in ultimate charge of all criminal proceedings, sitting at the pinnacle of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. That same Lord Advocate also sits in Cabinet as a pivotal adviser to the Scottish Executive, who style themselves the Scottish Government. Just saying it out loud is alarming: the head of criminal prosecutions sits cheek-by-jowl with the politicians who are supposed to run Scotland—she sits at the Cabinet table with the very people who appointed her. Although it is a situation created by the advent of devolution, this cannot be right, for there ought not to be even the merest suggestion of a conflict of interests. It is not the stuff of a 21st-century democracy, let alone the country of the enlightenment.
“Ah,” say apologists, “the Lord Advocate simply recuses herself in certain cases and is merely the titular head of some prosecutions.” This is meant to be high-minded—an elegant solution concocted by the legal hierarchy in the salons of Edinburgh—but it is cloyingly cosy and has for years been the subject of disquiet. Now this comfortable nostrum has been shattered by recent revelations made possible only by a vigorous free press. Newspapers broke the news that the present Lord Advocate, Dorothy Bain KC, provided briefings to First Minister John Swinney about a court case involving Peter Murrell, former chief executive of the SNP and, further, the estranged husband of ex-First Minister Nicola Sturgeon. It was reported that the details and timelines for the case, none of which was public knowledge, were presented to Mr Swinney. The court case will reportedly not now come to trial before next year, conveniently after Holyrood’s elections this May.
Of course, given that proceedings are active, I must be extremely circumspect about that case. Regardless, we in this place must concern ourselves with the dual role of the Lord Advocate: the twin hats of prosecutor and Government adviser on one learned head. The dual role is enshrined in the Scotland Act 1998, and so this Bill is designed to allow for the separation of roles such that the head of Scotland’s prosecution service is, in future, entirely separate from that of Government adviser. That situation is best practice in modern democracies and pertains here in England where the head of the Crown Prosecution Service sits entirely apart from the Cabinet and Government.
We often discuss contentious matters in this House, but this is an issue on which there is surprising unanimity. Almost exactly a year ago, the Prime Minister agreed with me when I raised the Lord Advocate’s two jobs that it was an important matter and indicated that Scottish Labour supported splitting the roles. At the Conservative and Unionist conference in Edinburgh last month, the Leader of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition joined Scottish party leader Russell Findlay in calling for robust action in this House. Even the SNP committed in its manifesto to looking at the dual role disaster. Yet under the divisive hand of John Swinney, Scotland is a land where the inevitable never happens and the improbable always does.
Mr Swinney has belatedly published a report into the mechanics of separating the Lord Advocate from the Cabinet so that Scotland can have a conspicuously independent prosecutor and the Scottish Administration can still have sound legal advice. Yet there is no indication of any move actually to separate the roles and, indeed, the Scottish Executive yesterday put out a statement lauding the “strengths” of the current arrangement. The public are entitled to question those supposed strengths and whether they are trumped by the perception of a conflict of interest when the role of legal adviser to the Scottish Government is concentrated in one person who is also chief prosecutor.
Politicians legislate; lawyers enact the laws. When prosecutors are, or are even perceived to be, too close to politicians, like moths drawn too close to the flame of power, the public may rightly fear that the law is compromised, and so we must act. Some will claim that this is overweening Westminster bullying pawky Holyrood—not so. Holyrood itself could drain this quagmire now by seeking a section 30 order to vary the Scotland Act, clearing the way for separation of the Law Officers’ roles. That would be internal to the Edinburgh Parliament—a move to restore public faith in the law by its own elected Members. Albeit belated and tardy, such a move would, I contend, be welcomed as an attempt to lift the cloud that hangs over Scots law. Will Mr Swinney at this eleventh hour—and against the run of play, for he has been at the heart of every wrong-headed decision by the SNP for almost two decades—do the correct thing? That is unlikely, and so on behalf of the right-thinking public in Scotland, I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That John Cooper, John Lamont, David Mundell, Harriet Cross, Andrew Bowie, David Davis, Jamie Stone, Christine Jardine, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, Elaine Stewart, Torcuil Crichton and John Grady present the Bill.
John Cooper accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 April, and to be printed (Bill 403).
Finance (No. 2) Bill: Ways and Means (Amendment of Power to Make Further Provision Relating to Abolition of Lifetime Allowance Charge)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I draw the House’s attention to the unusual circumstances of moving a Ways and Means motion after the Finance Bill. During the course of the Budget, we had a discussion on the founding motions that had been laid at that point. They did not include an amendment of the law motion, which historically was sensible practice and which Labour previously complained about the Conservatives removing—the Conservative Chancellor at the time said it was simply an administrative change. In fact, removing the amendment of the law motion means that the Government have now to table new founding motions, otherwise they cannot make the tax changes they are looking to make. It also means that no Member in this House can move anything that is outside the scope of those motions. It restricts debate by any Member of taxation measures that they would like to introduce if they sit outside those founding motions.
Progress has been made on the Bill. Committee proceedings were held in the House initially and moved into the Bill Committee. I have previously raised significant concerns about the fact that the Finance Bill does not take oral evidence at any stage in its passage through the House. It does not take oral evidence in the Commons because it has already had part of the Committee stage in the main Chamber, despite the fact that the stuff we do in Bill Committee is usually on the more technical pieces, which would very much benefit from oral evidence sessions, and that it would not hold up progress on the Bill much. In fact, we have had a significant amount of downtime with this Finance Bill, and there have been periods of time when those oral evidence sessions could have been taken. We end up in a situation where scrutiny happens, we look at all the things included in the Bill, we come to Report after line-by-line scrutiny, and then the Government add new founding motions in order to add new parts to the Bill.
I have significant concerns about the reasons scrutiny is being conducted in this way. Will the Government commit either to ensuring that they do not do this again, because it is not a good way to ensure transparency and scrutiny of legislation, or to including an amendment of the law motion, as historically was normal practice? That would allow the Government to make the changes they need to make today without having to table new Ways and Means motions.
If the Minister is concerned about that course of action, he might want to note that 45 minutes have been scheduled for each of these Ways and Means motions, and in future iterations of the Finance Bill it would be entirely possible for Members to talk for 45 minutes on them. Adding new Ways and Means motions gives Members additional time to talk about those specific things, which would reduce scrutiny on the important things that the Minister, I am sure, wishes to talk about when we come to the main part of the Finance Bill. If the Minister could commit to having a look at the way that this was done to try to ensure that we are not again in the situation where Ways and Means motions are added at the very last stage of a Bill’s progress, or, as I say, to including that amendment of the law motion, which would allow them the necessary flexibility, that would be helpful and would certainly dissuade me from talking for 45 minutes on a Ways and Means motion in the next iteration of the Finance Bill.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for her remarks, as well as for her scrutiny of this process, which I appreciate no matter where it comes from.
The hon. Member is right to flag that this is not the typical process. For future Finance Bills, I will—if I am in my position—endeavour to ensure that Ways and Means motions are not brought at this late stage. She is also right to point out that this debate—although I do not believe that there are any other bobbers—and any debate on the subsequent motion could go on for 45 minutes, and that discussions may ensue. I would be happy to consider the process.
This technical amendment allows for the introduction of regulations required as part of the abolition of the lifetime allowance, in order to have a retrospective effect going back to the point when the lifetime allowance was originally abolished. That ensures that the changes we are making operate as intended. It is a small and technical measure, but I take the hon. Member’s point that it adds a new part to the Bill and means that a new resolution has been brought forward. I hope that—notwithstanding the valid points raised by the hon. Member—Members will understand that position, and I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Finance (No.2) Bill: Ways and Means (Offshore income gains)
Motion made, and Question proposed (Standing Order No. 52(1)(b)),
That provision (including provision having effect for the tax year 2025-26) may be made revoking—
(a) paragraphs (2) to (5) of regulation 20 of the Offshore Funds (Tax) Regulations 2009, and
(b) paragraphs (4) to (6) of regulation 21 of those Regulations.—(Dan Tomlinson.)
Question agreed to.
Finance (No. 2) Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:53 - The House divided: - Ayes: 174 / Noes: 292 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:07 - The House divided: - Ayes: 172 / Noes: 283 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:18 - The House divided: - Ayes: 175 / Noes: 292 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:38 - divided: - Ayes: 292 / Noes: 161 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 6—Offshore income gains: savings.
Government new clause 7—Pensions: abolition of the lifetime allowance charge.
New clause 1—Report on fairness and scope of the loan charge settlement opportunity—
“(1) HM Revenue and Customs must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before the House of Commons a report on the operation and impact of any loan charge settlement opportunity established under section 25 of this Act.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must in particular consider—
(a) whether the terms of the settlement opportunity are available to individuals who have previously settled or fully paid liabilities arising from disguised remuneration loan arrangements,
(b) whether the terms of the settlement opportunity are available to individuals with disguised remuneration loan arrangements falling outside the loan charge years specified in Part 7A of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003,
(c) the extent to which any differences in treatment between these groups and those eligible for the settlement opportunity affect perceptions of fairness, and
(d) the potential impact of such perceptions on future tax compliance and trust in the tax system.
(3) The report must include—
(a) an assessment of whether extending more favourable settlement terms to the groups described in subsection (2)(a) and (b) would improve fairness and consistency, and
(b) any recommendations HMRC consider appropriate in light of that assessment.”
This new clause would require HMRC to report on the operation and fairness of the new loan charge settlement opportunity. It would consider whether more favourable terms are, or should be, available to those who have a already settled or fully paid liabilities, and to those with arrangements outside the loan charge years.
New clause 2—Report on implementation customer service standards in relation to sections 253 to 258—
“(1) The Commissioners must, within six months of the commencement of sections 253 to 258, lay before the House of Commons a report setting out—
(a) customer service standards for persons granted exemptions under regulations made under paragraph 14 or 15 of Schedule A1 to the Taxes Management Act 1970, including—
(i) maximum waiting times for telephone helpline calls,
(ii) minimum call answering rates,
(iii) maximum response times for written correspondence, and
(iv) availability of in-person support;
(b) measures taken to ensure adequate staffing and resources to meet those standards;
(c) data on actual performance against those standards in each quarter; and
(d) remedial action to be taken where standards are not met.
(2) The customer service standards published under subsection (1) must ensure that persons granted exemptions under regulations made under paragraph 14 or 15 of Schedule A1 to the Taxes Management Act 1970 can access support through non-digital channels with service levels comparable to those historically provided before the introduction of Making Tax Digital.
(3) The Commissioners must publish an annual report on compliance with the customer service standards established under subsection (1), and lay a copy of the report before the House of Commons.”
This new clause would require HMRC to establish and publish customer service standards for tax payers exempted from Making Tax Digital requirements due to digital exclusion.
New clause 3—Report on winter fuel payment charge and related compliance and collection measures—
“(1) The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs must lay before the House of Commons a report on the operation and effects of the charge applied to winter fuel payments where an individual’s income exceeds the relevant threshold, including the compliance and collection arrangements introduced under section 55 and Schedule 10 in relation to that charge.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must in particular consider—
(a) the effect of the charge on people whose income exceeds the threshold by a small amount, and any resulting behavioural impacts,
(b) the administrative complexity and proportionality of introducing a tapered abatement for winter fuel payments,
(c) the potential effect of updating section 7 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 so that a winter fuel payment charge becomes a notifiable liability for tax assessment purposes, including the operation of penalties for failure to notify, and the interaction with existing exceptions for liabilities reflected in PAYE tax coding adjustments or where a taxpayer has already been issued a notice to file a self-assessment return, and
(d) the operation and effectiveness of any new PAYE regulation provisions that allow winter fuel payment charges to be collected via tax code adjustments in year, and which allow HMRC to repay any overpaid income tax related to the charge via the tax code within the same year.”
This new clause would require HMRC to report to Parliament on the operation of the winter fuel payment charge, including its effect on people whose income exceeds the threshold by a small amount. The report would also cover the implications of updating section 7 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 to make winter fuel payment charge liabilities notifiable for tax assessment purposes.
New clause 4—Implementing the prohibition of the promotion of certain tax avoidance arrangements—
“(1) The Treasury must, within six months of the passing of this Act, consult and report on—
(a) how to ensure the regulations specified under section 156(2) of this Act can address the potential for harm to individuals and small businesses from the promotion online and via social media of tax avoidance arrangements by professionals and by social media tax influencers,
(b) the potential for detriment to individuals who are liable for tax arising from such promotions, and
(c) what steps HMRC should take to inform the public of the risks posed by online tax avoidance arrangements.
(2) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before Parliament a report on the outcome of the consultation under subsection (1), including the steps they plan to take to address any issues identified.
(3) In this section, “tax influencer” means an individual who—
(a) is not a tax professional,
(b) promotes, markets or otherwise encourages participation in a tax avoidance arrangement, and
(c) does so by means of a social media service, where that promotion is carried out—
(i) in the course of a business or trade, or
(ii) in consideration of, or in expectation of, any payment or other benefit, whether from a promoter of the arrangement or from the social media service, or
(iii) with the intention of increasing engagement with, or the monetisation of, content relating to the arrangement.”
New clause 8—Impact of section 84 (General betting duty charge on remote bets)—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, before 1 April 2027, lay before the House of Commons an impact assessment on the potential effects of the implementation of section 84 of this Act on the size of the illegal betting market.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to undertake an impact assessment on the potential effects of implementation of section 84 on the illegal betting market.
New clause 9—Impact of changes to gambling duties on the economy of Gibraltar—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, before 1 April 2027, lay before the House of Commons an impact assessment on the potential effects of the implementation of sections 83 and 84 of this Act on the economy of Gibraltar.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to undertake an impact assessment on the potential effects of implementation of sections 83 and 84 on the economy of Gibraltar.
New clause 10—Review of operation of the carbon border adjustment mechanism—
“(1) The Treasury must, each calendar year for five years following the passing of this Act, undertake a review of the operation of—
(a) Part 5, and
(b) Schedules 16 to 19.
(2) A review undertaken under subsection (1) must be conducted in accordance with sections 28 to 32 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015.
(3) A review undertaken under subsection (1) must be completed as soon as reasonably practicable after the calendar year to which it relates.
(4) The Treasury must lay before Parliament a copy of each review carried out under this section as soon as reasonably practicable following the completion of the review.”
This new clause would place a duty on the Chancellor to conduct a post-implementation review of the operation of the carbon border adjustment mechanism one year after the implementation of the UK CBAM and every subsequent year.
New clause 11—Uprating of allowance amounts for agricultural property—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, undertake and publish an assessment of the potential merits of uprating annually the relief allowance amount for agricultural property by the change in the value of agricultural land.”
New clause 12—Review of anti-forestalling provisions relating to Agricultural Property Relief—
“(1) The Treasury must conduct a review of the effects of the anti-forestalling provisions relating to Agricultural Property Relief.
(2) The review must, in particular, consider the effects of those provisions on—
(a) succession planning and intergenerational transfer of agricultural land and businesses,
(b) the viability and continuity of family-run farms,
(c) food security and domestic agricultural production,
(d) land management, environmental stewardship, and the condition of the countryside, and
(e) the availability of agricultural land for active farming.
(3) In conducting the review, the Treasury must consult such persons as it considers appropriate, including representatives of the agricultural sector.
(4) The Treasury must lay before the House of Commons a copy of the report within 12 months of the coming into force of the anti-forestalling provisions under this Act.”
New clause 13—Review of impact of Act on complexity of the tax system and administrative burdens—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report setting out the impact of the measures contained within this Act on the complexity of the tax system and the costs of tax administration.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must identify the measures in this Act which—
(a) add to the complexity of the tax system;
(b) reduce the complexity of the tax system;
(c) increase the number of individuals, businesses or other organisations liable for tax or for tax reporting;
(d) reduce the number of individuals, businesses or other organisations liable for tax or for tax reporting;
(e) increase the resources required for HM Revenue and Customs to administer the tax system and ensure compliance; and
(f) reduce the resources required for HM Revenue and Customs to administer the tax system and ensure compliance.
(3) The report must include an assessment of the impact of this Act on the complexity of the tax system, and on the time and cost of tax administration and compliance, for each of the following groups—
(a) pensioners;
(b) taxpayers on low incomes;
(c) personal taxpayers as a whole;
(d) self-employed people;
(e) microbusinesses;
(f) small and medium-sized businesses;
(g) large businesses;
(h) personal representatives who administer a person’s estate after their death;
(i) professional tax advisers; and
(j) HM Revenue and Customs.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor to conduct an assessment of the impact of the Act on the complexity of the tax system and on the time and cost of tax administration for taxpayers and their representatives, and for HMRC.
New clause 14—Review of impact on unemployment and youth employment—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report reviewing the impact of the provisions of this Act on levels of unemployment in the UK.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must, in particular, assess—
(a) the impact of the provisions of this Act on overall unemployment levels;
(b) the impact on employment levels for persons aged 16 to 24;
(c) the impact on rates of economic inactivity among young people;
(d) the effect on youth participation in apprenticeships, training, and entry-level employment;
(e) regional variations in youth unemployment arising from the provisions of this Act; and
(f) the impact on sectors with high levels of youth employment, including hospitality, retail, and the creative industries.
(3) The report must include an assessment of—
(a) the extent to which changes made by this Act have affected hiring decisions by small and medium-sized enterprises;
(b) any disproportionate impact on disadvantaged young people, including those from low-income households or with disabilities; and
(c) projected impacts over a three-year period following the passing of this Act.
(4) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, following publication of the report under subsection (1), make a statement setting out what steps, if any, the Government proposes to take in response to its findings.”
This new clause requires the Chancellor to review and report on the impact of the Act on unemployment, with particular regard to young people aged 16 to 24.
New clause 15—Notification of taxpayers affected by frozen thresholds—
“(1) HM Revenue and Customs must take reasonable steps to identify individuals who, as a result of—
(a) the freezing of the starting rate limit for savings under section 9 of this Act, or
(b) the freezing of the personal allowance or the basic rate limit under section 10 of this Act, will—
(i) become liable to income tax for the first time, or
(ii) become liable to income tax at a higher rate than in the previous tax year.
(2) HM Revenue and Customs must ensure that each individual identified under subsection (1) is provided with a written notification before the start of the relevant tax year.
(3) A notification under subsection (2) must—
(a) explain that the individual’s tax liability is affected by the freezing of income tax thresholds,
(b) state whether the individual will pay income tax for the first time or move into a higher tax band, and
(c) provide information on where the individual can obtain further guidance about their tax position.
(4) HM Revenue and Customs must publish, no later than six months after the end of each affected tax year, a report setting out—
(a) the number of individuals notified under this section,
(b) the number of individuals who became income taxpayers for the first time as a result of sections 9 and 10, and
(c) the number of individuals who moved into a higher tax band as a result of those sections.
(5) In this section “written notification” includes electronic communication.”
This new clause would require HM Revenue and Customs to notify individuals who, as a result of the freezing of income tax thresholds in the Act, will pay income tax for the first time or move into a higher tax band.
New clause 16—Review of the impact of tax changes on household finances—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, publish an assessment of the impact of changes introduced by sections 9,10 and 69 on household finances.
(2) The assessment must evaluate how households across different income levels are affected by these changes.”
This new clause requires the Chancellor of the Exchequer to assess and publish a report on how the freezing of tax thresholds to 2030-31 impacts households at various income levels.
New clause 17—Report on impact of sections 9, 10 and 69—
“Within three months of this Act being passed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons a report setting out—
(a) the number of taxpayers who will pay income tax at each rate during each tax year between 2026-27 and 2030-31 under sections 9, 10 and 69,
(b) the number of those taxpayers who are pensioners or are of State Pension Age,
(c) comparative figures for each tax year since 2020-21,
(d) comparative projected figures for each tax year to 2034-35, and
(e) comparative figures with a scenario under which normal uprating policy had been implemented for financial years 2020-21 through 2030-31.”
This new clause requires the Chancellor of the Exchequer to assess how many people will be in each income tax bracket from 2026-27 through to 2030-31, together with comparative figures before and after that period.
New clause 18—Review of the effect of sections 63 to 68—
“(1) HM Treasury must carry out a review of the effect of sections 63 to 68 of this Act (Pension interests).
(2) The review under subsection (1) must include an assessment of—
(a) the impact of those sections on individuals’ pension savings and beneficiaries, including on estate values and inheritance tax liabilities,
(b) the administrative effects on personal representatives, pension scheme administrators, and HM Revenue and Customs, and
(c) any behavioural effects on how pensions are used during life and on death.
(3) HM Treasury must lay before the House of Commons a report setting out the findings of the review under subsection (1) no later than six months after the date on which sections 63 to 68 come into force.”
This new clause would require HM Treasury to review and report on the effects of Clauses 63 to 68 of the Bill, which introduce inheritance tax charges on unused pension funds and death benefits, including their impacts on individuals, administrators, and behaviour, and to publish the findings to Parliament.
New clause 19—Administration of inherited pension pots—
“(1) HM Revenue and Customs must review the tax administration arrangements relating to inherited pension pots.
(2) The purpose of the review under subsection (1) is to ensure that—
(a) inheritance tax and related tax checks do not cause unreasonable delays in the payment of pension death benefits to beneficiaries, and
(b) bereaved families are able to receive pension benefits within a reasonable period following a member’s death.
(3) In carrying out the review, HM Revenue and Customs must have regard to—
(a) the cumulative administrative burden placed on personal representatives, pension scheme administrators, and beneficiaries,
(b) the interaction between inheritance tax reporting, clearance processes, and pension scheme payment rules, and
(c) any evidence of prolonged delays in the payment of inherited pension benefits.
(4) HM Revenue and Customs must publish the outcome of the review, including any proposed changes to its processes or guidance, within 12 months of the passing of this Act.”
This new clause would require the Government to address delays in the payment of inherited pension pots by reviewing HMRC’s tax administration processes, with the aim of preventing prolonged waiting periods for bereaved families.
New clause 20—Review of cumulative impact on the hospitality sector—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before the House of Commons a report assessing the cumulative impact on the hospitality sector of—
(a) the measures contained in section 86 of this Act, and
(b) changes to taxation and business costs affecting that sector introduced outside this Act since 2020.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b), changes to taxation and business costs include, but are not limited to—
(a) changes to employer National Insurance contribution rates or thresholds,
(b) changes to business rates, including reliefs and revaluations, and
(c) any other fiscal measures which materially affect operating costs for hospitality businesses.
(3) A report under subsection (1) must include an assessment of the impact of the matters listed in that subsection on—
(a) levels of employment across the United Kingdom within the hospitality sector,
(b) the number of hospitality businesses ceasing to trade,
(c) the number of new hospitality businesses established, and
(d) the financial sustainability of hospitality businesses.
(4) In this section, “the hospitality sector” means persons or businesses operating in the provision of food, drink, accommodation, or related services.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to assess and report on the cumulative impact on the hospitality sector of alcohol duty measures in the Act alongside wider fiscal changes, including employer National Insurance contributions and business rates.
Amendment 1, page 2, line 7, leave out clause 4.
This amendment removes the increase in dividend rates from the Bill.
Amendment 2, page 2, line 16, leave out clause 5.
This amendment removes the new savings rates of income tax from the Bill.
Amendment 3, page 2, line 21, leave out clause 6.
This amendment removes the new rates of income tax on property income from the Bill.
Amendment 4, page 4, line 31, leave out clause 7.
This amendment removes the property rates of income tax for 2027-28 from the Bill.
Amendment 5, page 5, line 20, leave out clause 10.
This amendment removes the freeze in income tax thresholds from the Bill.
Amendment 112, in clause 13, page 6, line 13, leave out from “means—” to “fifteenth” on line 16.
Amendment 113, page 6, line 20, leave out from “(1)” to end of line 23 and insert
“for “£3 million” substitute “£6 million””.
Amendment 114, page 6, line 27, leave out subsection (3)(d).
Amendment 115, page 7, line 1, leave out from “(1)” to end of line 4 and insert
“for “£30 million” substitute “£120 million””.
Amendment 116, page 7, line 5, leave out from “(2)” to end of line 13 and insert
“for “£30 million” substitute “£120 million””.
Amendment 117, page 7, line 10, leave out from “(1)” to end of line 13 and insert “for “250” substitute “500””.
Amendment 118, page 7, line 14, leave out from “(2)” to end of line 15 and insert “for “250” substitute “500””.
Amendment 119, page 7, line 25, leave out from “15 years” to end of line 27.
Amendment 120, page 7, line 28, leave out subsection (7).
Amendment 121, page 8, line 28, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
Amendment 122, in clause 14, page 8, line 36, leave out from “(5A))” to “, and” in line 38 and insert “, £20 million”.
Amendment 123, page 8, line 40, leave out from “company” to end of line 1 on page 9, and insert “, £10 million.”
Amendment 124, page 9, line 5, leave out from “section 252A)” to “, and” in line 7, and insert “, £40 million”.
Amendment 125, page 9, line 10, leave out from “company” to end of line 11 and insert “, £24 million.”
Amendment 126, page 9, line 15, leave out from “section 252A)” to “, and” in line 17 and insert “, £40 million”.
Amendment 127, page 9, line 19, leave out from “company” to end of line 21 and insert “, £24 million.”
Amendment 128, page 9, line 24, leave out sub-paragraph (b).
Amendment 129, page 9, line 38, leave out “that is not a specified Northern Ireland company”.
Amendment 130, page 10, line 4, leave out “that is not a specified Northern Ireland company”.
Amendment 131, page 10, line 10, leave out leave out subsections (6) and (7) and insert—
“(6) In section 186 (the gross assets requirement)—
(a) in subsection (1)(a) for “£15 million” substitute “£30 million”
(b) in subsection (1)(b) for “£16 million” substitute “£35 million”
(c) in subsection (2)(a) for “£15 million” substitute “£30 million”
(d) in subsection (2)(b) for “£16 million” substitute “£35 million””
Amendment 132, in clause 15, page 10, line 30, leave out from “(6A))” to “, and” in line 32 and insert “, £20 million”.
Amendment 133, page 10, line 34, leave out from “company” to end of line 36 and insert “, £10 million.”
Amendment 134, page 11, line 4, leave out from “section 331A)” to “, and” in line 6 and insert “, £40 million”.
Amendment 135, page 11, line 8, leave out from “company” to end of line 10 and insert “, £24 million.”
Amendment 136, page 11, line 14, leave out from “section 331A)” to “, and” in line 16 and insert “, £40 million;”.
Amendment 137, page 11, line 18, leave out from “company” to end of line 20 and insert “, £24 million.”
Amendment 138, page 11, line 23, leave out subsection (6)(b).
Amendment 139, page 11, line 34, leave out leave out subsections (7) and (8) and insert—
“(6) In section 297 (the gross assets requirement)—
(a) in subsection (1)(a) for “£15 million” substitute “£30 million”
(b) in subsection (1)(b) for “£16 million” substitute “£35 million”
(c) in subsection (2)(a) for “£15 million” substitute “£30 million”
(d) in subsection (2)(b) for “£16 million” substitute “£35 million””.
Government amendments 12 to 14.
Amendment 6, page 78, line 4, leave out clause 62.
This amendment removes the changes to the thresholds for Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief from the Bill.
Amendment 7, page 78, line 11, leave out clause 63.
This amendment removes the imposition of inheritance tax on pension interest.
Government amendments 15 to 47.
Amendment 9, in clause 74, page 91, line 25, at end insert—
“(7) The Treasury must make regulations under subsection (1) within 60 days of the passing of this Act.
(8) Before making regulations under subsection (1), the Treasury must consult—
(a) organisations representing infected and affected individuals,
(b) the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, and
(c) bereaved families of victims who have died awaiting compensation.
(9) The regulations made under subsection (1) must make provision for identifying and assisting the estates of deceased victims in claiming inheritance tax relief, including—
(a) outreach to known affected families,
(b) assistance with evidence gathering where medical records have been destroyed,
(c) clear and accessible guidance in plain language, and
(d) a dedicated helpline staffed by trained caseworkers familiar with the infected blood scandal.
(10) The Treasury must, within 6 months of regulations under this section coming into force, and every 6 months thereafter, lay before Parliament a report on—
(a) the number of victims who have died since the previous report while awaiting compensation,
(b) the number of estates that have received inheritance tax relief,
(c) the average time taken to process claims for relief,
(d) any identified barriers preventing families from accessing their entitlement, and
(e) steps taken to expedite outstanding infected blood compensation claims.”
This amendment requires the Chancellor of Exchequer to make regulations under this section within 60 days of Royal Assent. It requires mandatory consultation with those directly affected, and a support service to help bereaved families navigate the system. It also places a six-monthly reporting requirement on the Government.
Amendment 10, page 94, line 4, leave out clause 77.
This amendment would maintain the existing zero-rating for the purposes of VAT on the full value of the lease of a vehicle to a disabled person supplied through the Motability Scheme.
Amendment 11, page 96, line 6, leave out clause 78.
This amendment would maintain insurance premium tax relief for all vehicles let to a disabled person and supplied through the Motability Scheme.
Amendment 101, page 103, line 29, leave out clause 86.
Government amendments 48 to 53.
Government amendments 56 to 61.
Amendment 8, page 442, line 2, leave out schedule 12.
This amendment would remove the changes to Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief from the Bill.
Amendment 109, in schedule 12, page 442, line 20, leave out from “and” to end of line 23 and insert—
“(c) either—
(i) is attributable to property that has been owned by the transferor for at least 10 years as part of a business that is actively operated by the transferor or a member of their family, or
(ii) if the value does not fall within (i), does not exceed the amount of the 100% relief allowance available in relation to that chargeable transfer (see section 124D),”.
This amendment would maintain 100% business relief where the property has been owned by the transferor for at least 10 years as part of a business that is actively operated by the transferor or a member of their family.
Amendment 110, page 442, line 29, leave out from “and” to end of line 32 and insert—
“(c) either—
(i) is attributable to property that has been owned by the transferor for at least 10 years as part of a business that is actively operated by the transferor or a member of their family, or
(ii) if the value does not fall within (i), does not exceed the amount of the 100% trust relief allowance available in relation to that occasion (see sections 124G to 124K),”.
This amendment would maintain 100% business relief where the property has been owned by the transferor for at least 10 years as part of a business that is actively operated by the transferor or a member of their family.
Amendment 111, page 443, line 9, leave out from “and” to end of line 12 and insert—
“(b) either—
(i) is attributable to property that has been owned by the transferor for at least 10 years as part of a business that is actively operated by the transferor or a member of their family, or
(ii) if the value does not fall within (i), does not exceed the amount of the 100% relief allowance available in relation to that chargeable transfer (see section 124D),”.
This amendment would apply 100% agricultural property trust relief where the property has been owned by the transferor for at least 10 years as part of a business that is actively operated by the transferor or a member of their family.
Amendment 89, page 444, line 16, after “£2.5 million” insert
“excluding the value of any joint interest in an agricultural or business tenancy that was made in a transaction at arm’s length between persons not connected with each other or that it was such as might be expected to be made in a transaction at arm’s length between persons not connected with each other.”
Amendment 102, page 444, line 16, after “£2.5 million” insert
“plus
(aa) the value of any agricultural property subject to a tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, or a tenancy with a fixed term of 10 years or more without unconditional break clauses available to the landlord under the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995,”.
This amendment, and Amendments 103 to 107, would allow landlords to access 100% relief from inheritance tax where they have let land or farms to tenant farmers on secure agreements under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 or on agreements under the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 for 10 years or more.
Amendment 90, page 449, line 36, after “£2.5 million” insert
“excluding the value of any joint interest in an agricultural or business tenancy that was made in a transaction at arm’s length between persons not connected with each other or that it was such as might be expected to be made in a transaction at arm’s length between persons not connected with each other.”
Amendment 103, page 449, line 36, after “£2.5 million” insert
“plus
(aa) the value of any agricultural property subject to a tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, or a tenancy with a fixed term of 10 years or more without unconditional break clauses available to the landlord under the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995,”.
See Amendment 102.
Amendment 91, page 450, line 25, after “£2.5 million” insert
“excluding the value of any joint interest in an agricultural or business tenancy that was made in a transaction at arm’s length between persons not connected with each other or that it was such as might be expected to be made in a transaction at arm’s length between persons not connected with each other.”
Amendment 104, page 450, line 25, after “£2.5 million” insert
“plus the value of any agricultural property subject to a tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, or a tenancy with a fixed term of 10 years or more without unconditional break clauses available to the landlord under the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995”.
See Amendment 102.
Amendment 67, page 450, line 27, leave out “30 October 2024” and insert “1 March 2027”.
This amendment, along with Amendments 68 to 87 would remove the transition period in respect of the changes to agricultural property and business property relief and delay the implementation date so that the changes would take effect for transfers made after 1 March 2027.
Amendment 95, page 450, line 27, leave out “30 October 2024” and insert “6 April 2026”.
This amendment, with Amendments 96 to 100, would remove the transition period in respect of the changes to agricultural property and business property relief so that the changes take effect for transfers made from 6 April 2026.
Amendment 68, page 451, line 6, leave out “30 October 2024” and insert “1 March 2027”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 96, page 451, line 6, leave out “30 October 2024” and insert “6 April 2026”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 95.
Amendment 92, page 451, line 22, after “£2.5 million” insert
“excluding the value of any joint interest in an agricultural or business tenancy that was made in a transaction at arm’s length between persons not connected with each other or that it was such as might be expected to be made in a transaction at arm’s length between persons not connected with each other.”
Amendment 105, page 451, line 22, after “£2.5 million” insert
“plus
(aa) the value of any agricultural property subject to a tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, or a tenancy with a fixed term of 10 years or more without unconditional break clauses available to the landlord under the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995,”.
See Amendment 102.
Amendment 93, page 453, line 15, after “£2.5 million” insert
“excluding the value of any joint interest in an agricultural or business tenancy that was made in a transaction at arm’s length between persons not connected with each other or that it was such as might be expected to be made in a transaction at arm’s length between persons not connected with each other.”
Amendment 106, page 453, line 15, after “£2.5 million” insert
“plus the value of any agricultural property subject to a tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, or a tenancy with a fixed term of 10 years or more without unconditional break clauses available to the landlord under the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995”.
See Amendment 102.
Amendment 94, page 453, line 17, after “£2.5 million” insert
“excluding the value of any joint interest in an agricultural or business tenancy that was made in a transaction at arm’s length between persons not connected with each other or that it was such as might be expected to be made in a transaction at arm’s length between persons not connected with each other.”
Amendment 107, page 453, line 17, after “£2.5 million” insert
“plus the value of any agricultural property subject to a tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, or a tenancy with a fixed term of 10 years or more without unconditional break clauses available to the landlord under the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995,”.
See Amendment 102.
Amendment 69, page 453, line 23, leave out “30 October 2024” and insert “1 March 2027”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 97, page 453, line 23, leave out “30 October 2024” and insert “6 April 2026”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 95.
Amendment 108, page 454, line 40, at end insert
“(But see subsection (2A).)
(2A) If the Treasury estimates that the value of agricultural land has increased by more than the percentage increase in the consumer prices index during the same period, then it must instead make an order by statutory instrument amending each relief allowance amount relating to agricultural property by the percentage increase in the value of agricultural land.”
Government amendments 54 and 55.
Government amendments 62 to 64.
Amendment 88, page 458, line 31, at end insert—
“(1A) In Section 227, leave out subsection (3)(a) and insert—
“(a) if the chargeable transfer was made on death and to the extent that it qualified for relief under Chapters I or II of part V of this Act, eighteen months after the end of the month in which the death occurred, or
(b) if the chargeable transfer was made on death and to the extent that it did not qualify for relief under Chapters I or II of part V of this Act, six months after the end of the month in which the death occurred, and””
This amendment would defer the period for the payment of inheritance tax on assets qualifying for payment by instalments by 12 additional months.
Amendment 70, page 460, line 8, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 71, page 460, line 9, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3).
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 98, page 460, line 9, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) to (4).
See explanatory statement for Amendment 95.
Government amendments 65 and 66.
Amendment 72, page 460, line 23, leave out “sub-paragraph (3) will not apply” and insert
“the transfer will prove to be an exempt transfer”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 73, page 460, line 27, leave out from “paragraph” to end of paragraph 17(5)(b) and insert
“comes into force on 1 March 2027”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 99, page 460, line 27, leave out from “paragraph” to end of paragraph 17(5)(b) and insert
“comes into force on 6 April 2026”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 95.
Amendment 74, page 460, line 34, leave out “30 October 2024” and insert “1 March 2027”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 100, page 460, line 34, leave out “30 October 2024” and insert “6 April 2026”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 95.
Amendment 75, page 460, line 37, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 76, page 460, line 39, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 77, page 460, line 41, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 78, page 461, line 2, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 79, page 461, line 9, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 80, page 461, line 14, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 81, page 461, line 22, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 82, page 461, line 26, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 83, page 461, line 37, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 84, page 461, line 42, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 85, page 463, line 19, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 86, page 463, line 26, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 87, page 463, line 32, leave out “6 April 2026” and insert “1 March 2027”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Dan Tomlinson
I am glad to return to the Commons to debate the Finance Bill on Report. Although I am sure that it would have been of interest to Members on both sides of the House, I am also glad that we have not just had a set of two 45-minute debates on the Ways and Means motions. The opportunity was there, but I am glad that Members did not take it in full. We now have ample time for this important Report stage.
I thank Members on both sides of the House for their contributions in Committee. I thank in particular the shadow Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), for his scrutiny and challenge, and for the invitation to his wonderful constituency, which I hope to take up one day. As yet, no other Opposition Front Bencher has offered me such an enticing prospect as a visit to their constituency, but I look forward to those invitations.
Before I turn to individual amendments, I wish to reflect briefly on the Budget that was delivered in November by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That Budget took fair and necessary decisions to deliver on the Government’s promise of change, to support cuts in the cost of living, to enable NHS waiting lists to continue falling, and to ensure that our national debt fell as a share of GDP and that borrowing falls over the course of this Parliament. As the Chancellor said in this place yesterday and on Monday, Government borrowing—public sector net borrowing—has fallen from 5.2% to 4.3% of GDP, which is a fall of 1 percentage point. That is very significant and means that our borrowing is coming down, as part of our plan to bring stability back to the public finances.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Does the Minister acknowledge that debt reduction is taking place only because the Government have increased taxes by £66 billion? That contrasts with the tax rise of £7 billion that the Labour party promised in its manifesto. Could he explain the huge discrepancy between that manifesto promise and what the Government are imposing on our constituents?
Dan Tomlinson
I ask the hon. Member to consider whether his party wishes to identify £66 billion of expenditure cuts or borrow £66 billion more. I do not think that either option is what the British public want; they want us to bring borrowing down and get public finances under control, after they were spun out of control by Liz Truss and the previous Government. The public understand the need for fair and responsible increases in taxation to ensure that we can invest in our public services and in the future of our country.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
On taxation, does the Minister agree that this Labour Government’s decisions have meant increased spending on the NHS? A number of my Harlow constituents are self-employed, and the really long waits in A&E and for hospital operations were having a huge impact on their businesses and on their household finances.
Dan Tomlinson
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I thank him for making his representations again and for his ability to mention Harlow in his interventions. It is a fantastic part of the country, not too far from my constituency in north London, and I know just how strongly he seeks to represent it and to make sure that the public services in his patch—the local hospitals and schools—get the investment they need. That is why he and I are able to proudly support this Government’s decisions to bring the public finances back into good order, as well as to invest in our public services and to get borrowing down.
Of course, though, since the Budget, and particularly in recent days, the world has changed. As the Chancellor set out last week in responding to the Office for Budget Responsibility’s spring forecast, it is more important than ever that the Government continue to deliver on our economic plan. The choices that we have made at previous Budgets will fix long-standing issues in the taxation system, restore economic and fiscal stability, and lay the economic foundations that we need for higher growth and higher living standards across our fantastic country.
The Bill legislates to deliver on those choices, all while sticking to our commitment not to raise the main rates of income tax, employee national insurance contributions or VAT. We are also providing stability for businesses by keeping to important commitments in our corporate tax road map to keep our corporation tax rate at 25%—the lowest in the G7—rather than having it chop and change up and down, like it did during previous Administrations.
I thank all those who have submitted written evidence throughout the Bill’s passage. Following concerns raised by professional bodies and concerns discussed in the Public Bill Committee, I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate my reassurances to the sector that measures that directly impact tax advisers are intended to create a fairer tax advice market. I have heard concerns that tax advisers might be penalised if they file a client’s tax return late when their client has not provided their approval for filing the return on time. I want to clarify that these powers are not designed to penalise responsible tax advisers who act in good faith, and in that specific scenario, a tax adviser would not be penalised under His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ stronger powers. The Government are committed to ensuring that the tax system works effectively for everyone, which is why we are introducing a number of amendments on Report to ensure that the tax system is working effectively and as intended.
I turn to the first group of Government amendments. New clause 5 removes specific provisions that could prevent offshore income gains from being designated under the temporary repatriation facility, or TRF, to ensure that they can be designated as intended. The amendments also simplify the existing treatment of offshore non-reporting funds held by offshore structures for all taxpayers. New clause 6 introduces transitional provisions for offshore income gains arising before 6 April 2025.
Following the abolition of the lifetime allowance, new clause 7, as we were just discussing, ensures that multiple different regimes do not apply, providing clarity for pension schemes and members. It ensures that any necessary regulations can have a retrospective effect back to 6 April 2024, clarifies the scope of the original power, extends the power by a further three months and ensures that regulations are subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure.
The Government are making a number of minor and technical amendments to help provide greater clarity and address important points that have been raised by stakeholders, particularly during the passage of the Bill. These amendments simply put the original legislative intent beyond doubt.
Amendments 12 and 13 ensure that clause 23 will apply only to general earnings for the tax year 2026-27 and subsequent tax years that are paid on or after 6 April 2026. Amendment 14 tightens the existing provisions under clause 24 to ensure that those rules do not catch legitimate agency structures.
Amendments 48 and 51 remove legislation that is not necessary under clause 43 and ensure that the TRF legislation works as intended, so that beneficiaries from overseas trusts are able to make designations in connection with offshore income gains.
Amendments 49, 50 and 52 are consequential amendments to schedule 3 and clause 43. They remove references to omitted legislation and insert wording to clarify reference to the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992.
Amendment 53 to clause 49 makes clear that a person concluding contracts on behalf of a non-resident company must be present in the UK when concluding those contracts in order to create a permanent establishment in the UK.
Amendments 56 to 61 to schedule 11 concern the rules preventing fund managers from circumventing the revised carried interest tax regime. These amendments ensure that the provision operates as intended, where two connected persons work in the same business, with each connected person only taxed on their own carried interest.
Sir Ashley Fox
It sounds as if the Minister is adding many, many extra pages to our tax code. What provisions will he be bringing forward to shorten and simplify the tax code?
Dan Tomlinson
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We need to do all that we can to ensure that we are simplifying our tax code in order to make it easier for tax advisers, individuals and businesses. I have also asked that question, but I am reassured by my officials—I am sure that the hon. Member could consult Hansard too—that this is a typical number of amendments to be made to a Finance Bill. This is a long Finance Bill, but there are a whole range of important changes that the Government wish to introduce and to make progress on. I am sure Members from all parties have enjoyed poring over the changes to the tax legislation. I do take his point about simplification, though; it is something that I wish to focus on. If hon. Members have good ideas in that space, they would genuinely be welcome to write to me.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
On the simplification of our tax system, I do not see in the Government amendments any changes to the loan charge system, as we proposed in Committee, meaning that people who have already settled their loan charge will be excluded from the changes being introduced. Does the Minister agree that one consequence of this might be that when something like this comes up in the future, people will not want to settle with the Government because they will think that a better deal will be coming up? Would it not be a simpler tax system to say that we could retrospectively apply some of these changes?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for his engagement in the Public Bill Committee. The loan charge is an important issue. I focused on it after receipt of Ray McCann’s independent review into the loan charge, which was commissioned by my predecessor. The scope of that review and the decisions made by the Government are such that only those who are directly affected by the loan charge will have the opportunity to take up the new settlement that was recommended by McCann, to which the Government have added a £5,000 further deduction. The Government’s position was that, because the loan charge was an exceptional decision made by the previous Government, it was right that the changes proposed by McCann would apply only to that group. There will be those who engaged in the use of disguised remuneration schemes from before 2010, and with them, as with all taxpayers, this Government are very clear that individuals do have a responsibility to pay their tax.
Amendments 54 and 55, and 62 to 66, are minor amendments to the definitions of business property qualifying for relief. They ensure that the replacement property provisions relating to reorganisation or amalgamation of unquoted shares reflect the new legislation, and that unquoted securities, such as loan notes, continue to qualify for relief only where they are part of a controlling interest in a company.
Amendments 15 to 47 to clauses 63 to 67 make a series of minor technical changes to ensure that the provisions on inheritance tax and pensions operate as intended. These ensure that excluded and exempt benefits are not subject to inheritance tax, nor to the new withholding and payment notices.
I am sure that Members from all parts of the House have enjoyed that run-through of those minor and technical amendments. I can provide them with the good news that that run-through has now concluded. I sincerely hope and expect that the proposed amendments will ensure that the legislation that was set out, and that has been discussed and scrutinised, works as intended, and that HMRC—the organisation that I am proud to be the Minister with responsibility for—has the powers to responsibly collect tax and revenue, which funds the vital public services on which our country relies.
I therefore commend new clauses 5, 6 and 7 and Government amendments 12 to 66 to the House, and I look forward to hon. Members’ contributions.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
We are grateful to the Minister for running through the plethora of Government amendments that are being added to this already stonkingly large Finance Bill. The sheer number of amendments is an admission that Ministers did not get this right the first time—or even the second time, in Committee, which we enjoyed.
Let me turn to amendments 1, 2 and 8 and 67 to 94, as well as new clause 10 in my name and the names of my hon. Friends. This Bill embodies Labour’s approach of ever-higher taxes, spending and borrowing, for which hard-working families and businesses are paying the price. The measures in the Budget and in this Bill add a further £26 billion-worth of tax rises, bringing the cumulative total from the Chancellor’s first two Budgets to £66 billion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) pointed out, that did not feature anywhere in the Government’s manifesto. Those further tax rises are despite the Chancellor promising not to come back for more.
Debt interest is forecast to hit £140 billion by 2030. Unemployment is set to increase to 1.9 million, and youth unemployment has risen to 16.1%. Meanwhile, welfare spending is set to hit £406 billion, and living standards are expected to slow towards the end of this Parliament. Last week, the Office for Budget Responsibility downgraded its growth forecast once again and warned that the Chancellor’s plan, far from working, could “constrain economic activity”. Instead of backing the risk takers and the wealth creators, this Bill delivers slower growth, higher borrowing and higher taxes.
Let me turn to the freeze in income tax thresholds set out in clause 10. The Chancellor said at the Dispatch Box that there would be no extension of the freeze on income tax thresholds, because it would “hurt working people” and
“take more money out of their payslips.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.]
That promise has been broken by the measures in the Bill that do exactly the opposite, putting in place a £23 billion-a-year tax rise and bringing nearly 1 million more people into paying higher-rate tax.
It is not just working people who will pay the price. During this period, the state pension is forecast to be higher than the personal allowance. In the spring forecast, the OBR warned that an additional 1 million pensioners will find themselves liable for income tax by 2030-31 because of the Chancellor’s freeze. In anyone’s book, that is a retirement tax.
The Government have promised to protect people who rely solely on the state pension, but where is the detail? There is nothing in this legislation to do that. The public out there will rightly be sceptical, given that the Chancellor has already broken the promise not to freeze this threshold. Amendment 5 offers the House a very simple choice to stand by working people and pensioners and end the freeze.
Let me turn to the Government’s damaging family farm and family business tax. I know that Labour Members are going around their constituencies saying that they got a great win from the Chancellor just before Christmas, but let us be honest: that win was purely a fig leaf. The Government could have actually corrected their mistake, but the partial reversal that the Chancellor was forced into falls short of what is needed. The Country Land and Business Association has said that it only limits the damage—yet another broken promise from a Prime Minister who pledged not to impose an inheritance tax on farms. That measure epitomises Labour’s apparent hostility towards family farms, tenant farmers and our rural communities. I have spoken to farmers, as I am sure other hon. Members have, who are desperate about this situation. That is why we continue to strongly oppose the family farm and family business tax, and amendment 6 would scrap them.
Our further amendments seek to mitigate the worst effects of those taxes. Amendments 67 to 87 would remove the transition period for changes to the reliefs, and would delay implementation until after March 2027, lifting the unfair anti-forestalling rules that have tied the hands of farmers and business owners. The Chartered Institute of Taxation—which provided a lot of support in Committee and at earlier stages of the Bill, for which I am grateful—has warned that the measures particularly affect older farmers, robbing them of the ability to plan properly.
Amendment 88 would defer the deadline for inheritance tax instalments by a further 12 months. This reflects the conclusion of the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee that the six-month deadline proposed for the first payment
“does not appear to be realistic”.
As we know, farming estates and family business are often asset-rich but cash-poor, which makes it difficult to raise the funds quickly. The National Farmers Union has warned that expecting probate to be granted within six months is
“completely unrealistic, especially given the complexity of valuing an agricultural business”.
Does the Minister recognise the strain that such unrealistic deadlines place on family farms and family businesses, and will he therefore accept our amendment and extend the payment deadline by 12 months? If he will not, will he explain to family farms and family businesses why not?
Amendments 89 to 94 would exclude from inheritance tax the value of any jointly held tenancy on the death of a joint tenant. This issue is causing concern across the sector, and has been raised by the Tenant Farmers Association and by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). Exempting genuine arm’s length tenancies between unconnected parties from inheritance tax is simply the fair thing to do. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain what engagement he has had with the Tenant Farmers Association on that point, what his response is, and how he intends to rectify this injustice. Of course, this is not just about farms; family businesses, which make up 90% of our firms and employ well over half the workforce, are firmly in the Chancellor’s crosshairs as well. These are firms that focus on the long term, yet according to Family Business UK, over half of affected businesses have already paused or cancelled investment as a result of the threatened tax.
It would be remiss of me to not mention that the Government’s claims do not seem to add up. Will this tax actually end up raising money? While the OBR forecasts a £500 million gain, analysis by the Confederation of British Industry suggests a net loss of nearly £2 billion, once the wider damage to the economy is considered. The family farm and family business tax does nothing to promote growth or fairness. It targets those who anchor our rural economy and communities—the family businesses committed to long-term growth. It is already having a chilling effect on investment, and now there is a prospect that companies that would otherwise thrive under family stewardship will break up. Again, I urge hon. Members to support amendment 6, which would remove this damaging measure from the Bill.
Savers and investors are not safe from the Chancellor, either. Amendments 1 to 4 deal with the introduction of increases in income tax on dividends, savings, and property income in the years ahead. Increases to the dividend tax will hit 4 million people by 2029-30, while the savings tax rate increase will hit a further 3.8 million individuals, and 2.4 million landlords will now face higher bills, making it less attractive to provide the rental properties that our constituents want. These measures are targeted at entrepreneurs, investors, pensioners and hard-working families. Rather than supporting growth, the Government seem determined to stifle it.
The Government are also scrapping the long-standing inheritance tax exemption for pensions. Some 10,500 estates will be targeted under this measure, costing savers £1.5 billion by 2029. We oppose this extension of inheritance tax, which seems predicated on the Government’s belief that people’s money belongs to the Government, rather than being their own. We should be rewarding saving and people who do the right thing, but extending inheritance tax in this way does exactly the opposite. As we discussed previously, there is also a concern about the burden being placed on personal representatives, and I have mentioned the unintended consequences for unmarried couples. In some cases, a surviving partner could lose up to 40% of a pension fund built up over a lifetime. Again, this is manifestly unfair, and amendment 7 would remove this damaging new tax from the Bill.
Sir Ashley Fox
Has my hon. Friend noticed a common thread through the Budget, which is that everyone who works hard, saves hard, invests and creates jobs is being penalised, and all that money is being used to benefit Benefits Street? It is no wonder that the growth rate is going down. [Interruption.]
James Wild
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, despite the chuntering that we hear from the Minister. The welfare bill is predicted to rise to £406 billion over the forecast period. The Chancellor keeps saying that she is fixing welfare. Where? What is she doing? She had to back away from very modest savings. We have identified £23 billion-worth of welfare savings, and the Minister could make those if he wished, but he does not, and that is why growth has once again been downgraded. The Chancellor boasts about beating the forecast last year. Well, the forecast at the beginning of the year was 2%, and the Government failed to get anywhere near 2%. They beat the downgraded forecast, so let us not hear any more about that. We want to hear what the Government will do to drive growth, and taxing the people generating it is precisely the wrong thing to do.
New clause 10 requires the Chancellor to review the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism. We debated CBAM extensively in Committee, and it is dealt with in a great swathe of the Bill—in the schedules—but there is plenty more to come. Given the complexity of the policy, many industries believe that the absence from the Bill of a formal oversight and review process is a serious mis-step that needs to be addressed.
There are many potential pitfalls in this new mechanism. First, the measure fails to consider several sectors that are at significant risk of carbon leakage, such as chemicals and refining. Secondly, the Government have decided to link the UK and EU emissions trading schemes. Following the announcement of that alignment, the price of carbon in the UK more than doubled, which cost our economy about £5 billion. We should be reducing the burden of carbon taxes on business, not increasing them. The EU has yet to publish its benchmark beyond 2030, which means that the UK would be signing up to a system that would effectively give Brussels a blank cheque. Moreover, CBAM does not address issues with carbon leakage in export markets. There are proposals to exempt our manufacturing exports from UK ETS costs and CBAM to make the industry more competitive, putting it on a level playing field internationally. Has the Minister considered maintaining long-term free allowances for products destined for the export markets? Given those complexities—I could go on about them more, but the Minister gets the gist—[Hon. Members: “More!”] It seems that other Members may want to come in on this issue.
I think that the Minister should recognise the value of regular reviews. I know he will say that the Government keep all taxes under review, but let us have an actual review that is published, so that we can see what is happening. I encourage Members to support new clause 10.
This is a Finance Bill full of tax increases that break trust with the British people. The Labour Government have introduced the family farm and business tax, frozen personal thresholds, hiked taxes on savers and investors, cut relief on employee ownership trusts, taxed inheritance pensions, taxed taxis—we discussed that in Committee—and increased gambling, alcohol and other duties and environmental levies. The list goes on and on. There is 534 pages-worth, which I could read out if there were any appetite for it. Our amendments and new clause would back the taxpayers, and the investors and businesses trying to drive growth in our economy, and I urge Members to support them.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to support the legislation. In particular, I want to talk about new clause 4.
I have to admit that I am a terrible person to go shopping with. [Laughter.] Wait for it. I grew up in a household where my dad used to stockpile copies of “Which?”. In the family, it was drilled into me that you had to seek advice; you could never just buy things. Pity my poor partner on the occasion when we went to try and buy a sofa; it was a very long, drawn-out day. I was taught the value of information and advice in making good choices in life—although I do not claim always to have followed that teaching—because it is easy to rip people off and mislead them, and there are people who will exploit misinformation to cause harm to others for their own financial gain. It is difficult for individual consumers to fight that, but collectively, with good regulation, we can make an economy work well.
New clause 4 is about good advice empowering consumers to make good choices. I welcome clauses 156 and 157, and the work that the Government are doing to crack down on organisations that promote harmful tax avoidance schemes. We have all seen the companies that promote schemes to avoid paying tax, often to the elites—one can only think of Jimmy Carr, and what he must be thinking at this point in time.
Banning the promotion of tax avoidance schemes that have no realistic prospect of working is the right thing to do because it is causing harm, but I am not here to play a violin for the elites; I am here to bang the drum for the millions of people who are being harmed, but who have not yet had the same level of attention. Elite companies might be promoting tax avoidance schemes for an elite group of people, but online there are hundreds, if not thousands, that are now doing it for the masses, causing financial detriment and harm to our constituents as a result. I would argue that this is a much greater harm, because these are people with too much month at the end of their money. When they realise the mistake that they have made and how much money they have lost, they do not have the savings to be able to pay the bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
The Bill, and the Budget it derives from, demonstrates clearly that the Chancellor has implemented stealth tax grabs that will hit some of the lowest paid the hardest, through extending a freeze on income tax thresholds and the national insurance contributions increases which suppress employment and wages. It is full of short-sighted harmful decisions that the Liberal Democrats cannot support. Our amendments aim to highlight and reduce some of its more harmful impacts.
I will focus on four particular areas, the first of which is the impact of frozen income tax thresholds. New clauses 15 to 17 would secure additional information and analysis about their impact. As the worrying figures from the OBR suggest, continuing to freeze income tax thresholds will drag an extra 1 million pensioners into paying income tax for the first time by 2030-31, unless the Government act.
Mr Joshua Reynolds
My hon. Friend is right about pensioners being dragged into paying income tax. Does he agree that millions of those pensioners will want to be able to contact HMRC and ask it about those changes? Millions of people never manage to get through to HMRC and figures from a written question I put in recently show that HMRC has lost 2,000 customer service staff in the past few years. Does he agree that we need a red phone hotline to allow pensioners to get hold of HMRC for support and advice when they need it?
Charlie Maynard
I completely agree. The stress of that is horrific, so the more it can function effectively would be appreciated.
The Government have said that people whose only source of income is the state pension will not pay any income tax over this Parliament, but no details have been provided on how they will be protected. I ask the Government to put an end to the uncertainty and set out plans in full explaining exactly how they intend to shield pensioners from that unfair tax hit. We would love a timeline for when they will do that.
More broadly, extending the stealth tax by two more years will drag an estimated 1.3 million people into a higher tax band by 2029-30: just over 600,000 into the basic rate of tax and just under 700,000 into the higher rate. Those are big numbers. We would really appreciate it if the Government explained to each of the 1.3 million people who will be impacted what it will do to them, because I do not think they are aware of it right now. That disproportionately impacts those on low incomes who will be dragged into income tax for the first time. At the very least, please provide that information.
Next is the impact of the Government’s actions and inactions on youth unemployment, which is building to a real crisis point. Some 16% of all 16 to 24-year-olds are out of work, or almost 740,000 people, which is 100,000 up in the last year—I repeat, 100,000 up in the last year—so something is going wrong with the Government’s policies and we need to get to the bottom of that. The Liberal Democrats have tabled new clause 14, which requires the Chancellor to review and report on the impact of the Bill on unemployment, with particular regard to young people aged 16 to 24.
It is worth noting that this legislation, which dampens growth and hits jobs, comes at a time of broader disruption in the labour market. AI is already having a particular impact on entry level so-called white-collar jobs, but it is also having an impact in pubs. All our local pubs are hiring fewer young people because there is no incentive to do so any more. The creation of a new employers’ national insurance contribution band between £5,000 and £9,100, with a lower rate to incentivise employers to hire often younger, part-time workers, would really help.
In new clause 13, we highlight the complexity of the tax system and the cost of administering it. There is a green brick sitting here masquerading as a Bill. With such a big majority in this Parliament, the Government have a real opportunity to do some serious thinking about how to simplify, root and branch, our tax code. It is disappointing that we see no sign of that actually happening. With this size of legislation being added each time, the tax system is getting bigger and more complex, and that puts a real burden on business. The Treasury Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and the Business and Trade Committee have all spoken out about how much damage our over-complex tax system is doing to our businesses. We would really appreciate anything that the Government can do and if they could get more serious about that.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
We welcome the Government’s changes on APR—a new £2.5 million threshold was announced just before Christmas—but does my hon. Friend share my concern that genuinely active, long-held family farms and long-standing tenant farming arrangements will still be penalised by the Government? Does he therefore agree that Members should back the Liberal Democrat amendment, which would maintain relief at 100% where the property has been owned by the transferor for at least 10 years as part of a business that is actively operated by the transferor or a family member?
Charlie Maynard
I thank my hon. Friend for speaking up on this matter. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) feels very strongly about it as well.
We do not really understand why the Government have decided to go with those fixed static thresholds. Everybody recognises that agricultural land values go up and that the cost of living goes up. We would really appreciate it if the Government could explain why they have decided not to index that. We will therefore be pushing new clause 11 to a vote, because we really want to see that fixed.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I will speak to the two new clauses that stand solely in my name, which relate to the impact of the changes to the remote gaming and remote betting duties. I do not intend to relitigate the rights and wrongs of those changes; we have had a number of debates on that subject in this Chamber and in Westminster Hall, and the determination has been settled by Treasury. However, I do think it is important that we consider what I believe are the genuinely unintended consequences of the changes that the Treasury will introduce and how best to mitigate them. To mitigate them, though, we need to understand them, so new clause 8 simply seeks to get an independent assessment of the changes to the remote betting and remote gaming duties on the black market.
I am sure that those of us who have participated in debates around gaming and gambling will accept that there are challenges that we need to address with problem gambling, but that requires people to participate in the regulated sector, where help and support is available for those who find themselves getting into trouble. The more people we push into the black market—where there is no support, no GamCare, no lock-out system—the more people are at risk of harmful activity and being preyed upon by predatory organisations and companies that are outside the UK, do not pay taxes here and are simply not worried about the participants.
The independent study done by EY for the Betting and Gaming Council found that there is a potential for £6 billion-worth of stakes to be diverted into the black market as a result of this change. That is £6 billion of stakes that were going to be made somewhere, but will now go into the black market and will therefore not be subject to any taxation, including any form of potential corporation tax if they are staked outside the UK with one of the companies headquartered elsewhere, or to the remote gaming duty. That is a 140% increase on the potential stakes going into the black market.
It also means thousands and thousands of people—our constituents—who will find themselves in an unregulated part of the gambling and gaming economy, where there is absolutely no help and support for them. The people who run those sites have no interest in the welfare of those individuals whatsoever; they simply want to try to maximise their profits. Every single one of us is no more than two clicks away from an unregulated gaming or gambling site, and we should be open and acknowledge the fact that that money often funds questionable activities overseas, including organised crime and, in some cases, terrorism.
I recognise that the Treasury has, as part of broader changes to the betting and gaming regulations, identified £26 million for the Gambling Commission to try to mitigate some of the worst aspects of those activities, but we simply do not know what impact that will have; the assessment has simply not been done by the Government to determine whether that £26 million is enough. Frankly, every penny that could be spent on helping people in this country to avoid damaging gaming and gambling, and to enjoy regulated gaming and gambling, should be spent.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Have the Government given the hon. Member any idea of when a post-implementation review of this legislation might be done, and therefore when the Treasury can say how much tax has been gathered and how much has been lost as a result of these changes?
Gareth Snell
That is an incredibly fair question. The Treasury has been unable to give me an answer, but I hope that the Minister will be able to when he sums up the debate. Regardless of one’s views on gambling, we must ensure that the implementation of new levies does not drive people into the black market, because that is where they are most exposed to risk. If people are to participate in gaming and betting, I would much rather they did so in UK-based, regulated services, where they can get help and support if needed, and where the taxes they pay can go towards funding our public services. It is a fair point, and one on which I hope the Minister will be able to provide an answer.
I wonder whether the Minister could also give some thought to the following point. This taxation has been hypothecated, in the narrative, as being directly to fund the Government’s welcome lifting of the two-child benefit cap, but in reality that is not how taxation works in this country—we do not hypothecate specific taxation lines to pay for specific social policies; instead, the money goes into the Treasury pot, and the Treasury, in its infinite wisdom and benevolence, hands it out to other Departments, which then make their spending commitments.
Now, the Government’s own OBR forecast suggests that, given the behavioural changes expected to take place as a result of the differential rates between the regulated and unregulated sectors, and given the people who will pay tax, the yield from this tax will potentially be down by a third by 2029-30—that means somewhere in the region of £300 million will be lost. If we are making this direct comparison, saying that the levy is needed to fund the welcome change in the two-child benefit cap, can the Minister set out where the additional funding will come from in 2029-30, if the reduction resulting from behavioural change takes place?
Even if the Government are unable to support my new clause 8 tonight, a proper impact assessment would at least allow a better understanding of future challenges relating to the behaviour of consumers and the impact on tax yield.
My new clause 9 seeks a similar impact assessment, but in relation to our friends in Gibraltar. The Minister will be acutely aware that the gaming and gambling sector is a huge part of Gibraltar’s economy—30% of its GDP comes from the sector, and it employs some 3,500 people. The gambling and gaming companies that have a footprint in Gibraltar pay Gibraltar corporation tax as well as any levies paid in the UK. However, because it is a top-line tax, rather than a bottom-line tax, any impact on the profitability of companies based in Gibraltar, or any behavioural changes in the stakes put through those companies, will have an immediate and direct impact on Gibraltar’s revenues.
One third of Gibraltar’s tax receipts come from the sector, so anything we do in this place that has an impact on the sector there—I entirely accept that this is not an intended consequence of the decision—would leave a huge hole in its economy, and that will have to be filled. We are talking about potentially tens of millions of pounds, if not hundreds of millions. Gibraltar is, of course, one of the family of nations that make up Britain, and we have to ensure that, given its strategic importance because of our defence work, we do nothing that makes it less safe as a result of tax changes here.
Of course, the Government of Gibraltar are currently putting through their Parliament the changes to the EU-Gibraltar treaty, which will help with the flow of the gaming sector’s workforce, given the cross-border nature of the workforce. However, Nigel Feetham—the Member of the Gibraltar Parliament who holds the justice, trade and industry brief—has said that what Gibraltar really needs is stability, and not to have “avoidable” decisions from the UK. I know that the Government will resist my new clause, but I ask the Minister to lay out what communications and active engagement he and the Treasury have had with our friends in Gibraltar.
Gibraltar is of strategic importance to us and part of the family of nations that makes up who we are, and decisions that we take in this Finance Bill are having a huge impact on its economy and its ability to fund its public services, which contribute to our overall national defence. While Gibraltar is embedding the new treaty changes, it is important that it has some certainty about its revenue stream.
The media are reporting that the Gibraltarian Government are looking at rapid diversification of their economy to make up the difference, but realistically we do not know what the impact will be on our economy, and they certainly do not know what the impact will be on theirs. The Minister will be acutely aware that as Gibraltar is dependent for 30% of its tax intake from one sector, even a small change here in the UK could have a hugely detrimental impact over there. I hope that he will address the stability that the Gibraltar Parliament has been asking for, and for which Nigel Feetham has rightly been asking in his engagements with the Treasury.
Finally, I had not intended to do so, but I will touch on new clause 10 tabled by the Opposition about CBAM. I have often talked in this place about the importance of our manufacturing industries, and not least the ceramics industry, which falls outside the current proposals for CBAM but will be subject to the emissions trading scheme. There is a perversity about the emissions trading scheme and CBAM in that if we get it wrong, we will just drive up prices for consumers and for producers, while others are importing into our country ceramics produced using cheap Russian gas, which means that their price point is much below what we can produce them here. It also has the distorting effect that our exports become more expensive when they hit the CBAM—particularly for Europe.
Therefore, while we are at a point of global turmoil and gas prices are increasing hugely overnight—the price per therm was 74p last week; it is now somewhere around 160p—there is some work to be done by the Treasury. I asked the Chancellor about that in her statement on Monday; unfortunately, she missed the point about gas-intensive industry and went straight to electric-intensive industry, which is different. When the Government look at how we do CBAM and where we will have free allowances for the ETS, will the Minister bear in mind those small sectors such as ceramics that are crucial to our foundational manufacturing? I am talking not about the tiles, tableware and giftware that I talk about so often, but about the advanced ceramics that we need in this country, which are dependent on a gas price that works and being able to trade across the European border without huge external tariffs being placed on them because of carbon leakage.
Nuclear submarine air filtration systems are ceramic, and the rotor blades that go on small modular reactors made in Derby will require a ceramic powder coating for them to be utilised that will have to cross many borders. There is the potential that we price out British manufacturers as a result of the CBAM and the ETS if we do not have some of those lifelong allowances and we do not think about the interplay of components that travel over borders. Therefore, while I had not intended to speak about the Opposition’s new clause 10, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) made a valid point in terms of ceramics. Even if the Minister will not take the new clause forward—obviously we will not support it, because it is not a Government amendment—the hon. Gentleman’s point is worthy of consideration in a different form.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
Since the Government announced their tax raid on family farms, they have made numerous false claims about the policy and what it will mean for farmers. Raising the threshold, as the Government propose today, does not fix the fundamental wrongs at the heart of this awful policy. I will speak in favour of amendment 6, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), which would remove those problems altogether by doing away with this pernicious tax.
What are the claims? The Government have claimed that farmers are rich and so can afford to bear the cost of tax increases. To the surprise of nobody who actually works on a farm, that myth is born of a fundamental misunderstanding of how agriculture works. A farm is not simply another asset like a share portfolio where we can sell a little today and buy a little tomorrow. The assets of a farm—primarily its land, its crops or livestock, and its equipment—are huge long-term investments, completely inseparable from the ability to produce whatever it makes. There is often little relationship between the value of the land held by a farmer and the profitability of that farm. That is particularly true at a time when, to sell their produce at all, farmers must abide by a seemingly endless list of regulations, all of which drive up costs and reduce profit margins. Farmers tolerate a rock-bottom level of return on investment that most businesses would never consider.
Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
I welcome the introduction of the carbon border adjustment mechanism in the Bill. It shows a commitment from this Government to supporting British industry, which underpins the fabric of local economies and communities across the country, including Mid and South Pembrokeshire.
For British industries included in its scope, a CBAM means they can compete on a level playing field with industries in the global market. It works by applying a charge to the carbon emitted during the production of imported carbon-intensive goods. That ensures that our domestic producers do not face higher production costs compared with their foreign competitors operating in countries where the price of carbon is lower. That is critical, for without a CBAM, those industries will go elsewhere, moving production to low-regulation, high-emission countries. We would lose jobs, investment and our industrial base while simply offshoring our emissions. That is carbon leakage: decarbonisation at the cost of deindustrialisation. It would be devastating for industrial communities across the country, in my constituency of Mid and South Pembrokeshire. That is why I call on the Government to expand the scope of the CBAM to include the oil refining industry.
Refined petroleum products are highly exposed to carbon leakage, and without the protection of the CBAM, we risk losing this industry. There would be untold consequences for communities like mine in Pembrokeshire, which is the home of one of the UK’s four remaining oil refineries. Locally, the refining sector employs over 1,000 people. Nationally, it accounts for 15% of Welsh export GDP. Oil refinery continues to be foundational to the UK’s economy and energy security; oil products supply 47% of the UK’s final energy demand and support thousands of skilled jobs in industrial communities like Pembrokeshire.
The transition to net zero must be a just one. It cannot come at the cost of deindustrialisation and greater economic deprivation in communities like mine. As the party of working people, it is incumbent on this Labour Government to manage this energy transition by protecting the jobs and skills base of today while building the industries of tomorrow. Recent global events have shown once again how trade flows can change overnight, threatening our energy security and directly impacting the cost of living for our constituents. As a Government, we must be agile in responding, providing the support and certainty our communities and industries need to weather the storms.
A CBAM can provide targeted support to industry during turbulent times. However, the Bill in its current form requires the effectiveness of the CBAM to be reviewed only after five years. I hardly need to remind the House how dramatically the geopolitical landscape can change in that time. That is why I urge the Minister to consider making provision for yearly reviews of the CBAM during its first five years. This would allow the Treasury to respond to unforeseen events and ensure that the CBAM continued to achieve its objective, minimising the risk of carbon leakage for carbon-intensive industries in the UK, so that our decarbonisation efforts could lead to a true reduction in global emissions rather than simply displacing carbon emissions overseas.
We are at a critical juncture for British industry. Decisions made by this Government will shape the UK’s ability to safeguard industrial jobs and maintain global competitiveness while meeting net zero objectives and creating jobs for the future without simply offshoring our emissions. This Bill continues the Government’s work to build a stronger, fairer country by growing our economy, raising living standards and, crucially, investing in our public services. The introduction of the CBAM is a vital part of this broader package of measures, but I urge the Minister to consider expanding its scope and reviewing it annually to ensure that it delivers on its important objectives in a rapidly changing world.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I rise to speak about the changes that have been made in relation to inheritance tax, which is impacting many of our family farming businesses and also those family businesses that operate in many of our constituencies. I rise specifically to speak to amendments 89 and 90, which, if agreed, would remove the liability for inheritance tax on the share of a tenancy at arm’s length that transfers on death.
This Government’s ill-handling of the family farm tax has left our farmers in limbo and their confidence in tatters. Thanks to Labour’s disastrous family farm tax and family business tax, our farmers and many hard-working businesses have spent over a year navigating an already challenging time for the sector, with added anxiety and uncertainty hanging over their heads. Despite the warnings from the entire farming community, this Government pushed ahead with the tax, creating chaos, fear and real damage.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that the way the Government have approached this has hurt their main aim of economic growth, because farmers have delayed ordering and, because of the new rules, there is now no incentive to grow their farms over that £2.5 million threshold?
Robbie Moore
The hon. Member makes an excellent point. Despite the minimal, partial Government U-turn by increasing that threshold from £1 million to £2.5 million, the changes are still impacting many of our farming businesses and therefore the wider supply chain. This not only has a negative impact on the level of investment that a family is willing to put into their family business, but has a hugely detrimental impact on the wider supply chain, including on investment in agricultural machinery and the willingness to purchase stock. This is therefore having a massive detrimental impact on the real rural economy right now.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The hon. Member is speaking very powerfully. The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland has estimated that 4,500 farms, mainly in the dairy industry, will still be impacted by the set changes. Does he agree that, given the need for food security, we need to protect our farms, not do away with them?
Robbie Moore
We absolutely do. The hon. Member makes an excellent point, because we all know that the value of farmland in Northern Ireland is proportionately higher than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, and therefore a huge proportion of Northern Ireland farmers—4,500 of them—who are working incredibly hard are still going to be impacted by the rate relief change that this Labour Government have implemented. They are going to be detrimentally impacted, and that has a wider negative impact on the rural economy.
Despite this partial U-turn, by increasing the level of the agricultural and business property relief thresholds from £1 million to £2.5 million for inheritance tax, the Government will risk once again showing their disregard for the farming community should they neglect to support amendments 89 and 90, which seek to address yet another measure seemingly designed to punish our farmers. The Tenant Farmers Association is a dedicated organisation that represents the interests of all those within our farming community who do not own land, and it is heavily involved in supporting the tenanted sector. I spoke with members of the TFA just this morning and the chief executive, George Dunn, who has excellent knowledge of, and commitment to, the tenanted sector and has provided many a briefing to many Members of this House.
It is deeply disappointing that Government Members do not seem to support amendments 89 and 90 to schedule 12. Should the House fail to agree to the changes in these amendments, tabled by my right hon. Friends the Members for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride) and for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) and me, those who inherit a share of a joint tenancy will have no means to capitalise on that share while also having no way to liquidate the asset in the context of continuing business to allow them to pay the tax liability.
To date, the value of any inherited portion of a business or agricultural tenancy held jointly following the death of one of the joint tenants has been fully relievable either through agricultural property relief or business property relief. Given that in most cases it will be impossible for the surviving joint tenant or tenants to realise the value of any inherited share of the tenancy on death, it is completely unfair that this tax, proposed by the Labour Government, should be levied. The unfairness is underlined by the fact that an input value for the share of the joint tenancy would have to be calculated on the profit rent basis, which is the best at theoretical value in any case, which just blows out of context the real damage that is being implemented by this Labour Government. Therefore, I urge the Government to learn from their previous mistake, listen to our farmers and protect the value of joint tenancies by supporting these amendments.
Amendment 88 seeks to delay the triggering of the instalments that are going to be brought forward by the payment of inheritance tax from the current period of six months by 12 months to a full 18-month period. This is so important—the Government fail to realise this—because of how complex it is to value the assets that are likely to be subjected to an IHT liability. When looking at farming businesses, we are not only valuing the farmland. There may be a farmhouse and a cottage or two, and the livestock, the machinery, the growing crops and the crops in store will all have a value associated with them. It is therefore complex to ascertain the value within the six-month period that the Government have outlined.
And it gets more complicated still. We find ourselves in the bizarre scenario where two assets on death with a value of £5 million could be subjected to different IHT liabilities depending on the ownership structure and whether the spousal allowance is being utilised—therefore exposing any tax liability on death to challenge, quite rightly, by those with whom the tax liability sits. To have a deadline of six months for that tax liability to be triggered, and for an instalment to be paid, will simply not be sustainable. I therefore urge the Government to support amendment 89 in my name and that of the official Opposition.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I am sure that, like me, he has received many emails and letters from farmers over the last few days, given that the price of red diesel, heating oil and fertiliser has gone up in the light of recent uncertain events. Does that not demonstrate and remind us all how fragile farming businesses are? The idea that farmers will have sufficient money sitting in the bank to pay this tax bill is for the birds.
Robbie Moore
It is absolutely for the birds. Not only are our farming businesses being attacked through the changes to inheritance tax, but they face complications and additional burdens through challenges with cashflow. We have already seen de-linked payments drop dramatically for many of our farming businesses. The sustainable farming incentive has been chopped, changed and moved around, and we are not sure what the fundamentals will be when the new SFI is rolled out in the summer. When that is coupled with additional costs, and with red diesel going up, the cashflow challenges increase, as many of my hon. Friend’s constituents, and constituents of Members from across the House, have realised. When the Government put an additional burden on a potential inheritance tax liability, it only increases the anxiety in our farming communities.
This morning, in addition to meeting the Tenant Farmers Association, I met the CLA and the presidential team there, including Gavin Lane. He put it across to me very clearly—he rightly continues to campaign on the matter—that the family farm tax must ultimately be abolished. That is why we Conservative Members reiterate our commitment that there will be 100% agricultural property relief and business property relief if we are lucky enough get back into government.
Finally, there is the issue of indexation. Setting the threshold at £2.5 million takes no account of the value of farmland increasing; our farming community and family businesses will be further impacted when the value of assets rises further down the line, while the threshold is maintained at £2.5 million.
We are at the final stages of the Finance Bill, yet we do not have any further clarity from the Government on the timings associated with extending the point at which payment is made from six months to the 18 months that we are requesting. We have no certainty that indexation will be linked to the threshold, which has been increased, though minimally, and no assurance that the Government actually get how our farming community operates.
I hope that the Government will consider amendments 88, 89 and 90 and the associated amendments in my name and the name of the Opposition Front Benchers, and that they will ultimately agree with amendment 6, which scraps the family farm and business tax in its entirety.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
Before I start, I should declare that I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on gambling reform. I want to talk about new clauses 8 and 9, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) spoke to earlier. They are thoughtful, well-meaning new clauses that address real concerns. I want to add a bit of context, and set out what the evidence shows about the black market and the situation in Gibraltar.
Industries associated with harm often use the black market as an excuse to avoid regulation or additional taxation. When I was on the Finance Bill Committee last year, we received a lot of correspondence from the tobacco industry, in which it made the same sort of claim. We were seeking to increase taxes—the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), might remember the debate—and the tobacco industry was using the black market as an excuse for why that should not happen. In the gambling sector, the threat of the black market is overblown. The regulated market is dominant, and in recent years there have been lots of taxation changes that have not increased the size of the black market. I will give two examples.
When we changed from taxing turnover to taxing profit in 2001, the black market was highlighted as a risk, but there were no real changes. Again, when we introduced the point-of-consumption tax in 2014, there was no surge in unregulated or black market gambling. Indeed, a 2021 Gambling Commission study found that only a very small proportion of UK gamblers ever used unlicensed sites, and they did so mostly by accident. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central accurately pointed out, people who are banned from regulated sites sometimes turn to the unregulated sector, and that truly is a problem.
Focusing on the black market risks diverting attention away from the significant and better-evidenced harms in the regulated sector. Those harms are most widespread in the areas in which we are seeking to increase taxes—we have discussed that, so I will not go into it too much. However, it is important that we tackle the black market, so I welcome the illegal gambling taskforce that has been introduced, as well as the additional £26 million for the Gambling Commission to address those issues. We should not buy into the narrative that risks from the black market should stop us making changes to keep people safe from the most harmful forms of gambling.
If the tax changes are as economically damaging for Gibraltar as has been claimed, we need to consider how they work in other jurisdictions. The same gambling organisations often operate in other countries with much higher tax rates than the UK, and they manage to survive profitably in those sectors. I think that we should take that into account when considering new clause 9 and the impact on Gibraltar.
Kirsty Blackman
You would not believe, Madam Deputy Speaker, how far beyond delighted I was when I discovered that I would be stepping in for a colleague on the Finance Bill. I am sure that the House is similarly ecstatic to hear me speak on the Bill. I did a significant number of Finance Bills in my first few years in this place, and I have missed it. I have also missed the former Member for Amber Valley, Nigel Mills, who used to make a speech from the Government Back Benches about something that nobody else had even considered or knew existed. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) is very kindly stepping into his shoes and raising issues relating to gambling tax, which, to be fair, are important. He is asking very important questions, as Nigel Mills used to, about a fairly niche subject. In the light of the hon. Member’s comments about gambling taxation and the black market, it would be great if the Treasury provided updates on how the tax has worked.
In fact, I think the Treasury should generally provide more updates on every tax measure that it implements. If the Treasury says that a tax measure will raise £30 million, it would be helpful for the MPs who sat on the Finance Bill to know whether it did in fact raise £30 million, or if it raised £50 million or £10 million. Then, we could make better decisions about future tax changes, because we would have a better idea of whether they would achieve the Government’s aims. Successive Governments have been particularly bad at undertaking post-implementation reviews, particularly of tax measures. It would be really handy to see that information more regularly, so that we can make better-informed decisions.
Let me touch on the transparency issues that have been mentioned. Earlier, I raised my concerns about the fact that additional Ways and Means motions were added at this point. I also raised the fact that we do not have oral evidence sessions during the passage of the Finance Bill. I continue to make the case that that could be done after Committee of the whole House. Usually the more technical aspects of Finance Bills are considered in a Public Bill Committee in a Committee Room, rather than in a Committee of the whole House in the Chamber.
The Minister said that some Government amendments had been tabled following stakeholder feedback—particularly through written evidence—to clarify the intention of the legislation. The Government had intended to do something, and stakeholders said, “We don’t really understand this; it’s not clear enough. Could you clarify it?”. If the Government had held oral evidence sessions, they may have been able to make those changes in Committee, rather than on Report. I urge them, and any future Government, to consider holding oral evidence sessions. Anyone who has been on a Bill Committee in which there are oral evidence sessions will understand their great value, and we refer back to them so many times throughout the course of a Committee. There is nothing quite like being able to ask an expert questions, rather than just looking at the written evidence, which is helpful, but it is not the same. We do not remember written evidence in the same way, and we do not have the same ability to probe it.
I want to touch on the four amendments that may be put to a vote. The SNP and I are happy to support new clause 4, tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). I was thinking about the history of some “get rich quick” schemes. We had Ponzi schemes and pyramid schemes. The new thing—the Ponzi scheme of the day—is the scheme that says, “This is foolproof. This is failsafe. You are going to make loads of money doing this,” but it is actually unregulated. The new clause would be incredibly helpful. I would have preferred the new clause to say “user-to-user services” instead of “social media”, so that it would cover all the stuff in the Online Safety Act 2023. That covers things that we may not classically define as social media. For example, if somebody gave really terrible tax advice on a money-saving expert forum, would that be included in the definition of social media? Social media is not 100% defined, which is why I would have preferred a different term. However, the new clause is sufficient to cover the majority of people.
Ms Creasy
I feel the need to stand up for Martin Lewis, because he is one of the good guys when it comes to advice, and those forums are policed very well. The problem is people exploiting the fact that social media companies also have a vested interest in generating content that goes viral. They are the sole publishers of these videos—they make money from them—that tell people outlandish things that they can do with their taxes. I think we all agree that it is worth looking at the Money Saving Expert forum. I peruse it at length myself, much to the detriment of being able to make decisions.
Kirsty Blackman
It is absolutely worth looking at that forum, but as the hon. Member said in relation to the new clause, people who are promoting schemes with no expectation that they will actually work should not be doing it on money-saving expert forums, or anywhere else. I agree that Martin Lewis has been very clear that he does not give advice online, and that people who, for example, say, “This is a Martin Lewis tip” are lying. It is worth highlighting that the way in which he has chosen to put forward tax advice or information is totally different to the way chosen by the financial influencers referred to in new clause 4. As I said, I am more than happy to support it; I would have just liked it to be wider.
We are happy to support new clause 11 on the uprating of agricultural relief, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. If the new clause and the uprating is not to be implemented, it would be incredibly useful to see the Government’s rationale for why they have chosen not to do annual uprating in a way that would be standard for the majority of other reliefs. What is the logic for that? As I was not on the Bill Committee, I am not as across this part of the Bill as I perhaps should be, so I am not clear what mechanism is in place to uprate the relief. Is it done under the negative or affirmative statutory instrument procedure? Will the House actually see a statutory instrument, or is a delegated authority given to the Minister? It would be helpful to have an idea of what the mechanism is, and whether, if inflation continues at the current rate or goes up again, the Government are likely to put in place an increase to ensure that agricultural relief continues to wash its face—to provide the relief it is supposed to.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I wholeheartedly endorse what the hon. Member is saying in support of new clause 11 tabled by the Liberal Democrats. Lots of my farmers in North Cornwall are constantly telling me that they are pleased with the Government’s decision to change course on the family farm tax, but it is essential that they keep rising prices in mind, exactly as the hon. Member says.
Kirsty Blackman
I absolutely agree. With the uncertainty in the middle east just now, we are seeing an increase in fuel prices, which will heavily impact farmers, and fertiliser prices. Since Russia invaded Ukraine, fertiliser prices have gone through the roof and it has been difficult to get hold of at all, so farmers need support. We have always relied on growing food, but in this ever more uncertain world we really need to rely on growing our own food. This Government—and all Governments—need to consider whether we want to be self-sufficient, or anywhere near self-sufficient, in food, or we are happy to see our farms dismantled to create ever-larger, Australian-style sheep farms, with thousands of sheep on them and nothing else. We need to consider what future there is for our farmers and ensure that we are backing that future.
Robbie Moore
I endorse what the hon. Member says. I cannot get my head around the fact that there are so many family businesses, beyond the agricultural sector, that will be impacted by the business property relief threshold at £2.5 million. They include manufacturing businesses and those in the hospitality sector, and many of them will be in the constituencies of Labour MPs. I cannot understand why, during the course of this Bill, many Labour MPs have been silent on the issue of business property relief, and why they are not standing up for family businesses. I endorse what the hon. Member says about fire sales happening as a result of an increased inheritance tax liability.
Kirsty Blackman
Given that we have a Labour Government who care about workers’ rights, the family businesses that I have visited have a strong worker involvement. The people who work there are cared for and looked after because it is a family business, and one would think that the Labour party would want to support more of those rather than encouraging people to get out of that place. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I have big concerns on the matter.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) is currently leading a debate in Westminster Hall, he is unable to speak to his amendments himself, so I would like to talk about the reasons that he has tabled them. He has tabled a number of amendments in relation to APR and the anti-forestalling clauses. We are pleased that the threshold for APR was raised—that is welcome—but we are concerned about the backdating and the fact that the changes relate to things from 2024 onwards, rather than from April 2026 onwards. My hon. Friend’s amendments relate specifically to those anti-forestalling issues and ask for changes to be made, so that there is no backdating on the transactions. A number of agricultural organisations and farmers in his constituency have asked for those changes to be made, which is why he has put forward those amendments. The Government have raised the threshold, which is welcome, but if they continue to push forward with this measure, that will not be enough. Either cancelling it completely, as suggested by the Conservatives, or looking at the date would be incredibly helpful in ensuring that it is not backdated or retrospective, so that people do not lose relief on changes announced or made previous to the Budget.
My hon. Friend also tabled amendments in relation to whisky duty, which would take out clause 86. Over the last three years, we have seen an 18% hike in whisky duty. The figures show that there will be a £600 million downgrade in receipts as a result of continuing to increase this tax. Increasing the tax will reduce receipts, which will result in jobs in Scotland being put at risk, and the Government getting less money. I do not understand the logic of continuing to push ahead with raising whisky duty.
We really want the Government to think again. [Interruption.] To be fair, the 18% hike over three years was down to both Labour and the Conservatives, so I am afraid that the Conservatives do not have a huge amount of high ground. This issue has happened under both parties, but we will continue to fight on behalf of Scottish whisky producers. The tax on spirits needs to be looked at seriously, because this is an important part of the Scottish economy; it provides jobs in rural areas where depopulation is a big issue. We need these companies to continue, but if the Government continue to raise tax and hike the tax rates, we will see those jobs dropping off.
Amendment 140 has not been selected, but it is the only amendment put forward by our merry band of Reform colleagues, although they signed some other amendments. If anyone looks at that amendment, which we would presume is Reform’s key priority, given that that is the only amendment it has put forward, they will see that it would remove clause 88, which increases cigar duty. The main priority of Reform in the entire Finance Bill is that the Government should not be allowed to increase duty on cigars. That says a huge amount about the priorities of those who sit on the Reform Benches for the general people. To be fair, no Reform Members are here.
Kirsty Blackman
That was truly brilliant.
With all the craziness that we face in the world and all the issues faced by farmers, businesses and those who are badly advised by people making up tax advice on the internet, if the key priority of Reform is, “Let’s not increase the price of cigars”, it has got something wrong in the way that it deals with things.
I have laid out exactly how the SNP will deal with each of the votes that will take place, including our abstention on the income tax thresholds, because they do not apply in Scotland. I am very clear that we continue to have major concerns about APR and BPR.
I want the Government to think again about whisky duty and the level of transparency and scrutiny provided throughout the course of the Bill. This is not the first time I have asked for that, and Members are probably sick of me asking for oral evidence sessions to be included in the Bill, but I will keep asking until that happens. If the Government want to stop me having this conversation, just make it happen, and we will be completely grand.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I will speak to new clause 4 in particular, and to the wider issue of tax dodging and enforcement in this country. I make these remarks as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax.
I begin by congratulating the Government on the action they have already taken to tackle tax avoidance and evasion. The measures brought forward by the Chancellor and the Treasury team to strengthen HMRC’s powers, invest in enforcement and crack down on abusive tax schemes represent an important step in restoring fairness to the system. They have sent a clear signal that in Britain, the rules should be the same for everyone. The same rules should apply to the multinational company and the market trader, to the billionaire and the builder, and to those with the most expensive accountants and those who simply pay what they owe. More broadly, I also welcome the Government’s wider economic plan, which, despite global headwinds outside the Chancellor’s gift, is beginning to restore stability after years of uncertainty and drift. After 14 years in which economic instability and mortgage-spiking kamikaze Budgets became the norm, restoring stability is no small achievement. It is the foundation on which everything else must be built—investment, growth and confidence that the system is working in the interests of ordinary working people.
I turn to new clause 4. As a financial crime compliance officer in a previous life, in which role I spent many years dealing with the practical realities of financial crime controls, anti-money laundering systems and tax compliance, I recognise the principle that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) is pursuing—that of cracking down on the enablers of crackpot tax avoidance schemes. We have all seen the rise of so-called online finfluencers promoting dubious arrangements. These schemes are dressed up as clever financial advice, but in reality, they promise something that should always ring alarm bells: something for nothing. I make no judgment on the merits of my hon. Friend’s new clause, and I would welcome further discussion about it with her after today’s debate. My sincere hope is that HMRC is already fully alert to the risk posed by these schemes, and is monitoring the promotion of them closely. I hope the Minister will be able to comment on that when he winds up.
However, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow has, on a fundamental issue in this country, hit the nail on the head. In many ways, aggressive tax avoidance and tax evasion have become decriminalised, not through any change in the law but through something far more corrosive—a lack of enforcement. Laws can exist on the statute book, offences can be created and powers can be granted, but if those powers are not used and those laws are not enforced—if those who break the rules rarely face consequences—the signal that is sent is unmistakeable.
I am afraid to say that much of this decline occurred on the watch of the Conservative party. For 14 long years, we saw enforcement weaken, complexity increase, and a culture emerge in which some individuals and firms appeared to believe that paying tax was optional so long as they could afford sufficiently inventive advice. At the same time, the Conservatives drove the tax burden to the highest level in 80 years while turning a blind eye to those who simply refused to pay it. In response to an intervention earlier from the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), who unfortunately is not in his place, it was the Conservative Government in 2023 who scrapped the Office of Tax Simplification. Now, the official Opposition have the audacity to talk about making £47 billion of cuts, which is the equivalent of firing every police officer in Britain twice over. It is simply not credible.
Members may recall my speech on 27 November last year, during the Budget debate. For those who do not, in my remarks I referenced one of the more surreal examples of tax avoidance that has surfaced in recent years, which is the elaborate mollusc-based wheezes used to avoid business rates. These are schemes so convoluted that they led one high-profile individual to acquire more knowledge than anyone should ever reasonably possess about snail fornication, snail gestation, snail feed and—rather disturbingly—snail cannibalism. You really could not make it up: slimy advisers, snail farms and shell companies, all deployed in the service of dodging a lawful tax bill. It sounds absurd, and in many ways it is, but it also illustrates something deeper and more troubling. The creativity deployed in designing these schemes—the ingenuity, complexity and sheer effort involved—is often directed not towards creating wealth or innovation, but towards avoiding a basic civic responsibility. That is why I welcome clause 156, which prohibits the promotion of tax avoidance arrangements, with civil penalties and criminal offences built into the Bill to tackle the unlawful promotion of such initiatives.
On enforcement, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has highlighted just how far things have fallen in recent years. Prosecutions against enablers of tax evasion dropped by around 75% between 2018 and 2024, and HMRC has not fined a single enabler of offshore tax evasion or non-compliance in five years. That is a dramatic decline that sends the wrong signal. It also risks creating the impression that while most people must play by the rules, those with the right advisers can simply play around them. Since the introduction of a new corporate criminal offence of failure to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion in the Criminal Finances Act 2017, we have seen very little enforcement. When prosecutions are rare, deterrence weakens; when enforcement is inconsistent, compliance declines; and when those who break the rules see others doing so without consequences, the entire system begins to fray.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I rise to speak to amendments 112 to 139, which stand in my name and those of other hon. Members. When the Chancellor introduced the Budget, she described it as a Budget for growth and a Budget to encourage business. The natural assumption was that we would have growth across the whole United Kingdom, that there would be no discrimination against any part of this United Kingdom, and that what was available to encourage growth in one part of the UK would be available in the others. That would be a natural expectation, given that we are a United Kingdom.
Sadly, this Bill does not live up to that expectation, because clauses 13 to 15 introduce scandalous discrimination against businesses in Northern Ireland. Clauses 13 to 15 are about updating the assistance to businesses in England, Scotland and Wales, but not to those in Northern Ireland. These are the very levers that enable businesses to grow. Clause 13 is about enterprise management incentives, which were introduced in 2000. Since then, thousands of companies have used them as a tool to attract, retain and reward their employees through options, enabling employees to acquire shares in a company without liability for income tax or national insurance contributions. Instead, any gain is usually subject to lower rates of tax under capital gains tax.
Under the enterprise management incentive, there have been caps on what is available. Under clause 13, the EMI limit on company options will be increased to £6 million for Scotland, England and Wales, but it will stay at £3 million for Northern Ireland. The EMI limit on gross assets will be increased to £120 million in England, Scotland and Wales, but limited to just £30 million in Northern Ireland. In England, Scotland and Wales, the number of employees a company can have will be lifted to 500, but Northern Ireland will retain the figure of 250. On that measure—one of a trio of measures capable of encouraging businesses to grow—we see an uplift for Great Britain, but a stagnation in the assistance for Northern Ireland.
We see the same in clause 14 on the enterprise investment scheme. That scheme, along with the venture capital trusts covered in clause 15, has been a very useful tool for companies attracting investment so that they can grow. It has been described by the British Business Bank as
“a government-driven initiative designed to stimulate investment in early-stage businesses through venture capital. It serves as a significant source of capital for these companies while also providing attractive tax reliefs to the investors who support them.”
What is happening to the enterprise investment scheme across this one United Kingdom? In England, Scotland and Wales, the gross asset requirement will be raised to £30 million, but in Northern Ireland it will stay at £15 million. There is an uplift for both standard companies and new growth companies in GB, but none in Northern Ireland. A knowledge-intensive company’s lifetime investment limit in Scotland, England and Wales will be raised to £40 million, but in Northern Ireland it is capped at £20 million. It is the same in clause 15 on venture capital trusts. Again, Northern Ireland is trapped at the level set in 2012, whereas the rest of the country is allowed to move into 2026.
When this Government talk about growth and pretend that it is growth for the whole United Kingdom, the fundamental question I have to ask is this: why does this Budget, in clauses 13 to 15, inhibit growth in my part of the United Kingdom while not giving a level playing field, not allowing equality across the United Kingdom and denying parity to Northern Ireland in this way? This amounts to systemic discrimination against business in my constituency. One is tempted to ask: are the Government trying to incentivise companies to locate in GB? Is that the motivation, because if someone about to set up a company realises that their venture capital thresholds and the incentives they could be given are higher in GB, why would they go to Northern Ireland?
That is the disparity this Government are creating, and it is certainly not because the private sector is doing too well in Northern Ireland. Alas, Northern Ireland still has 27% of its workforce in the public sector in comparison with the UK average of 18%. The answer, sadly, lies in the fact that this Government and this Parliament embrace that discrimination against Northern Ireland because they are wholly beholden to the European Union. Northern Ireland, under the iniquitous Windsor framework, has been left under the EU state aid rules. That is the effect of article 10 of the Windsor framework. It leaves us subject to the state aid rules of foreign institutions, not the state aid rules of this United Kingdom. That has caused the Government, in their beholden attitude to the EU when it comes to enterprise schemes, venture capital and all the things in clauses 13 to 15, to simply retain Northern Ireland at the levels of support that were permitted pre-Brexit. Why? Because they are not prepared to face down the EU on the imposition of their foreign laws on my part of the United Kingdom in respect of support for industry.
Carla Lockhart
Many small and medium-sized enterprises in my constituency are looking to expand, invest and grow beyond being an SME, but the Bill does not afford them that opportunity. You would forgive businesses in Northern Ireland for feeling deeply disadvantaged. That, on top of the practical daily problems they face as a result of the Windsor framework, is putting them at a disadvantage.
Jim Allister
There is absolutely no doubt about that, and the Government are putting it up in lights. They are saying to new businesses coming into the United Kingdom or starting in the United Kingdom, “If you place yourself in GB, you will have an uplift available to you in terms of the aid we can give and the venture capital you can draw in, but if you stay in Northern Ireland then you will be at the bottom of the pile, treated unequally.”
Charlie Maynard
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman please remind the House what last year’s growth rate was for Northern Ireland compared with for the whole UK? I think it might have been three times higher.
Jim Allister
That is a very insightful question, but the answer is even more insightful. The growth we have had in Northern Ireland is in the services sector—lo and behold, the sector that is outside the Windsor framework. The manufacturing sector, which is clobbered by the Windsor framework, has not grown. The growth we have had—and thank goodness for it—is in the services sector. Contrary to the hon. Gentleman’s mantra of believing that all things EU are precious and beneficial, that is an illustration and an indication that our liberation from the EU in terms of services has served us well, but our entrapment in the EU in respect of manufacturing has served us very ill. The Bill underwrites that disadvantage to Northern Ireland.
I say to the Minister: tell my constituents and my businesses why they are treated differently, why they are less deserving of the same capacity to be supported, why they cannot draw in the same level of venture capital or investment schemes, and why they are the second-class citizens of this United Kingdom. The answer, as I have said, is because this Government are wholly beholden to the EU. This is a Government with a reset policy. If they follow the trends of Northern Ireland, then very shortly under their reset policy, they are going to enslave themselves again to EU state aid rules; they are going to end up in the same predicament, where they will not be allowed to increase their state aid, such as they are doing here.
There is one final point that the House needs to understand. If there is a dispute over whether there has been state aid that might breach the rules of our foreign masters, it is not the courts of this land that would decide on such a matter, but the European Court of Justice. It is so obnoxious, so wrong and so offensive that, though I sit as a Member for a United Kingdom constituency and come to this Parliament of the United Kingdom, this Parliament cannot make laws governing these issues in Northern Ireland because of the surrender of sovereignty to the EU. If this Government had any backbone and cared about parity in the United Kingdom and about the businesses in my constituency, they would be setting about giving us an equal playing field and facing down those who insist that it is their laws, not ours, that must apply.
Dan Tomlinson
I thank all Members for their contributions at this stage of the Bill’s passage—we are almost there. I will take some time to respond directly to the amendments that have been discussed today.
I will first address amendments 1 to 4, 5 and 7, which were spoken to by the shadow Exchequer Secretary, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild). Amendments 1 to 4 would remove the increase in dividend, savings and property income tax rates; amendment 5 would prevent income tax thresholds from staying at their current levels until 2030; and amendment 7 would remove reforms to the inheritance tax treatment of pensions. Based on costings that have been certified by the OBR, the direct impact of these amendments would cumulatively reduce forecast revenue raised in 2029-30—the year of relevance for our fiscal rules—by a whopping £12 billion. These amendments therefore pose a significant risk to the sustainability of our public finances and to our ability to fund the NHS and the public services that we all rely on. I therefore urge the House to reject them.
Sir Ashley Fox
Would the Minister concede that if that was offset by £12 billion less welfare spending, there would not be any threat to the sustainability of the finances?
Dan Tomlinson
If the Conservatives had credible plans and a credible history of reining in welfare spending, then I would, of course, be interested in taking them seriously. However, it was the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), who was the Work and Pensions Secretary when the welfare budget exploded. We are now trying to get on top of that.
I will not address new clauses 15 to 19 directly. The Government have set out our position on them at previous stages, although I do urge the House to reject them today.
I will now turn to the points raised by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) around amendments 112 to 139, which would have the effect of removing the distinction between the options available in respect of “specified Northern Ireland companies” and other companies from clauses 13, 14 and 15. The hon. and learned Gentleman has made his views known very clearly both today and on Second Reading. I will make the same point that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury made on Second Reading: as he will be aware—although he did not, I believe, mention this in his speech —service companies are able to benefit from the increase in the threshold. It is the Government’s understanding that there are very few, if any, goods and electricity companies in Northern Ireland that are close to the current enterprise management incentive limits, and we therefore think there will be minimal impact from these companies being subject to the previous scheme limits.
Jim Allister
Is the Minister saying to the House that the criterion here is to look at each region and see who is near the thresholds, and then to magically increase those that are? Surely the truth is that the Minister is not increasing the threshold because he has handed the power to do so to a foreign jurisdiction.
Dan Tomlinson
I am just stating a fact, which is that there are few—if any—businesses near the relevant thresholds. The hon. and learned Member made the point that the Government’s decision may be hampering growth and investment; I do not think that is the case. I am proud to be a member of a Government who are seeking to deepen and strengthen our ties with the European Union so that we in this country can increase our productivity through better flowing trade, working together with our partners. I therefore urge the House to reject amendments 112 to 139.
Amendments 6 and 8 relate to the changes to business property relief and agricultural property relief as raised by the shadow Exchequer Secretary as well as the hon. Members for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) and for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). If we were to adopt those amendments, we would weaken the public purse by about £300 million a year. It would also leave a status quo that contributes to the very largest estates paying lower average effective inheritance tax rates than the smallest estates. I therefore urge the House to reject those amendments.
The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley asked for clarity on payment deadlines in the inheritance tax system. The Government’s position is that the six-month point is the right one. It has applied for a long time, and it is not our position to change that timeline when these changes come into force.
Robbie Moore
I note that that is the Government’s position, but what level of assessment have they done of the negative implications of having just a six-month period as opposed to extending that to 18 months? From the engagement that Opposition Members have had with many stakeholders, we have found that the consequences are huge. What assessments have the Government done in relation to this specific issue?
Dan Tomlinson
I am sure this issue was considered before the policy was announced, and I have considered it too since I have been in post. It is worth pointing out that HMRC already offers several payment options to help personal representatives pay inheritance tax. That allows banks, building societies or investment providers to pay some or all the inheritance tax due from the deceased person’s accounts before probate is granted. There are a range of ways available to people to enable them to pay IHT within six months. I therefore urge the House to reject amendment 88.
Dan Tomlinson
The president of the National Farmers Union mentioned in his speech to the farmers’ conference just a few weeks ago that he was glad of my engagement with farmers—he personally called out that engagement. I took a trip to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), after being invited there by him, and I was glad to meet farmers there and learn about their experiences.
Amendments 89 to 94 seek to exclude the value of any joint interest in certain agricultural business tenancies from the £2.5 million allowance for 100% relief. It is worth pointing out that the drafting of the amendments risks those tenancies falling outside the allowance entirely so that, rather than providing 100% relief, the Government are concerned that the drafting would mean that the relief might well be capped at 50% for those with joint tenancies. That is certainly a reason to reject those amendments.
Dan Tomlinson
If the right hon. Member will forgive me, I will make progress, having spoken for eight minutes already.
Amendments 102 to 107 would mean that unlimited 100% agricultural property relief would be available on agricultural land rented out for at least 10 years. The Government’s position is that the House should reject these amendments.
The hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) also spoke to new clause 11. The Government have decided on a range of thresholds that will continue to be frozen until the end of the decade. We have made the decision across the piece, as was mentioned earlier, to sustainably and fairly raise revenue to fund our public services and get borrowing down. I therefore urge the House to reject amendments 102 to 107. I will not address in detail new clause 12 or amendments 67 to 87, 95 to 100 and 108 to 111, as the Government have set out their position on those amendments at previous stages, and I urge the House to reject them.
My hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), and for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), both made important contributions on the amendments relating to gambling duty. I have twice met the Minister from Gibraltar mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central and have been in correspondence with him. I understand that there are significant impacts on the economy in Gibraltar, and I hope to keep engaging on and discussing that.
Gareth Snell
I am glad about the Minister’s meetings, but while he is at the Dispatch Box, will he give an assurance that there are no future surprises and no significant tax-change announcements planned that will disproportionately affect areas such as Gibraltar as a result of their dependence on certain industries?
Dan Tomlinson
We will, of course, continue to engage with Ministers in Gibraltar. It would not be appropriate for me to write future Budgets at this Dispatch Box today, but we have made a significant change when it comes to gambling taxation. Rather than make further changes, the Government will monitor the impact of that change. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen for his contributions and representations.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) made a helpful speech— with not much notice, I understand. She raised the matter of alcohol duty. It is worth pointing out that the uprating in alcohol duty just keeps the revenue in line with inflation. We have seen reductions in alcohol consumption, driven not by the tax staying in line with inflation, but changes in consumers’ consumption habits. I therefore urge the House to reject amendment 101 and new clause 20.
Graham Stuart
The Minister has overcome his natural reluctance, and I am grateful to him. A lot of people get confused about the BPR tax changes. If there was £10 million in a company that someone inherited, and it was subject to those changes, the claim is that they would only have to pay £2 million in tax, but in fact the money to pay that tax has to be extracted from the company, so the person who inherits it, rather than the company, pays it. Will the Minister confirm that? In other words, if the money was taken out in the form of dividends, it would be £3.3 million, instead of £2 million, and that would have a very real impact on a small company. In fact, it could be existential.
Dan Tomlinson
I will not get into specific worked examples. The general point is that the Government have made changes both to business property relief and to agricultural property relief, in order to raise additional revenue from the very wealthiest estates. We have sought to do that because we want to put fairness into our tax system.
The CBAM was mentioned by the Opposition, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell). I thank him for his strong advocacy for his constituency, and the thousand people who work in the refinery there. The Government said at the Budget that we recognise the important role that refineries play in our energy security, and we are now considering the feasibility and impact of including refined products in the CBAM in future. It is very complicated, and there would be knock-on impacts on other sectors if the Government were to proceed with that. I have met representatives from the sector recently, and I will continue to engage with them.
Finally, I turn to new clause 4, which requires the Chancellor to report on how the regulations in the prohibition address the harm to individuals and businesses from online tax avoidance promotion, and the steps that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs should take to inform the public of the risk posed by online tax avoidance. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) for raising the important issue of avoidance promotion. I agree with her that it is appalling that these individuals promote tax avoidance schemes and get away with it. It causes misery to those caught up in the schemes, and deprives our public services of vital revenue. The Government are taking action via this Finance Bill to crack down on them.
I confirm to the House that the measures introduced in clauses 156 to 162 apply equally to those promoting avoidance schemes online, including on social media, and to those promoting them through more traditional routes. I can also confirm that the promoter action notice in clauses 163 to 173 will also apply.
I would also like to reassure my hon. Friend that we are publishing guidance on these matters, and I will ensure that it is clear throughout that the Government’s intention is to capture anyone who is promoting tax avoidance. This includes social media influencers who are making a monetary gain through clicks, as highlighted by my hon. Friend, and I would welcome her engagement in developing the guidance.
Ms Creasy
I thank all the MPs across the House—except those in the obvious party—who understand the risks to our constituents from this advice. It is very welcome to see a Government respond so quickly to social media problems, unlike the last one; we remember payday lending and the “buy now, pay later” lenders. The Minister talks about issuing guidance. Does he have a rough timeline for when that guidance will be available? I guess what I am really asking, on behalf of the millions of people who have been ripped off, is when Samuel Leeds will get a knock on the door from the taxman.
Dan Tomlinson
I look forward to working with my hon. Friend, and other Members who are interested in this topic, to make sure that we move as quickly as we possibly can. Let me thank all Members for their contributions during this this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 5 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 6
Offshore income gains: savings
“(1) This section applies in relation to an offshore income gain arising to the trustees of a settlement in a case where Chapter 2 of Part 13 of ITA 2007 (transfer of assets abroad) applies in relation to that gain for the tax year 2025-26 or any subsequent tax year because of the amendments made by section (Offshore income gains).
(2) If the offshore income gain arose in a tax year before the tax year 2025-26 and, by reason of that offshore income gain or a part of it, an offshore income gain was treated as arising in a tax year before the tax year 2025-26 to an individual under paragraphs (2) to (5) of regulation 20 of the Offshore Funds (Tax) Regulations 2009 (S.I. 2009/3001)—
(a) Chapter 2 of Part 13 of ITA 2007 is to be treated as not applying in relation to the offshore income gain arising to the trustees or that part of that gain, and
(b) references in section 734 of ITA 2007 to chargeable gains treated as accruing to an individual are to be treated as including the offshore income gain treated as arising to the individual.
(3) An individual is not chargeable to income tax under Chapter 2 of Part 13 of ITA 2007 on income treated as arising to the individual under section 732 of ITA 2007 by reason of the offshore income gain to the extent that the income, without the amendments made by section (Offshore income gains)(1) and (2)(b)—
(a) would have been treated as arising to that individual under paragraphs (2) to (5) of regulation 20 of the Offshore Funds (Tax) Regulations 2009 (S.I. 2009/3001), and
(b) would have been non-chargeable income (see subsections (4), (5) and (6)).
(4) The income would have been non-chargeable income if, without the amendments made by section (Offshore income gains)(1) and (2)(b)—
(a) the income would have been treated as arising by reason of—
(i) the matching of a capital payment received (or treated as received) by the individual before 6 April 2008 with an offshore income gain arising on or after 6 April 2025, or
(ii) the matching of a capital payment received (or treated as received) by the individual on or after 6 April 2025 with an offshore income gain arising before 6 April 2008, and
(b) paragraph 100 of Schedule 7 to FA 2008 would have applied to the income.
(5) The income would have been non-chargeable income to the extent that, without the amendments made by section (Offshore income gains)(1) and (2)(b), it would have exceeded the relevant proportion of income—
(a) which would have been treated as arising to the individual by reason of—
(i) the matching of a capital payment received (or treated as received) by the individual on or after 6 April 2008 with an offshore income gain arising on or after 6 April 2025, or
(ii) the matching of a capital payment received (or treated as received) by the individual on or after 6 April 2025 with an offshore income gain arising on or after 6 April 2008, and
(b) to which paragraph 101 of Schedule 7 to FA 2008 would have applied,
and, for that purpose, “relevant proportion” has the meaning given by sub-paragraphs (9) to (18) of paragraph 126 of that Schedule as they would have been modified by sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 101 of that Schedule.
(6) The income would have been non-chargeable income to the extent that, without the amendments made by section (Offshore income gains)(1) and (2)(b), it would have exceeded the relevant proportion of income—
(a) which would have been treated as arising to the individual by reason of—
(i) the matching of a capital payment received (or treated as received) by the individual on or after 6 April 2008 with an offshore income gain arising on or after 6 April 2025, or
(ii) the matching of a capital payment received (or treated as received) by the individual on or after 6 April 2025 with an offshore income gain arising on or after 6 April 2008,
(b) to which paragraph 102 of Schedule 7 to FA 2008 would have applied, and
(c) to which paragraph 101 of that Schedule would not have applied,
and, for that purpose, “relevant proportion” has the meaning given by sub-paragraphs (4) to (7) of paragraph 127 of that Schedule as they would have been modified by sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 102 of that Schedule.
(7) Subsection (3) does not prevent Chapter 2 of Part 13 of ITA 2007 from having effect as though the income not chargeable to tax under that subsection had been charged to tax under section 731 of that Act.
(8) Accordingly—
(a) in the application of section 733(1) of ITA 2007 to the individual for subsequent tax years, the amount of that income will be deducted at Step 2 and at paragraph (a) of Step 5, and
(b) in the application of section 733(1) of ITA 2007 to any other individual for subsequent tax years, the amount of that income will be deducted at paragraph (b) of Step 5.
(9) In section 733 of ITA 2007, after subsection (2D) insert—
“(2E) See subsections (7) and (8) of section (Offshore income gains: savings) of FA 2026 (offshore income gains: savings relating to amendments made by section (Offshore income gains) of that Act) for special provision about income that is treated as arising under section 732 but that is not chargeable to income tax under subsection (3) of that section.”
(10) This section—
(a) is to be treated as having come into force on 6 April 2025;
(b) has effect for the tax year 2025-26 and subsequent tax years.” —(Dan Tomlinson.)
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 7
Pensions: abolition of the lifetime allowance charge
“(1) Paragraph 134 of Schedule 9 to FA 2024 (power to make further provision in connection with the abolition of the lifetime allowance charge) is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (2)—
(a) for paragraph (b) substitute—
“(b) have effect for the tax years 2024-25 and 2025-26 (as well as subsequent tax years);”;
(b) in paragraph (d), at the end insert“(including any provision that could be made under paragraph 133)”.
(3) In sub-paragraph (3) omit “that increase any person’s liability to tax”.
(4) In sub-paragraph (4), for “5 April” substitute “30 June”.” —(Dan Tomlinson.)
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 11
Uprating of allowance amounts for agricultural property
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, undertake and publish an assessment of the potential merits of uprating annually the relief allowance amount for agricultural property by the change in the value of agricultural land.”—(Charles Maynard.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Budget in November was a Budget to build a stronger, more secure economy. It contained fair and necessary choices to deliver the public’s priorities by cutting the cost of living, cutting debt and borrowing, cutting child poverty, and cutting NHS waiting lists. At its heart were three deliberate pro-growth choices. First, by choosing to maintain economic stability and getting inflation and interest rates down, we gave businesses the confidence to invest and our economy the room to grow. Secondly, by choosing to reject austerity, we protected over £120 billion of additional investment in growth-driving infrastructure. Thirdly, by choosing to back the fast-growing British companies of the future, we supported the investment, the innovation and the economic dynamism that will increase growth, raise living standards, and boost the country’s prosperity in the next decade and beyond. The measures in the Bill deliver on those choices by introducing tax levers to unlock investment, back our wealth creators and attract talent by sticking to commitments in the corporate tax road map to provide certainty for businesses, and by doubling the limits for our enterprise tax incentives so that scale-ups can attract the capital and talent that they need in order to grow.
The Bill contains a series of other responsible decisions on tax, and that is because, at the time of the Budget, the Government faced choices. We could have made the reckless choice to abandon our fiscal rules and let borrowing and debt increase, but instead we made the pro-growth choice to get borrowing, debt and inflation down, more than doubling our headroom. We could have made the irresponsible choice and returned to austerity, cutting public services as the Conservative party did and undermining capital investment, but instead we made the pro-growth choice to protect the investment in Britain’s infrastructure and to build a better, stronger, more secure economy.
In line with our commitment to fiscal responsibility, the Bill maintains income tax thresholds for employees and the self-employed at the current levels for a further three years, from April 2028 until April 2031. It also contains measures to strengthen the integrity of the tax system by closing loopholes and removing barriers. That includes reforms to collect more unpaid taxes and to modernise the tax system to make it easier for taxpayers to get their tax right first time. We are introducing new powers to close in on promoters of marketed tax avoidance, and to challenge those who knowingly engage in fraudulent business in the construction industry. Alongside the measures announced in the 2024 Budget, the measures in the Bill to close the tax gap will bring the total revenue from tax gap measures announced in this Parliament to £10 billion in 2029-30.
I wholeheartedly thank all Members, on both sides of the House, for their contributions during the Bill’s passage. The Bill contains the right choices for the public finances, the right choices on investment, the right choices for businesses and for working people, the right choices for our public services, and the right choices for Britain. For those reasons, I commend it to the House.
James Wild
I join the Minister in thanking hon. Members on both sides of the House who participated in the debate—there are rather more of them here than there have been throughout our proceedings. I also thank the parliamentary staff, and the hon. Members who chaired the Committee.
In this 534-page Bill, the Government have chosen to impose a raft of tax-raising measures that hit work, enterprise and investment, and which add significantly to the regulatory costs on UK businesses. They have extended the freeze on income tax thresholds, dragging hundreds of thousands more working people into higher tax bands; they have introduced a family farm and family business tax, targeting rural communities and family firms; and they have increased taxes on savings, property income and long-term investment. Taken together, these measures amount to billions of pounds-worth of extra taxation, pushing the overall tax burden to record levels. Ultimately, the Chancellor has chosen to make the UK a less attractive place for businesses and for the investors who we need to grow the economy.
Just last week, the Office for Budget Responsibility cut growth projects again. At a time of global uncertainty, the Government are taking the wrong course, and it shows. Unemployment is up, taxes are up, welfare spending is going up, and living standards will fall over the course of this Parliament. This Government have led the country into a high-tax, low-growth doom loop.
There is a long list of voices sounding the alarm over the economy, but the Chancellor is still not listening. Rather than change course, she is sticking to her failing plan of higher taxes, higher spending and borrowing. This Bill breaks the promises to the British people, and we will oppose it this evening.
Charlie Maynard
I speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, and the shadow Minister’s audacity in talking about a “high-tax, low-growth doom loop” is pretty high.
With regard to this Bill, I ask the Government to look again at four things. I will go through them quickly, and then I will sit down. I ask the Government to provide more detail, and quickly, on their plans to prevent pensioners from being dragged into paying income tax; to publish information on how the freezing of tax thresholds until 2030-31 impacts households at various income levels; to recognise the impact that the Government’s policies are having on youth unemployment, which is up by 100,000 in the last year, and to take steps to halt this rapid rise, which at a minimum would include reducing the national insurance contributions rate paid by employers on part-time employees earning between £5,000 and £9,100 per year; and, finally, as per new clause 11, which we just pushed to a vote, to look again at taking a fairer approach to farmers by allowing the thresholds on agricultural property relief to rise over time in line with agricultural land prices, rather than having those thresholds eroded over time.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Will the Serjeant at Arms investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Before we move on to the next business—unfortunately the Government Chief Whip has left the Chamber—may I emphasise to all Members the need to vote in a prompt manner? There can be no excuse for loitering in the Lobby.
Business without Debate
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Commonwealth Day 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I am grateful for the chance to lead the House in acknowledging and marking Commonwealth Day 2026. I declare an interest as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the Commonwealth and a member of the executive of the UK branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—and as, in many ways, a child of the Commonwealth.
As you know Madam Deputy Speaker, the Commonwealth was formed way back in 1949—not that you were present, for clarity—with His late Majesty King George VI as its first head; we think, of course, about Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. It is a voluntary association of 56 independent and equal countries across the globe. It is home to 2.7 billion people and includes both advanced economies and developing countries. Thirty-three of its members are small states, including many island nations in all corners of the world, from Jamaica—the land of my grandfather’s birth; that wonderful green island in the West Indies—to Tonga, Tuvalu and Malta. Its member states have agreed to shared goals on development, democracy and peace, and its values and principles are expressed in the Commonwealth charter.
Though I am firmly of the view that the Commonwealth must be recognised every day by all of us, I am pleased that on the second Monday in March, every year since 1977, people from across the Commonwealth, representing nearly a third of the world’s population, come together in a shared moment of reflection and celebration. So it was again this year; the world marked Commonwealth Day on Monday this week, and people across all 56 member countries took part in cultural events, school activities and faith-based services.
On Monday, thanks to Mr Speaker, the Commonwealth flag was raised here, in this mother of Parliaments. Sadly, I had not quite reached this place from Newcastle-under-Lyme—the centre of our collective universe—to attend the ceremony, but I pay tribute to Mr Speaker for the seriousness with which he takes furthering links between Commonwealth Parliaments, peoples and traditions.
Although I could not attend the flag raising, I was privileged to mark Commonwealth Day in the presence of Their Majesties at a service of thanksgiving at Westminster abbey, attending on behalf of my constituents back home in Newcastle-under-Lyme. It allowed me and the many hundreds of people present the opportunity to reflect, remember and celebrate all that makes the Commonwealth—a family of nations in all corners of the globe—what it is, what is has been, and what it can be.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate? It is important that we remember Commonwealth Day, and he is right to mark it. Commonwealth Day is more than the hon. Gentleman says. We celebrate a network of 56 nations with shared values, but for Northern Ireland, the Commonwealth also offers real economic opportunities, from expanding trade in agriculture, technology and manufacturing to attracting investment and fostering innovation. Does he agree that by embracing these partnerships, we in Northern Ireland and around the United Kingdom can grow our economy, empower our youth and build a stronger future in the Commonwealth?
Adam Jogee
If the hon. Member waits a little minute longer, he will hear all the important points that I make, some of which he has just mentioned. I agree with him. He knows that I had the wisdom to marry a woman from County Antrim—
Adam Jogee
A very good choice. I am glad that she chose me. Actually, I am sure that she regrets it sometimes in this life. The importance of Northern Ireland both to the United Kingdom and to the Commonwealth is absolute, and he and I are at one on that.
The hon. Gentleman’s intervention demonstrates why I am delighted to have secured this debate: it provides colleagues across the House with an important opportunity not only to reflect on the legacy of the Commonwealth and our own individual stories and connections, but to look to the opportunities before us. Every one of us in this place is a Commonwealth citizen, and it is about time that we all started acting like it. Our world is ever more fractious, there is geopolitical instability almost everywhere we look and, following our departure from the European Union, it is vital for jobs and livelihoods in Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire, Northern Ireland and right across our United Kingdom that we nurture and further our connections with the wider world. Where better to start than with the Commonwealth—
Adam Jogee
—and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell)?
Henry Tufnell
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and for his excellent speech. In the light of our departure from the European Union, the intractable nature of our discussions with the EU, and our being unable to get a better deal than any other member state has, does he agree that we should look to benefit both his constituents and mine by taking a Commonwealth-first approach?
Adam Jogee
My hon. Friend—he is a very good friend—makes an excellent point. I hope that His Majesty’s Government will advance a Commonwealth-first approach in the coming years. My hon. Friend could not have put it better.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
We are celebrating Commonwealth Week. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is absolutely shocking to discover that the Government made the decision to freeze UK state pensions for 430,000 British citizens overseas, of whom 90% are in Commonwealth countries? It is particularly cynical of them to have introduced the legislation enforcing that freeze last Friday, using a mechanism that does not provide for parliamentary debate or votes, although the policy affects so many people who live overseas.
Adam Jogee
Who doesn’t love an intervention from the Liberal Democrats? The hon. Lady will not be surprised to hear that those issues have been brought to me, in my capacity as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group, together with my co-chair, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell). We have raised them with Ministers, and I feel sure that my colleagues on the Front Bench will pick up those issues in the coming weeks. It is a message that many of us have heard loud and clear, and we hope to see some progress on this.
The Commonwealth’s roots go back to the British empire, but today any country can join the modern Commonwealth, and that speaks to its potential—
Adam Jogee
I will happily give way to the Member of Parliament for my in-laws back in Northern Ireland.
Robin Swann
I thank the Member for giving way. He will be aware that a good friend of ours, Frank Feighan, the TD for Sligo-Leitrim, is in Westminster today. Frank has often championed the idea that the Republic of Ireland should return to the Commonwealth and expand that greater familiar connectivity that we have across the old empire. Does the Member agree that Frank should be encouraged to forward that argument?
Adam Jogee
I am grateful to all my friends for coming out tonight with their helpful, pithy interventions, but if I wax lyrical too much I will get into trouble. The hon. Member raises an important point and more generally acknowledges the important role that Britain and Ireland together have played in advancing the causes of freedom and peace. We have seen much progress between our island and the island of Ireland in recent years. I feel sure that the hon. Member, with Minister Feighan, will continue to advance the relationship between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom, and he will have a strong champion in me as he continues to do so.
The modern Commonwealth that all countries can join speaks to its potential for good, for change and for progress, but we should not shy away from our history. Yes, it is complex and, yes, at times it is painful, but it is important that we reflect honestly on it. The Commonwealth emerged from that history as a voluntary association of nations committed not to hierarchy but to partnership, co-operation and equality. Throughout our history—a history that we reflect on every Commonwealth Day—Commonwealth nations have proudly stood together in defence of our shared values.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech and I congratulate him on bringing it to the Chamber today. On our joint bonds, I represent Bromley and Biggin Hill, and RAF Biggin Hill played a crucial part in the second world war when it was stocked full of pilots from the Commonwealth, so it is not just political or economic bonds but desperation and fighting for freedom that bind us together.
Adam Jogee
The hon. Gentleman makes a really good point. I feel as though Conservative campaign headquarters has seen my speech, because I was just about to say that in world war two, soldiers from across the Commonwealth made immense sacrifices in the fight against fascism on the battlefields of Europe. They included Indians, Africans and those from the Caribbean and the Pacific. There were Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews and Christians from all over the Commonwealth, including Jamaica, Rhodesia—now Zimbabwe—Australia, India, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand and Malta, to name just a few.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate and for the excellent speech that he is giving. I recently joined Tim and Lizzie for a walk around our main Commonwealth war graves site in Higher cemetery in Exeter, which sits at the centre of the shared endeavours across the Commonwealth in both world wars. It really keeps the memory of those people and of our shared history alive. Will my hon. Friend join me in commending the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for all the work it does across the world in tending the graves of the people who died in the service of our countries and keeping their memory alive?
Adam Jogee
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. In the Gallery is Father Tommy Merry, who used to be the vicar of St Margaret’s at Wolstanton in Newcastle-under-Lyme, where there are a number of Commonwealth war graves. I was there recently and saw the amazing volunteers who live in my constituency—the centre of our collective universe, as I have said—who week in, week out volunteer their time, their compassion and their commitment not just to honouring our history but to ensuring that we live it, remember it and keep it in mind as we go forward. From Newcastle-under-Lyme to Devon, people take the Commonwealth War Graves Commission seriously. I pay tribute to them for all the work that they do.
Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) led a debate that focused on the more than 3 million soldiers and labourers from the Commonwealth who served nobly, diligently and bravely alongside the British Army in world war one. That shared experience remains an enduring example of our collective commitment to freedom and shows why the Commonwealth was formed back in 1949 and why it is so important that we mark Commonwealth Day 2026.
Adam Jogee
I will give way to the hon. Member, who I don’t think was there in 1949.
Andrew Rosindell
I commend my hon. Friend for his initiative in having this debate and for his work as co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for the Commonwealth. Does he agree that the Commonwealth’s wider members—our overseas territories, the Crown dependencies, the external territories of Australia and the realm states of New Zealand—are also very much part of the Commonwealth family and should be included in some way in the work of the Commonwealth?
Adam Jogee
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He calls me his hon. Friend; I am not sure what that does for his street cred or mine, but I am grateful to him for the compliment—it will probably cause you more trouble these days, comrade. But in all seriousness, he raises an important point. There are people up and down the United Kingdom and in our overseas territories, all of whom played an important part in the battles I referred to and in the efforts to bring our people together. I agree with him that ensuring they all have a seat at the table is important for all of us.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Graham Stuart
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is being typically gracious and generous. Last year I met Darren England, who goes out quietly and cleans and maintains and lovingly looks after the Commonwealth war graves in Withernsea. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating all those who go quietly about that business, looking after the graves and showing due respect to those who have lost their lives in protecting this country and the values that the whole Commonwealth shares?
Adam Jogee
I will, and I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I am glad he has found his voice. He was losing it earlier on today, and I am grateful to him for his intervention. From Devon to Newcastle-under-Lyme and up to north Yorkshire, he is right that we want to ensure that we hold on to not just that community spirit, but an understanding of what went before us and how we also ensure we do not fall back into the battles that we were able to win in previous years.
In the latter half of the 20th century, the Commonwealth played a very important role in advancing the global cause of human dignity. The Singapore declaration of 1971 set out the recognition of racial prejudice and discrimination as an “evil of society”. This was followed by the Harare declarations of 1991, signed in the land of my father’s birth, which committed the Commonwealth to strengthen its ability to promote and protect democracy in member states.
The Commonwealth offers so much more, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) alluded to when he prematurely intervened on my speech, in the arts, culture, sport, education, health and other spheres. And while I speak of the historical significance of the Commonwealth, we must also recognise that it is a living network with immense potential.
Dave Robertson
I thank my hon. Friend and county colleague for giving way. I am listening intently because we are hearing of many of the wonderful things about the Commonwealth and much of what we have spoken about has been about the past and our shared sacrifice and the real history that we should celebrate. But as we look forward, will he join me in offering the best of luck to all competitors in the Commonwealth games this summer in Glasgow?
Adam Jogee
My hon. Friend from Lichfield in Staffordshire raises an excellent point. I am looking forward to him competing one day in the Commonwealth games when they are held in Lichfield—
Adam Jogee
I would bet on you, brother.
But in all seriousness, my hon. Friend raises an important point. The Commonwealth games is just one example of how the Commonwealth brings people together, and he and I will be cheering on team GB together as they do well. In the latter—excuse me, Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend threw me there with his excitement at taking part in the tug of war in the Commonwealth games one day. The theme of this year’s Commonwealth Day is
“unlocking opportunities together for a prosperous Commonwealth”,
reminding us of the opportunities that stand before us. It is a massive regret that the Commonwealth is currently underutilised. It is underfunded and does not get the recognition it deserves by member states and its leaders. It needs meaningful support and a greater sense of direction to make it the useful network for the contemporary world we all live in.
That is particularly important given the fraying relations across the globe. With the aggression of hostile states like Russia and China, we face a period of acute geopolitical uncertainty. The Commonwealth has a unique opportunity to bring together nations that share a commitment to mutual respect and the rule of law. The Commonwealth makes a unique contribution to international relations, as it is an association built on dialogue, where large and small states are given an equal voice at the table. It also offers the opportunity to make progressive change. The Commonwealth already supports programmes focused on advancing women’s rights, expanding access to quality education and tackling the climate crisis. We use Commonwealth Day 2026 to recognise and celebrate that, because the Commonwealth must not be a symbolic institution: it must be a practical network that promotes progressive ideas across the world.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) noted, reducing barriers to trade between member states could deliver significant benefits for my constituents, and yours too, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Darren Paffey
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. He will know that in the history of the Commonwealth, many have gone to it and come from it through the port city of Southampton. As he speaks about the future value of the Commonwealth, does he agree that port cities like Southampton will play a key part through local benefits to culture, education and the sharing of ideas?
Adam Jogee
My hon. Friend is right. As he talks about the importance of ports to the Commonwealth, I think of my grandfather who docked at Liverpool in February 1941 to help the war effort and fight the fascists. My hon. Friend makes an important point, which many of us in our cities, our families and our communities strongly feel.
Strengthening those economic relationships could help grow our economy here at home while supporting development and prosperity across the Commonwealth. Of course, partnership must also include honest conversations about difficult issues. In some Commonwealth countries, serious concerns remain about the protection of human rights, including the persecution of religious and ethnic minorities. The Commonwealth should be a forum where such challenges can be addressed openly. Through respectful engagement, member states can act as critical friends to one another, encouraging progress while maintaining dialogue.
The world has changed dramatically since the Commonwealth’s founding almost 80 years ago. The advances in technology, the urgency of the climate crisis and shifts in geopolitics have presented challenges that no country can tackle alone, and so it is important that we now renew and innovate our forms of international co-operation. The Commonwealth offers exactly that opportunity—a network that connects nations across continents, languages, cultures and faiths. It demonstrates that diversity does not weaken but strengthens us when we are united by shared values and common purpose.
Commonwealth Day offers us an important moment not only to celebrate these bonds, but to consider how co-operation can be improved in the decades ahead. It must be a living, breathing partnership that amplifies the voices of its member states and strengthens connections between their peoples and economies. I urge Ministers in the Foreign Office to hear my calls to ensure that we redouble our efforts to make the Commonwealth fit for purpose, that the United Kingdom steps up to be counted in our financial support for the Commonwealth Secretariat, and that leaders across the Commonwealth recognise that we want action, not words.
Our leaders must empower our people in Newcastle-under-Lyme, in Newcastle in New South Wales, in Newcastle in KwaZulu-Natal, and—if I may, Madam Deputy Speaker—in north Southampton and Romsey. There is talent, ambition and creativity all over the Commonwealth, but it is time we harnessed it. My hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues in the Foreign Office have the potential to change that, and I look forward to playing my part working with them and colleagues across the House and the Commonwealth in delivering the final sentence of the Commonwealth charter:
“We aspire to a Commonwealth that is a strong and respected voice in the world, speaking out on major issues; that strengthens and enlarges its networks; that has a global relevance and profile; and that is devoted to improving the lives of all peoples of the Commonwealth.”
Happy Commonwealth Day 2026, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for securing the debate. All in this House recognise his tireless work in support of the Commonwealth as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group and as a member of the executive committee of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I also welcome the commitment to the Commonwealth demonstrated in the Chamber this evening, and the good spirit that obviously suffuses the Chamber when talking about the Commonwealth—it makes a nice change for me from many of the more controversial questions on which I am often engaged. I hope that there are some watching us in the Commonwealth, and I hope they can see the true spirit of friendship and goodwill that emanates from this place to all corners of the globe.
I will try to address the points that have been raised by hon. Members. I feel personally very connected to the Commonwealth. As a young man, I joined the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, now the FCDO. The first posting that I served properly in was in Pakistan—obviously, an important member of the Commonwealth. Pakistan and many other parts of the Commonwealth face challenging times, and I know that the Commonwealth is a much-needed source of strength and stability. As His Majesty the King reflected this week, it is often in such testing moments that the enduring spirit of this family of nations is most clearly revealed. The Commonwealth spans every continent and ocean, and it represents about a third of the world’s population. Now in its 77th year, it continues, as my hon. Friend said so articulately, to show its relevance as a family of nations bound by shared values, co-operation and genuinely deep appreciation.
The Commonwealth charter, from which my hon. Friend quoted, expresses the commitment of member states to the development of free and democratic societies and to the promotion of peace and prosperity. Commonwealth Week is an opportune moment to reflect on our shared values of freedom, peace and democracy. We were very pleased to join the 26th Commonwealth foreign affairs meeting here in London on Sunday. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary joined counterparts to discuss the most pressing challenges facing our societies and the international system. On Monday, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for the Commonwealth joined His Majesty the King, Her Majesty the Queen and Commonwealth representatives at Westminster Abbey to mark Commonwealth Day and to reflect on the deep strength of the partnership. We are looking forward to the Commonwealth games in Glasgow this summer, which should bring us together in a spirit of friendly competition. Later this year, leaders will meet in Saint John’s, Antigua and Barbuda, for the Heads of Government meeting, which is an important opportunity for the Commonwealth to show leadership in our changing world.
As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, this is a time of profound international challenge—from rising security threats and economic volatility, to climate pressures and democratic backsliding. These times demand contemporary partnerships that work. The Commonwealth, with its reach and diversity, is well placed to respond. Under the leadership of secretary-general Shirley Botchwey, we are seeing important steps being taken. The new strategic plan of September 2025 is focused on economic, environmental and democratic resilience. It reflects the realities of our age, and the priorities of member states.
The UK supports that direction; we continue to stand fully behind the Commonwealth. We remain the largest financial contributor to its institutions, including its secretariat, its foundation and the Commonwealth of Learning. Through its networks, including vital accredited organisations, the Commonwealth helps teachers, universities, parliamentarians and businesses to work directly with their counterparts across member states. That co-operation turns the shared values about which my hon. Friend spoke so meaningfully into practical results—be it from teachers sharing curricula, parliamentarians strengthening scrutiny or businesses navigating new markets. That is one of the Commonwealth’s real strengths.
At a time when global institutions are under strain, that network of nations is a powerful example of multilateral co-operation that delivers. That approach will be reflected in the global partnerships conference in London in May. We look forward to co-hosting that conference with South Africa, bringing together Governments, civil society and the private sector to help shape the international development system for a new era.
There is much more I could say about the work that we are doing through the Commonwealth on economic growth, democracy, good governance and indeed the vital climate challenges that we face, but in summary I turn once again to the importance of the Commonwealth, which has been demonstrated once again this evening, and to why it remains so vital in today’s world: the combination of its shared values, its global reach and its relevance at a time of growing instability. This is a significant year for the Commonwealth, with ministerial meetings, major events and leaders coming together.
Adam Jogee
I know that it is naughty to intervene on the Minister in my own Adjournment debate, but since we have five minutes left—four minutes, excuse me —I wonder whether he might touch on a couple of those economic benefits to which he just referred.
Mr Falconer
I would be delighted to do so. Growth is clearly a central mission for the Government, and the Commonwealth truly can play a valuable role in delivering it. The Commonwealth has a significant share of the world’s markets, critical mineral reserves and trading potential. The combined GDP is projected to reach $20 trillion by 2027. Shared language, legal systems and institutions make it easier to trade and invest with one another.
As we know, however, many members face real constraints, from debt pressures and volatile trade to limited access to affordable finance, all against a backdrop of global uncertainty. That is why the UK will work with Commonwealth partners to put economic growth at the very top of the agenda at the Heads of Government meeting later this year. The focus will be on reducing barriers to trade, making it easier to do business across borders, deepening digital trade, improving alignment of standards, strengthening supply chains and expanding the Commonwealth investment network, with which I know my hon. Friend is familiar.
We believe that that work is already making a difference, supporting small businesses from agritourism projects in the Caribbean to recycling and land restoration initiatives in the Pacific, helping them attract investment and build resilience. As a group of countries committed to free trade and the rule of law, we will also work together to support World Trade Organisation reform and a more stable and predictable global trading environment, including for small states.
Those are some of the steps that we will take on economic growth. It is also right to say that some of the climate pressures facing the Commonwealth impact very heavily on the growth prospects of some Commonwealth members. We have been glad to support some financial measures in that regard, including the climate finance access hub and the disaster risk finance portal, which help states to build resilience and respond more effectively to climate risk. We are taking action to try to ensure that Commonwealth countries particularly exposed to the vicissitudes of climate change do not face financing burdens in their ability to respond.
Before I conclude, I want to agree very sincerely with the points made by hon. Members and friends about the Commonwealth war graves. I remember visiting the pristinely maintained Commonwealth war graves in South Sudan. So much else has changed in South Sudan since those graveyards were put in place, and they have been maintained pristinely. One of the functions that often falls to British diplomats is to inspect those graves, which are the most moving and visible demonstration of the deep commitments that Commonwealth members feel to each other.
As I said, it is a significant year for the Commonwealth. Together, we will work to support growth, strengthen democracy and the rule of law, and back vulnerable states as they respond to climate change. We are determined to enhance co-operation in the months and years to come to ensure that the Commonwealth continues to deliver for all its citizens.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. The draft order was laid before the House on 2 February, under the affirmative procedure.
We are all acutely aware, particularly at this moment in time, that households and businesses across the country are feeling the effects of global energy volatility. That is why the Government remain absolutely focused on finding sensible and targeted efficiencies to reduce the costs of the UK energy system, while ensuring that we maintain the investor confidence that is critical to building the system we need for the future.
The order changes how we uprate the cost of the renewables obligation scheme, switching from the retail price index to the consumer price index from 1 April. CPI offers a more accurate reflection of real-world price changes than RPI, which tends to overstate the rate of inflation. In simple terms, that means that the costs of operating the scheme will grow more slowly in the years ahead, easing pressure on the consumers who pay for it through their energy bills. The change forms part of wider efforts to generate efficiencies across the energy system, reduce costs for businesses and ease the pressure on domestic bills.
This change follows a joint public consultation undertaken by the UK Government with the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, who operate their own renewables obligation schemes. The consultation closed in December and a response was published in January. We recognise that the proposed options generated significant concern and much disagreement from renewables obligation stakeholders. We understand the points raised about the need for policy stability and to ensure that we have strong investor confidence in the UK.
But it is precisely because the renewables obligation scheme has been such a success—it now supports over 30% of the UK’s energy generation—that we must ensure its costs remain proportionate and sustainable as it continues to operate. The scheme has been instrumental in building the renewable capacity that we rely on, and we want it to keep doing that, but without placing unnecessary burdens on bill payers.
By implementing the change in time for the new compliance year in April, we can secure estimated savings of £1.9 billion over the remaining lifetime of the scheme, which works out at around £180 million a year for the next 11 years. These are meaningful savings for consumers, delivered through a sensible and reasonable change to the electricity generation scheme.
Our approach is one of balance: it reduces the cost pressures on households and businesses, but continues to provide the stable environment for long-term investment in the renewable sector. As we all know, the world around us is becoming increasingly unstable. The only sustainable way to shield hard-working people around the UK from global energy shocks is to accelerate our transition to clean, home-grown energy. That means not only deploying new renewable capacity, but ensuring that every part of the existing system is as fair, efficient and affordable as possible.
The order before us is a small but extremely important step in that direction. It reflects a pragmatic, consumer-focused approach that underpins our energy strategy: looking for opportunities to make the system better for British people, while maintaining the confidence of the investors who are so important for building the infrastructure of the future. Subject to the will of Parliament, the arrangements will come into force the day after the regulations are made. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
For those who do not understand how renewables obligations work, let me bring Members up to speed. Three quarters of our wind and solar power is generated through renewables obligation subsidies. That means that every time electricity is generated, suppliers get the wholesale price plus a massive subsidy on top. Every time the wind blows, some wind farms get up to three times the market price of electricity. If wholesale electricity prices are £80 per MWh—which they roughly were before the crisis—wind farms are getting two renewables obligation certificates on top, at around £70 each. That means they have been getting £220 per MWh, which is almost three times the market price for electricity.
For years the public have been told that the energy we get from the wind and the sun is free, but nothing could be further from the truth when we look at the deals. Labour likes to say that gas is the problem, and in the last week the price of gas power has been high, at around £120 per MWH, but here is what they are not telling us: the renewables on the scheme will always get more than the gas price. Right now, there are wind farms getting £270 per MWh, because they get whatever the wholesale price is plus the subsidies on top.
The renewables obligations deals last for 20 years, so let me be crystal clear: the wind and solar farms on the scheme are not cheap. They can never be cheap. No matter what the gas price is or the wholesale cost of electricity is, they will always be much, much more expensive—and the subsidy goes up year after year. The Government are trying to address that today, but it is the subsidy itself, not the incremental inflation change, that does the real damage.
I am afraid it is the Secretary of State who started all this. Back in 2008, he was the one who effectively doubled the subsidy that got us into this position. It was a bad deal. He was paying through the nose because, ideologically, he thinks renewables are better, even when they are more expensive. At the same time, the public have been told that renewables are cheap, which is a fundamentally dishonest position. That is why our position is simple. If we argue that renewables are cheap, and truly want them to be so, we have to take these eye-watering deals out of the system. Rather than just tinkering around the edges, which is what the Labour party plans to do today, we should end the rip-off subsidies for good.
Will the Minister explain why, in the event of an energy crisis, he thinks our constituents should pay wind farms three times the market price for electricity? It has not cost them any more to produce their power, yet they are currently getting a huge increase in profits at the expense of our constituents’ bills. Should we not be doing everything we can to improve the cost of living? When prices are high, as they are now, how can we justify baking in paying some wind and solar farms double or triple the price? How on earth can people who are worried about their constituents paying £120 per MWh for their gas power justify paying three quarters of our wind and solar farms up to £270 for their power? Our cheap power plan would scrap the subsidies and put more money in people’s pockets.
Labour have tried to move the costs on to people’s tax bills. Ordinary working people who are facing higher taxes on their income, pensions, small businesses and student loans will be paying for the subsidies. It is in the Minister’s gift to change the subsidy arrangements, as this statutory instrument shows. There is no legal barrier to scrapping them, or we would not be able to make the changes we are making today. If the Government keep the rip-off subsidies in place, they will be making it clear to all their constituents that they are prioritising the profits of wind developers over the energy bills of ordinary people.
If the Government want people to use electricity to heat their home or drive their car, they need to make electricity cheap. Instead, as even Martin Lewis has pointed out, the Secretary of State has spent the last two years piling cost after cost on to electricity bills. When it comes to security of supply, the Government are choosing to shut down the North sea, only to import dirtier gas from halfway around the world. We have fewer jobs, higher bills and more carbon in the atmosphere. It is simply mad. The Government have got this backward. They need to maximise UK production from the North sea and make electricity cheap.
The British public are not stupid. They can see that the Government’s energy policy is not serious. Although we will support the order, we urge the Government to go much further, end the subsidies for good and put cutting people’s bills first.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats have long called on the Government to reform and reconsider the UK’s renewables obligation contracts, which were replaced in 2017 by the contracts for difference scheme set up by the Liberal Democrats when we were in government. We all know that CfDs are a more effective and affordable way to create investment in our net zero economy, which continues to grow, and has to grow for us to be able to decouple the cost of electricity from gas. And it is growing, despite attempts from other parties to talk it down.
Adjusting the inflation indexation from RPI to CPI, and therefore reducing the buy-out price for the contracts, will reduce the costs of this outdated scheme. That is always welcome news to households across the UK. However, as the Minister said, there are valid concerns from the renewable energy sector about midway changes to investment plans, particularly if the changes are piecemeal. RenewableUK and others were broadly against the change, and voiced that repeatedly in the Government’s consultation and beyond.
The UK’s reputation as a safe and predictable place for investment in vital new renewable energy capacity has been hard won, and must be retained to keep costs as low as possible for bill payers. The way that policy changes matters. Having listened to the sector, the Liberal Democrats believe the Government are miscalculating by not going further to make wholesale changes to the renewables obligation scheme, as we have called for. By drawing out the changes, they are only adding uncertainty for investment, so I call on the Minister to seriously consider our calls to move 85% of renewables obligation contracts on to the CfD scheme, as part of a single, coherent package. That way, renewable energy projects can continue to produce the green energy that the UK desperately needs, while also ensuring that generators can benefit from a new long-term contract that is fair and equitable for generators and consumers alike.
In times like this, when we see volatile oil and gas prices soar, consumers need and deserve to feel the benefits of the lower costs of renewable energy, rather than the unintended repercussions of the Government’s multiple fragmented changes.
Michael Shanks
I always welcome unanimous support from the House for the Government’s energy policy, and it sounds like we will have that this afternoon, which I appreciate.
I always thank the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey, for her lessons, although they often do not involve her own time in the Government, or the Conservatives’ 14 years in government. If it was so important to reform the renewables obligation, she had a number of years in which she might have done that, but she did not. It is now, after being Government, that this is all suddenly coming forward.
There is an important point about the lessons learned from crisis like this, and this is a moment for us to learn the right lessons. Only four years after the price spikes caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, when the fossil fuel market did broadly what it is doing now, the lesson is to move even faster away from gas, but the Conservative party is doubling down and saying that now is the time to invest even more in gas. That is the wrong lesson to learn from this crisis. Hoping that, at some point in the future, the wholesale price will come down to a point that justifies that argument is not what we should be doing with the bills of our constituents and businesses across the country. We should be building a system that protects us from volatility, and that is what we are doing.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, made the point well that the UK benefits from having a safe and predictable environment for investors. That is really important, because if that changes, we will see the tens of billions that have been invested in this country in the past 18 months go somewhere else, and will also see the cost of capital—of building the infrastructure we need—go up, which goes on consumers’ bills.
A stable regulatory environment in which people can be confident that a contract means what it says is one of the strong fundamentals of this country’s economy, and why people choose to do business here. If we start ripping up contracts, we lose that credibility, so I do not think that plan is serious or credible. If it was, it surely would have been introduced after 2022, when we had the same lessons that we have now. But it was not.
On the point about costs, it is important to reiterate that the renewables obligation scheme will come to an end in 2037. A number of projects will come off the scheme between 2027 and 2037, so the cost will come down. We made a conscious decision in the Budget to increase taxes on the wealthiest in order to pay to bring down the bills of some of most hard-working and less well-off people across the country, and we stand by it. That is why, in April, in the midst of a price crisis, the price of energy in this country will be capped and bills will go down by more than £100, because of the decisions this Government have chosen to take. By the sound of it, the Conservatives would not have taken those decisions, leaving consumers exposed.
This order is an important step. I recognise that it does not do everything that Members want but, as I said in my introductory speech, it is about being pragmatic. It takes a step that is still unwelcome, understandably, for those who have renewables obligations, but it is a pragmatic way to make sure that we get the best deal for consumers without shaking the foundation of the investment we need to build the clean energy system of the future. We think this is the right approach. We stand ready to take further action on the cost of living and energy bills, and we are doing that work, but this is a really important step. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Procurement (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 (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. The Procurement Act 2023, which was introduced under the last Government and passed with cross-party support, is a step forward in making public procurement simpler, more transparent and more trustworthy. It is not the whole journey, of course: we will be setting out further reforms shortly to ensure that our procurement budget goes further and does more to support jobs and growth and to reduce unnecessary burdens on businesses. The Act does deliver progress, however, and reflects a clear expectation from the public that procurement should be open to scrutiny, that spending should stand up to challenge and that public money should always deliver value.
The public rightly want to know what the Government are buying, who we are buying it from and what we are paying. That is the gap that the draft regulations will fill. They will not change how contracts are awarded, but they will complete a key element of the Procurement Act’s transparency framework by making it possible to follow significant payments under public contracts, and on a single central platform. That will strengthen confidence in the system, support better contract management and drive better value for money. It will benefit contracting authorities and suppliers, and the taxpayer too, by tightening fraud prevention and ensuring proper scrutiny of how our money is spent.
This statutory instrument will implement section 70 of the Act by amending the Procurement Regulations 2024 to set out what payment information must be published for payments of more than £30,000 under public contracts, and how it must be published on the central digital platform. It is designed to be proportionate and manageable, requiring quarterly reporting and applying only to contracts procured from 1 April 2026.
The draft regulations also include a small number of connected measures that will make the transparency system work properly across the market. They will ensure that, where a supplier is awarded a notifiable below-threshold contract, which is generally more than £12,000 for central Government and £30,000 for non-central government, they are registered on the central platform. That will close a significant transparency gap, while improving the visibility of small and medium-sized enterprise and voluntary, community and social enterprise participation in public procurement.
The draft regulations will also require contracting authorities to state in below-threshold tender notices when a competition is reserved for SMEs and/or VCSEs. That will make sure that when an opportunity is reserved for SMEs or VCSEs, it is clearly flagged up front so that it is easy to find, bid for and, hopefully, win.
The draft regulations will also make a limited set of practical and technical amendments to keep the regime functioning as intended. That includes flexibility for direct awards in scenarios in which it is urgent to protect life, public order or safety, or where the central platform is unavailable. Additionally, they incorporate minor corrections and consequential amendments; notably, they will facilitate the move away from the old Contracts Finder system. That is intended to remove duplication and ensure that the new Find a Tender service is the single place to publish and find information.
The draft regulations will generally apply to all of the UK, but in Scotland and Wales they would not be applicable if the procurement were carried out by devolved Scottish or Welsh contracting authorities, unless they were using a reserved procurement arrangement. The Government have obtained agreement from the relevant Northern Ireland Department in respect of provisions that apply to procurements regulated by Northern Ireland Ministers. Those are limited to the corrections and technical amendments and do not include the implementation of section 70 or the amendments relating to below-threshold contracts.
In conclusion, the statutory instrument will complete an important part of the Procurement Act’s transparency offer. It will make payment publication meaningful by linking payments to contracts, it will close transparency gaps, and it will keep the system coherent and workable.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
You can never have too many procurement SIs in a week, but for those who did not have the pleasure of Monday afternoon’s Committee, I will spare them some of the background information and just say that the Opposition support the draft regulations. As the Minister says, they will give effect to important provisions introduced by the previous Government’s Procurement Act 2023. The details required to be published for contracts over £30,000 are particularly important, as are the measures to ensure transparency for some sub-threshold contracts.
Understandably, the Government have again not produced a separate impact assessment for the draft regulations, relying instead on the broader impact assessment that accompanied the Procurement Act and the associated reforms in 2022-23. Although many of the provisions are technical in nature, they will nevertheless shape how the new procurement framework operates in practice. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister could provide reassurance that the central digital platform is ready to support the expanded responsibilities under the regulations, and that the contracting authorities and suppliers, particularly smaller organisations and enterprises, have been given sufficient guidance to adapt to these changes. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. Steps to improve transparency around public procurement are, of course, welcome. The granting of the federated data platform contract to Palantir and the scandalous covid personal protective equipment contract under the previous Conservative Government have undermined confidence in public procurement in recent years. Members of the public, doctors and even whole NHS trusts are questioning the fairness of some NHS contracts, so steps to improve the transparency of the contracts, along with public procurement more broadly, must be welcomed.
We also welcome steps to modernise public procurement systems and to phase out legacy systems such as Contracts Finder in favour of a modern, unified platform. My reading of the regulations is that a Minister has to consent or be notified before an NHS body cancels a contract on national security grounds. Will the Minister set out what this specific change is trying to deliver and why now is the right time? Is it the Government’s understanding that there are any current contracts that are a national security concern? If so, will the Minister share with us which contracts? Or is this a change that stops trusts cancelling a given contract on the grounds of security?
Chris Ward
I thank the hon. Members for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire and for Hazel Grove for the tone of their contributions. I welcome their cross-party support; as the draft regulations follow the Procurement Act introduced by the last Government, I would have been surprised not to get it, but it is still nice to hear it.
In answer to the question about the central digital platform, it is fully operational. The final phase is to implement the last legislative requirements, which will be rolled out later this year, in time for the requirements coming into force. On the timetable, the technical amendments in the SI will come into force the day after they are made; others will come in on 1 April, and the changes related to Contracts Finder will come in on 1 October.
On the points raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, there are no national security concerns that I am aware of, but I will write to her if anything further comes in on that. I am glad to have her support.
The core of the draft regulations is simple: the public should always be able to follow significant payments under public contracts in a way that is meaningful, joined up and transparent. The regulations will help them to do that by linking payments to contracts and suppliers on one platform.
I thank Cabinet Office officials for all their work on this SI and to implement the Act: a lot of work has gone on. I am grateful to colleagues across Government Departments and the local authorities that we have been closely working with. The hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire mentioned work with contracting authorities; we have worked very closely to get people ready for this measure and to make sure that it works properly. I thank everyone for their work and engagement. I hope that Members will join me in supporting the regulations, which I commend to the Committee.
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
Rough Sleeping: Families with Children
(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
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of rough sleeping among families with children.
I place on the record my co-chairship of the all-party parliamentary group for ending homelessness. It is always an honour to speak in a debate under your stewardship, Dr Murrison, but I deeply regret the need to have this debate today.
Government policy is clear. The letter of the law is clear. Basic decency is clear. No child should have to sleep rough on the streets of this country. Despite that, I found myself last week watching a stark ITV News report by Dan Hewitt revealing that the homelessness charity Crisis is seeing growing numbers of families with children who are homeless and approaching it for help after being turned away by their councils. In some cases, that has forced those families and children to sleep rough.
Over six months, Crisis has identified 134 cases of families with children and pregnant mothers who came to its services asking for help to avoid or end their homelessness, because they had been unable to access support from their local authority. One hundred and thirty-four cases—that is about four a week, or almost one every single working day. Those cases included children as young as four, a child with epilepsy, refugees we have welcomed and single mothers. All were people who needed help, but were utterly failed by our broken system.
In my time as shadow Minister for homelessness and rough sleeping and in continuing to be an advocate since then, I have heard many heartbreaking stories while campaigning in this space. I have seen relentless record highs in the numbers of people forced to sleep rough, people discharged from hospital to recover on the streets, and children doing their homework in mouldy bed-and-breakfasts. I thought I could no longer be shocked by how deep this crack in the foundation of our society runs, but I was wrong.
Hearing about children being forced to sleep rough while the services built to help them played “pass the parcel” with their future was profoundly shocking. Before we talk about national plans, funding pots and statutory duties, I want everyone in this Chamber today to sit with these thoughts. What if that were me? What if it were my child having nowhere in the world to go, sleeping in a car or on the steps of a town hall, confused and getting colder, hungrier and more scared every night? How did it come to this? How is our system so broken that we cannot even keep children from having to sleep rough?
We can end this scandal and deliver historic change if we hold on to the moral clarity that we feel right now and pull every lever we have. There are still many levers we can pull if we have the political will to prioritise this issue. I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister because she has already written to all the councils in the country to remind them of their clear duties under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 and under the Housing Act 1996. However, will she set out what accountability measures will be put in place to ensure that situations like this are unheard of, as they should be?
These cases also show how guidance, laws and letters can take us only so far. I do not believe that anyone goes to work wanting to refuse help to a child facing rough sleeping, but the fact is that that is happening. It shows just how broken our system really is and how critical it is that we reduce the number of people and families being pushed into homelessness.
I welcome the Government’s national plan to end homelessness. It is an historic first in tackling a range of forms of homelessness across England, setting out a new duty to collaborate between six key Departments, with outcomes frameworks for local authorities, and matching our APPG’s call for the collation of homelessness funding into a multi-annual pot. However, when the APPG for ending homelessness, which I co-chair, produced our “Homes, Support, Prevention” report, we listened closely to the homelessness sector—researchers, councils and experts by experience—to identify three key pillars that the Government need to address. The national plan only really addresses one and a half of those pillars. Without delivering on all three, some of which I accept are beyond even the Minister’s capable reach, families will keep being forced into desperate situations.
The plan broadly focused on what we called the support pillar, with toolkits and an outcomes framework for local authorities that will be published in due course, as well as the prevention pillar, through the new duty to collaborate. I would welcome any further information the Minister can provide about the timeline for the consultations on the toolkit and the new duty.
However, when we review the prevention targets, it becomes clear that a key driver of homelessness is not being adequately addressed: Home Office policy. Homelessness after move-on from asylum accommodation rose by 37% according to the last Crisis homelessness monitor for England, yet the only target the Home Office has signed up to is informing councils about when people are leaving its accommodation. The Home Office has effectively been let off the hook when it comes to preventing homelessness among refugees—people we have welcomed here—and has instead been allowed to start doing what other Departments have been expected to do for years under the duty to refer. This is a huge hole in the preventive wall the Minister is working to construct—one that will see homelessness and further division spreading across the country if it is not closed.
I would like to talk about homes. Homes are the best and only truly sustainable way to end and prevent people’s homelessness, yet across the country an affordable home is becoming a pipe dream for whole communities, leading directly to unsustainable numbers of people needing homelessness support. It does not matter how quickly or effectively we bail if the boat is still sinking. It is therefore vital that the Government step up their social house building targets until the crucial 90,000 social homes per year—a figure supported across the homelessness sector—has been reached.
One way that could be done is by stepping up work on empty homes. Analysis by Crisis found that just £1.38 billion of direct Government investment in local authorities and partner agencies could bring 40,000 long- term empty homes back into use as social homes over four years. I appreciate that this is not directly the Minister’s brief, but how is she working to ensure that the Minister for Housing and Planning understands the need for homes for people experiencing homelessness?
We also need to look at short-term measures. The review of social homes allocation policy is welcome, but there needs to be a commitment to legislative change. The feedback I received from the 27 organisations on our APPG steering group was that people experiencing homelessness face a range of barriers to accessing social homes beyond simply supply, including being dubbed “too poor” to afford social rent homes. How far have we come from the purpose of social housing as housing to ensure that everyone can afford a home if people across Britain are being deemed “too poor” for it? Where are they meant to go? Supported housing, temporary accommodation, the street—back into the bowels of the system. I would welcome it if the Minister set out a timeline for her review of social homes allocation policy.
Given the lack of social homes, the affordability of the private rented sector is crucial. For people who rely on benefits to pay their rent, the Chancellor’s announcement in the Budget in November that the two-child benefit limit will be abolished was extremely good news. However, as it stands, many families in my constituency of Liverpool Wavertree and across the country are still struggling. There is an average gap of £200 per month between local housing allowance and the median rent for a home. That gap can turn a bump in the road into a car crash. If people lose their job, need to take up caring responsibilities or fall ill, they can no longer afford to pay their rent. When they are pushed into homelessness, the local council simply cannot find a local home that those people can afford, trapping them in temporary accommodation at much greater expense to the state—a classic false economy.
I know that the Minister understands these issues. At a recent meeting of the APPG for ending homelessness, I was struck by her focus on the structural causes of homelessness, rather than on individuals. That is a welcome step forward from the last Government, but I am concerned that that understanding is not shared across other Departments.
Do the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury know how hard it is for families on universal credit to keep a roof over their heads, given that fewer than three in every 100 homes are affordable on local housing allowance, and that the LHA freeze is pushing people into homelessness? Does the Home Office care that when it slashed the move-on period from asylum accommodation from 56 days to 28 days, it made it impossible for families who have been granted asylum to find a home in that time, and that is pushing people into homelessness? I would welcome it if the Minister set out how often the interministerial group on tackling homelessness and rough sleeping will meet. Will she commit to publishing the minutes? What steps will be taken if Departments in that group do not deliver on their stated commitments?
We must not let national Government play “pass the parcel”, as local government has. Children’s lives are hanging in the balance. I know the Minister shares that determination, and I hope the Government as a whole do too.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
Order. I intend to call the Front Benchers at 10.28 am, so brevity will be a virtue.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) for leading the debate. She often brings important debates to the House, especially on issues such as this. I welcome her contribution. She showed passion and understanding from her constituency, and she expressed that incredibly well. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place again. She has been a frequent visitor to Westminster Hall in the past two days; it is always a pleasure to see her in her place. I wish the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), well too.
I have seen on social media awful revelations that in England children as young as three, holding on to their mummies—three years old; my goodness!—are being forced to sleep rough with their families. What an awful thing that is to think about and to experience, even if at that young age they may not exactly understand all that is happening. The hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree is right to raise this issue. It is our duty to ensure that no child—furthermore, no individual—is ever subject to sleeping rough with little or no support. The hon. Lady conveyed her revelations and personal experience very well through her words today. This should not be allowed to happen.
There are many charities in Northern Ireland and across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that contribute and do well. I want to thank the church groups in my constituency that collectively and ecumenically come together to help families in need at the time that they need it. The good will and Christian faith that drive people and churches to do that are often underestimated; I thank them for that.
The Simon Community is very active in Northern Ireland. I have used its stats and information as evidence. In audits it carried out across Northern Ireland, the number of people observed sleeping rough has ranged from zero to 19 per night—it very much depends on the circumstances—with an average of six in certain monitored areas. To be fair, in Northern Ireland rough sleeping among families with children is relatively uncommon, because families are usually placed quickly in temporary accommodation. When there is a rush because circumstances overtake them and they have to leave their house—domestic abuse can be one of the reasons for that—the authorities quickly jump in to give temporary accommodation. Rough sleeping is not something that we see much of in Northern Ireland because of the methodology that the authorities use to ensure that families are housed.
I am ever mindful that this is a devolved matter, but my request of the Minister is that we learn together. That is an example of what we do. Maybe things are different in Northern Ireland and the temporary accommodation is a bit more abundant. Maybe the way we do things works. Again, I just want to be helpful in this conversation today.
As of November 2024, almost 5,400 children were living in temporary accommodation in Northern Ireland. That is the other side of the coin, which illustrates very clearly that there is much need. Temporary accommodation is often under the “homeless” category as properties are not permanent places of residence and are often, with respect, substandard and not always up to the standard they should be. The figures are increasing, showing that there is a real issue and that steps are not being taken to address it.
Loss of housing and domestic abuse are significant drivers of homelessness. Victims of domestic abuse might be forced to leave their homes suddenly to protect themselves and their children, often without time to secure alternative accommodation. Given the shocking stats in Northern Ireland in relation to domestic abuse and violence against women, I want to reiterate how important it is that we make those services available and known and that we continue to ensure they are fit for purpose to provide support for those who need it most.
I am working on the assumption that my speech will be about five minutes, to make sure that everybody else can get in. Although families with children sleeping rough are often hidden from official stats, the reality is stark: this is real. In England alone, over 140,000 children are living in temporary accommodation, and the problem is not confined to one region—it affects communities in Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland alike. Things do not stop at the Irish sea and at borders. We must do more on a UK-wide basis to prevent families from reaching crisis point and to expand access to safe and affordable housing.
I congratulate the Government on removing the two-child benefit cap. That made sure that almost 60,000 children in Northern Ireland from 13,000 families were lifted out of poverty. I have put that on the record in the main Chamber and I say it again in this one. Some of the work that the Government are doing is to be welcomed and encouraged, but we need to ensure that every child has a secure home. I look to the Minister to commit to that.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) for securing this debate and for her tireless work on tackling homelessness.
The crippling cost of living, sky-high private rents and the lack of social housing in the UK mean that far too many people have no option other than to spend the night on the street. We hear reports of people sleeping in cars, pregnant women turned away from support by their local councils, and children as young as four years old forced to sleep rough. In the sixth richest country in the world, those are despicable reminders of how broken our system is. We know the detrimental effect that sleeping rough and housing insecurity can have on children’s health, education and life chances.
The trauma of living in insecure, temporary and often dangerous conditions can have lifelong impacts on physical and mental health, housing stability and economic prospects. Children experiencing homelessness face increased rates of infection, asthma and sleep deprivation, high rates of anxiety, depression and behavioural issues, and a higher likelihood of being exposed to violence, crime and the risk of sexual assault. The streets are no place for children to be sleeping. It has a knock-on effect across other areas of children’s lives: disrupted education, increased school drop-out rates and children forced to hide their situation, leading to social exclusion. We must do better.
A huge driver of homelessness and rough sleeping is the current unaffordability of the private rented sector. Two weeks ago, the Welsh Affairs Committee heard evidence from Shelter Cymru, Cymorth, the Bevan Foundation and Crisis. Private rents in Wales are increasing faster than anywhere else in Great Britain. In the last year, private rents in Wales have gone up by 6% on average. In England and Scotland, the figure is closer to 3%. Housing is devolved in Wales, but there are levers that can be pulled in Westminster, particularly around benefits, to immediately prevent more people from being forced into homelessness, the most effective of which would be unfreezing local housing allowance and restoring it to cover the true cost of rent.
Local housing allowance is a massive driver not just of homelessness in general, but of keeping people in homelessness, in turn affecting those sleeping rough, including children. When LHA was introduced by Labour in 2008, it was intended to cover private rents up to the 50th percentile—the lowest 50% of rents in a local area. Due to subsequent policy changes and freezes, LHA now covers only 1% of private rents in Wales, and 2.5% in England. I call on this Government to end the routine freezing of LHA and permanently relink it to the 50th percentile of local private rents, in line with the Welsh Government’s position. That is a vital step to prevent homelessness, tackle inequality and further rebalance the power of private tenants.
How can the Government achieve their plan to halve long-term rough sleeping and prevent homelessness if people on low incomes simply cannot afford a local home?
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I was shocked, although perhaps not entirely surprised, to learn that among local authorities, Somerset has the third highest number of young people sleeping rough, in absolute terms, in the country. It struck me even more that it is sandwiched between urban areas. Does the hon. Member agree that the challenges of destitution and homelessness for families are as acute but far less visible, which often leads to rural rough sleeping being overlooked in national policy considerations?
Steve Witherden
The hon. Lady and I both represent rural parts of England and Wales, and she makes an extremely valid point. Not only do rural areas often get overlooked, but there is simply less housing in those areas—it is a double whammy. I thank her for her welcome intervention.
We must ensure that no child is forced to sleep rough in any circumstances. The measures that I have outlined today would be a vital step towards achieving that. Diolch yn fawr.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) for securing this important debate. I will repeat and add to a couple of points that we have already heard.
It is not an unfortunate inevitability but a national disgrace that, in one of the wealthiest countries on Earth, families with children are still being pushed into homelessness and, in some cases, on to the streets. We are a country with immense resources and capacity to solve problems—one that spends tens of billions of pounds on weapons every year, and that has just opened Crossrail, the Elizabeth line, after one of Europe’s largest construction projects—yet we cannot guarantee that every child in this country has a safe and secure roof over their head when they go to sleep at night. That is a fundamentally moral contradiction, and it should weigh heavily on all of us, as parliamentarians with the collective power to change that status quo.
The statistics alone paint a bleak picture. In autumn 2025, an estimated 4,793 people were sleeping rough on a single night in England: a record high, and a 171% increase since 2010. We must remember that the figure, which is a snapshot of just one night, is widely acknowledged to have been undercounted. Even more shockingly, recent reports suggest that families with young children have been forced to sleep rough after being refused emergency local authority accommodation, in direct contravention of the law.
As we know, children in temporary accommodation are still classed as homeless, and the numbers show that over 175,000 children are currently homeless in temporary accommodation. Based on the most recent council-level data, as of June 2025 more than 600 children were living in temporary accommodation in Kirklees, where my Dewsbury and Batley constituency sits. These children are part of the around 375 family households in Kirklees in temporary accommodation as of March 2025. That temporary accommodation is costing Kirklees between £7 million and £8 million, which is money that could be better spent providing other public services.
Recent reports have shockingly suggested that families with young children are being forced to sleep rough after being refused emergency local authority accommodation, despite that being in direct contravention of the law. If families are reaching the point where they are unable to prevent their children from sleeping on the streets, in cars or anywhere else not designed for human habitation, then something in the system is clearly broken and the state is failing in its most basic obligations to its citizens.
One constituent, who has been contacting me regularly over the past several weeks, is a single mother with three children, one of whom has autism and asthma. The council has been unable to provide suitable accommodation for her and her children, and she has been sleeping in her car for the past several weeks. Her car is now uninhabitable, as it has been written off. She has been forced to accept temporary bed and breakfast accommodation. It is not suitable for her children, but she has nowhere else to go. I am sure that Kirklees is doing everything it can to help the family, but given the lack of resources and the lack of adequate family social housing, such examples are not as rare as they should be.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The hon. Member is right to highlight the resource challenges that local authorities have. From an outward perspective, my Chichester constituency is a very affluent area, with lower levels of homelessness, but in 1989 a gentleman died on our streets, and so a charity called Stonepillow was formed. It has gone on to support thousands of people experiencing homelessness across the Chichester and Bognor area. Does the hon. Member agree that although the charitable and voluntary sector has admirably stepped in where local authorities are too poorly funded to support people, it should not have to do so?
Iqbal Mohamed
The hon. Member is absolutely right. We all pay tribute to all the charities across the country, including the one in her constituency, that are stepping in to help people in times of desperate need, when Government and councils have not been able to provide the necessary support. I pay tribute to all those charities, but they should not have to step in to provide the basic necessities for children and families in our country.
Part of the failure undoubtedly lies with the immense financial pressures facing local authorities. Councils across the country are struggling to meet their duties to house those at risk of homelessness, including children, because of skyrocketing costs, limited housing supply and shockingly overstretched budgets. The cost of temporary accommodation alone has placed extraordinary financial strain on local government, with councils now covering more than half of those costs themselves, according to a recent analysis by the Institute for Government.
I see the consequences of this crisis at first hand in my constituency, where housing and homelessness are among the issues most frequently raised by my constituents. My office regularly hears from families who are on the brink of losing their homes and from people facing unfair evictions, struggling with rising rents or desperately seeking emergency accommodation at a time of unimaginable crisis. Increasingly, we see that these are not isolated individuals, but families with children who are living with the constant fear of having nowhere to go. Local authorities want to help, but they are operating with limited resources in the face of overwhelming demand.
Another shocking incident, reported by local media at the start of this year, is that a single mum of three, including a 12-year-old daughter with cancer, has been housed by my local authority in a one-bedroom flat with damp and mould for the past two years, after a no-fault eviction by a private landlord who wanted to sell their property. Such stories mean that we must be honest about the scale of the challenge facing us and the requisite ambition to adequately address it.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that no local authority unlawfully refuses emergency accommodation to families with children, and how will compliance with the statutory duties be monitored? Secondly, what additional financial support will be provided to councils that are struggling with the costs of temporary accommodation? Finally, what specific measures within the Government’s homelessness strategy are targeted at preventing families with children from ever reaching the point of rough sleeping in the first place?
Ultimately, this debate is about the kind of country we want to be. A society that allows children to sleep on the streets is a society that has lost sight of its most basic humanity. Ending rough sleeping among families is not simply a policy challenge, it is a moral imperative, and one that this Parliament must treat with the urgency it deserves.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) on securing this debate on such an important issue.
The levels of homelessness in our United Kingdom are appalling, and it is shameful that a wealthy country like ours has allowed it to persist to such an extent. In Scotland, the scale of homelessness and rough sleeping today is stark. Under the watch of the SNP Government, homelessness has spiralled: the number of open homelessness cases has risen by 58% since the SNP came to power in 2007. Devastatingly, someone in Scotland becomes homeless every 15 minutes and, as of September last year, a record 10,480 children were living in unsuitable temporary accommodation. That is a disgrace.
Last year, more than 4,500 children were living in poverty in my West Dunbartonshire constituency, putting them in a position of uncertainty and fear, and in uncomfortable surroundings, hungry, cold and often unsafe. This instability takes a toll on children’s mental and physical health, education and sense of security. It is an unthinkable situation for most of us, but a horrific everyday reality for many homeless people with children in my constituency and across the UK.
The consequences can be tragic: new figures released last week show that in 2024, 231 people died in Scotland while experiencing homelessness. Those deaths should be a wake-up call to the Scottish Government and to every Government.
At the root of this crisis is a shortage of housing. House building in Scotland has fallen dramatically—in fact, 5,000 fewer homes are being built every year compared with the years of the last Labour-led Scottish Government. Had the rate under Scottish Labour been maintained under the SNP, 90,000 more homes would have been built in the last 19 years. Imagine how many more families could have avoided homelessness if those homes existed.
West Dunbartonshire has one of the most severe housing crises in Scotland. I frequently see children starting life on the back foot through no fault of their own. We must start building more houses. No one, no matter their personal situation, should be sleeping rough, especially those with children. How will anyone living on the streets improve their circumstances if they are not given the opportunity to rebuild their lives?
Under the leadership of Anas Sarwar, Scottish Labour has set out a plan to deliver 125,000 new homes over five years, across all tenures—expanding affordable housing, reforming planning laws and establishing a housing investment bank to unlock land and finance construction. But we must also give councils the resources they need to meet their legal duties. The Scottish Government must intervene earlier to prevent families from becoming homeless in the first place.
Every child deserves the stability of a safe home and a decent start to life. Rough sleeping among families with children is not just a housing issue but very much a moral one. No child in West Dunbartonshire, in Scotland, or anywhere else in our United Kingdom should ever have to wonder where they will sleep at night.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
It is wonderful to speak under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison.
Rough sleeping among families and children is one of the starkest signs of a system failing at a point where people need it the most. No child should ever be exposed to that kind of trauma and no parent should ever be in the position of trying to protect their child while having no safe or stable place to go.
This issue matters very deeply to me personally. When I was 15, my own family experienced homelessness. I want to be clear that we never had to sleep rough—we always had some form of roof over our heads—but even without that, the disruption, insecurity and fear leave an everlasting mark. You feel lost, hurt and absolutely scarred for life. But I know that if someone shows love and care, there is hope and there is light. I genuinely believe that this Minister has given the Government the bulb—the Government just need to switch on the light.
When home is uncertain, everything else becomes uncertain too. Schooling and mental health suffer, and family life is placed under an enormous strain. That is why I feel so strongly that when we talk about rough sleeping among families, we cannot treat it as a question only of emergency accommodation. We have to see it for what it is: a crisis that can shape a child’s life for evermore, long after the immediate dangers have passed.
For families with children, the answer must be a Housing First approach. Put simply, we need to start from the principle that a safe and secure home is not the reward at the end of recovery but a foundation that makes recovery possible. If a family is facing rough sleeping, or is at immediate risk of it, the first job must be to get them into stable accommodation quickly, not to leave them cycling through unsuitable temporary accommodation and arrangements—not expecting children to recover while living out of bags in one room and not assuming that the crisis ends at the moment a roof is found. We should not be seeing a mum having to leave a baby during the night to warm their milk in a microwave in a service station, like one mum in my constituency.
I am working with families in Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme who have been made homeless and are living in hotels. They are no longer sleeping rough, but they are living in deeply unsuitable and unstable circumstances. The priority must of course be to get families off the streets and into a safe place, but their story does not end there, and neither can our concern. That is the point when they need us the most and need the most support, to end the disruption and get back on track.
Alongside housing, there must be proper wraparound support. That means mental health support, help with school continuity, support into work, help with debt, access to children’s services where needed, and practical help for parents trying to rebuild stability post trauma. Without that, we risk addressing the symptom for a night while leaving the damage untouched for years.
A child who experiences homelessness or rough sleeping does not simply bounce back because the immediate risk has passed. The disruption and impact are long term, and the response has to be long term too. If we are serious about ending rough sleeping among families with children, we need to be serious about stability and support at home first, and then the sustained joined-up help necessary to build lives.
I urge the Government to build the social homes, support those with trauma, deliver the toolkit and work across Departments to deliver our homelessness strategy. I can tell Members that for that 15-year-old doing his GCSE coursework on the double mattress, sat next to his mum and sister in that room, it has been a journey. But now he is fast approaching 50, and I am proud to be part of a Government that can, once and for all, end that situation for children going forwards.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) for securing the debate. I also thank my friend and colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) for his impassioned sharing of his very deep personal experiences. Also, he does not look a day over 60.
The fact that children are sleeping rough on the streets of the United Kingdom should appal every Member of Parliament. I certainly find it deeply distressing. The impact of any form of homelessness, including rough sleeping, on young people’s futures is huge, and the number of those impacted is steadily increasing. As we speak, around 176,000 children are believed to be homeless and living in temporary accommodation—the highest amount since records began. That figure is nearly equivalent to the total number of children living in Leeds.
In the first six months of 2025 alone, the homelessness charity Crisis saw more than 100 pregnant women and families with children use its services after being turned away from the support offered by their local councils—councils that are also struggling to cope with the rising pressures of the housing crisis that we are working hard to fix.
This Government, with their comprehensive national plan to end homelessness and their ambition to build 1.5 million homes, have been clear that there is no excuse for children to be sleeping rough on our streets. On that note, I was pleased to see that the Minister had written to councils to reiterate their duty of care to prevent children from sleeping rough.
It is important to recognise the vital role that the third sector plays when it comes to safeguarding young people against the impacts of homelessness and rough sleeping. In Southend, for example, we are fortunate to have HARP, a dedicated homelessness charity that works around the clock to safeguard our city’s most vulnerable residents. I have had the pleasure of meeting Vanessa Hemmings on a number of occasions. With her dedicated team at HARP, she works tirelessly, with passion and empathy, to ensure that even in the most challenging of environments and moments, our residents have somewhere to turn.
Since becoming the MP for Southend East and Rochford, I have been grateful for the chance to visit HARP on several occasions, and have been consistently moved by its invaluable work. This debate is a crucial one, and I strongly hope that it will refocus efforts to ensure that no child has to endure a night without a home.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison.
I am so grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) for securing this really important debate, at the heart of which is a simple principle: every single child deserves to be safe and warm, with a roof over their head. That should not be controversial for anyone; it should be the basic foundation of a decent society.
Before coming to this place, I spent 18 years working for the YMCA North Staffordshire, supporting people facing homelessness and housing insecurity. I have seen up close the reality of what homelessness does to people, and when kids are caught up in the mix of that instability, the consequences can really last a lifetime, as we have heard.
A secure home provides more than shelter: it offers stability, dignity and the foundation for a child to thrive. But someone having a roof over their head is only the first step. Across many communities, including my own in Stoke-on-Trent and Kidsgrove, there are families who receive the keys to a home but step inside to find an empty property with no beds for the kids, no sofa to sit on and no table to eat around. That is the reality of furniture poverty, which is far more widespread than many people realise.
Last week, I brought together partners in Stoke-on-Trent, including Stoke-on-Trent city council, Newcastle-under-Lyme borough council and local housing providers, alongside the charity End Furniture Poverty, which is doing excellent work across the country to tackle the issue. End Furniture Poverty, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree worked extremely closely for a number of years, is campaigning to increase the percentage of social housing offered on a furnished tenancy basis. I am keen to hear the Minister’s thoughts about its campaign to increase the supply of furnished tenancies among social housing providers, because when a family finally gets the keys to their home, it should be a great moment, but they also need to live there with dignity.
There is a fundamental issue that we must confront: we simply do not have enough affordable social council homes. In Stoke-on-Trent alone, more than 3,500 people are on the council’s housing waiting list. If association lists are not included, the real demand is even greater. Too many people are locked out of home ownership, and without sufficient social and affordable housing, families remain trapped in temporary accommodation or insecure housing.
If we are serious about ending homelessness, especially for families with kids, we must keep building the high-quality, genuinely affordable social homes that the communities we represent desperately need. Ultimately, it is really simple: every single child deserves not only a roof over their head, but a place that they can truly call home.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) for securing this important debate.
In my constituency of Woking, we are fortunate to host the extraordinary work of the York Road Project. For three decades that local charity has supported people experiencing homelessness. It began as a winter night shelter run by local volunteers who simply believe that no one should be left out in the cold. Yet today it is a significant local charity that provides specialist help for people that are experiencing homelessness. They keep people off the street at night in their night shelter, and support them to turn their lives around in their day centre.
It is an unfortunate truth that rough sleeping and homelessness is growing. More people are in crisis, and increasingly that involves families with children. Local authorities are spending more than ever on temporary accommodation to do their best to keep people off the streets, particularly those with families and children. The net cost to councils has risen from £200 million in 2015 to more than £1.3 billion today. At the same time councils are facing a wider funding gap, estimated to be £4 billion. It is a postcode lottery, where some constituencies and councils are struggling hugely. As a result, the system is under huge strain. Temporary accommodation is becoming long-term accommodation—housing for families who are stuck in limbo. From our casework, we see the human impact of that every day.
I highlight that the quality of that temporary accommodation is a huge issue. Although it is vital that we keep families with children off the street, with a roof over their head, the fact that the report by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee into temporary accommodation’s impact on children made for such stark reading should shock us all. The report found that in the past five years, 74 children had died because of the quality of the temporary accommodation they had been in. Of those 74 children, 58 were under the age of one. That is not acceptable in 21st-century Britain.
I highlight a deeply worrying case in my constituency of Woking. The Conservatives running Surrey county council have withdrawn funding for an initiative that supported single mothers with their children in temporary supported accommodation. That programme provided a safe space for vulnerable women to rebuild their lives, often after instances of domestic abuse or family breakdown. They were able to do that with their children. Without that support, families are now facing eviction. At the last minute, the county council is throwing many vulnerable constituents out of their accommodation and on to the borough council’s housing register when they know that that register is overwhelmed and oversubscribed. That is morally indefensible. Will the Minister condemn that decision by Surrey county council, and will she raise that decision with them to ensure that vulnerable families are not left without safe accommodation?
More broadly, the reality is that sleeping rough and homelessness are symptoms of a deeper structural failure in this country. I have heard that from Members today. Our country is broken, but it can be fixed, and we need the Government to lead on that for us. Across—
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Gentleman came into the debate about half an hour in. It is entirely up to the hon. Member for Woking whether to allow the intervention, but in general I expect people to be in the debate far sooner. A few minutes late is permissible; 30 minutes is not.
Mr Forster
I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset. I believe he will attend debates a bit earlier as a result of your comments, Dr Murrison.
Edward Morello
I appreciate the steer from the Chair and apologise for the late arrival. My hon. Friend talks about the wider structural issues that drive homelessness, one of which is the winner-takes-all system when it comes to benefits. In that system, families that are breaking up may split child custody on a 50:50 basis, but the benefit awarding system only awards benefits to one parent. That results in the other parent having no access to their children, and often results in them losing their home and ending up homeless.
Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as the councils and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, we should also look at how the benefits system can ensure that parents can stay in accommodation and have access to their children?
Mr Forster
I completely agree with my hon. Friend; he makes a really valid point. The debate has rightly focused on housing, but there are wider impacts, and the Department for Work and Pensions needs to change our benefits system to ensure that families are properly supported so that we do not have children sleeping rough. I have highlighted the particular case of Surrey county council evicting families with children in my constituency, and I really worry that some of them may sleep rough. Across England, almost 5,000 people slept rough on one single night last autumn—a 20% increase on the previous year. We know the causes: chronic housing shortages, poverty, relationship breakdowns, gaps in welfare support and, above all, a lack of social housing.
Iqbal Mohamed
In the late ’70s and the ’80s, more than 80% of Government support for social housing—housing benefit—went to councils. That money was reinvested in housing and repairs, and the surplus was used in other services. In real terms, it was then worth about £28 billion; today it is about £30 billion, so it has not changed, but 20% now goes to councils and 80% goes to private landlords. Whatever 80% of £30 billion is— £24 billion—is now going out of the system, and that is money that was going to councils. Does the hon. Member agree that the right to buy, and councils’ inability to replenish stock, has adversely impacted not just housing but wider public services, and that we must allow councils to buy back homes or build new ones, so that housing benefit goes to councils?
Mr Forster
I completely agree. We have privatised our housing welfare system, which has resulted in worse conditions and a higher cost to taxpayers. The Liberal Democrats have been campaigning on housing since before we were the Liberal Democrats. The great architect of the welfare state, the Liberal William Beveridge, characterised the squalor of poor housing and homelessness in the early 20th century as a giant that needed to be defeated, yet we still have not slain that giant.
It is heartbreaking to hear these stories. Will the Minister ensure that sufficient financial resources are available to local authorities so that they can deliver the measures in the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 and provide accommodation for survivors of domestic abuse? Will the Government ringfence emergency funding for local councils to ensure that they can deliver permanent accommodation for rough sleepers? Will they exempt groups of homeless people, and those at risk of homelessness, from the shared accommodation rule?
The Government have reduced the move-on period for refugees in accommodation from 56 to 28 days. When it was 56 days, rough sleeping notably reduced. It gave refugees a chance to set in motion plans for leaving state support, but 28 days isn’t working. The Government have made an exemption only for those who are pregnant, are over 65 or have a disability. Those are the only exemptions. I do not agree with changing the rule, but I will not ask the Minister to defend that. I ask her to raise it with the Home Office, to ensure that families with children are also exempt.
The Government must address this awful system, which is failing vulnerable children and their families. We cannot have children sleeping rough. The work of organisations such as the York Road Project in my constituency of Woking shows what people can achieve when compassion and community are involved. It is now the Government’s responsibility to match that endeavour and ensure that children and families do not sleep rough.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) on securing this debate. She is not just an hon. Lady; to me she is an hon. Friend, and I am delighted to respond to her today on the Opposition’s behalf. I even managed to get out of bed just to do it because she was leading this debate this morning.
The hon. Lady was absolutely right to say in her opening remarks that we should not be here this morning having to debate an issue such as one. However, while we do have to debate these issues, I am pleased that she is on the case and I look forward to working with her, being a successor to her as the shadow Minister with responsibility for homelessness. I know that the welfare of young people across this country, particularly those who have found themselves homeless, is at the heart of what she does, and I congratulate her again on securing this debate.
Rough sleeping among families with children represents one of the most visible and distressing signs of the housing crisis in our country. Behind every statistic is a child growing up without the security of a stable home, a family living with uncertainty, and communities struggling to cope with rising costs of living and other socioeconomic pressures. We can all agree across the House that this is not a matter to procrastinate or prevaricate about.
In its 2024 manifesto, the Labour party promised to,
“develop a new cross-Government strategy…to put Britain back on track to ending homelessness.”
That strategy was not published until 11 December 2025, which was much later than expected; indeed, it was at the tail end of this Session of Parliament. However, I remind the Minister, who I am pleased to see here in Westminster Hall this morning, that in a meeting she kindly offered on a cross-party basis, I assured her that the official Opposition and I, as the shadow Minister with responsibility for homelessness, are committed to working on a cross-party basis to make sure that this strategy works. My comments this morning do not signal that I demur from that approach. However, I will make some comments on some parts of the strategy and I will challenge the strategy regarding where we think it could go further.
My main concern about the homelessness strategy is this. The current time seemed to offer an opportunity, but although the Minister has grabbed that opportunity, it is an opportunity whereby the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government seems to be leading the search for a solution to homelessness, so the chance for a fundamental rewiring of how Government works to tackle homelessness has been missed. As I said, I make these comments in a constructive way. Nevertheless, I believe that the strategy lacks genuine cross-party ministerial oversight.
The strategy also lacks the cross-departmental approach that we need, particularly when we consider that homelessness is not just an issue that MHCLG must find a solution to. Homelessness also involves the Department for Education, the Department for Health and Social Care, and the Home Office, in the way that the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree described. For example, regarding the involvement of the Department for Health and Social Care, we need to get better at analysing the data around drug and alcohol discharges from hospital.
I am not convinced that the strategy, despite its good intentions overall, really takes the cross-ministerial approach where it needs to go. I look to the Minister to confirm to the Chamber this morning, when she responds to the debate, that she is chairing a cross-ministerial committee on this issue, and that she will continue to do so going forward. I also look to her to say how often that committee will meet.
The hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree mentioned the problem with data concerning immigration. She is absolutely right that the Home Office has been slightly let off the hook on this strategy; I look to the Minister to provide some reassurances on this data issue when she stands up shortly to respond to the debate.
I think that the strategy goes in the right direction, but there are some concerns about the lack of funding to tackle some of the issues and to enact some of the good intentions that the Minister has outlined over the past few months. For example, the strategy does not give funding to Housing First so that it can be rolled out nationally. Also, the Local Government Association says that a cross-departmental approach is needed, and needs to be embedded at the heart of all Government Departments, within their constitutions. We ask for that approach to be considered.
Lastly on the housing strategy itself, prevention models are still patchy across the whole of the UK and there needs to be an emphasis on national outcomes, to stop people falling into homelessness. Throughout the UK, charities such as The Bread and Butter Thing are really helping on an emergency scale to relieve the homelessness crisis; we congratulate them on what they are doing.
Iqbal Mohamed
The right-to-buy scheme, the pros and cons of which I will not go into, led to councils losing big chunks of their housing stock to people who bought their houses at a discount. I know that the scheme has been changed and that the discount has been reduced, but I am not aware where the money that is generated goes, even today. Does the shadow Minister agree that the decision of the then Government and subsequent Governments to take the proceeds of sales, instead of leaving them with councils to replenish the stock, was a mistake, and should the Government now be looking at doing the latter for any further sales?
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman asks a perfectly reasonable question. That was a policy decision of Governments before I took this role. I believe in the right-to-buy policy. It was a massive tool to allow people to achieve ownership in a radical way that we need to see again in this country. But in hindsight I accept, given some of the way the system worked, that we needed to see greater investment back into councils so that they could reinvest in stock. I think that is a perfectly reasonable thing to assume, but I will say that under this Government, the social housing fund that has been allocated just is not great enough to ensure that we have the houses that we need to deliver.
The number of people sleeping rough in England is now at its highest level since records began in 2010. Figures from autumn 2025 estimate that 4,793 people were sleeping on the streets on a single night, which was an increase on the previous year. Particularly concerning is the rise in vulnerable groups on the streets. The number of female rough sleepers increased by 8% to 733, alongside 3,938 men and 122 cases in which gender was not recorded. London continues to face the greatest challenge, with 1,277 people sleeping rough—the highest figure in the country—but the sharpest increase was in the north-east of England, where rough sleeping rose by 31% in just one year.
For many families, the pathway to rough sleeping begins long before anyone ends up on the streets. It often starts in temporary accommodation. Between July and September 2025, 134,760 households were living in hotels, B&Bs or temporary flats, which was an increase of nearly 7% compared with the previous year. Of those households, 85,730 include children. These are the highest figures since records began in 2010.
In London, the situation is particularly stark. According to London Councils, one in 50 Londoners is now homeless and record numbers of children are growing up in temporary accommodation. In some boroughs, the pressures are especially severe. Newham has 6,667 households in temporary accommodation, followed by Lambeth with 4,657 and Southwark with 3,828. Statutory homelessness data shows that, across England, 169,050 children are currently homeless in temporary accommodation. That represents a 12% increase in just one year and the ninth consecutive record since December 2022.
Ultimately, the only sustainable solution to homelessness is to increase the supply of homes and, in particular, social and affordable housing. The Government have pledged to build 1.5 million homes during this Parliament. However—I say this again—experts have expressed serious doubts about whether that target can be achieved. Professor Paul Cheshire, a leading planning expert who advised previous Governments, stated that there is “absolutely no way” the current reforms will deliver that number of homes. Let me be clear to Members across the House: that does and should include social homes.
Recent housing statistics raise similar concerns. According to official figures, 208,600 net new dwellings were added in Labour’s first year in office, which is a 6% drop on the previous year, and just 190,600 new homes were built, which is 8,000 fewer than in the final year of the previous Government. If this rate continues, fewer than 1 million homes will be delivered by 2029—well short of the Government’s stated target.
That is a serious issue because housing supply directly affects homelessness. Without sufficient homes, more families are pushed into temporary accommodation and the risk of rough sleeping continues. The scale of the challenge facing families with children demands urgency, co-ordination and long-term solutions. That means tackling child poverty, expanding affordable housing, supporting local authorities and ensuring that strategies are delivered on time and backed by meaningful action. All of us in this House, on both sides, agree that no child should grow up without the stability of a safe home, no family should face the prospect of homelessness and no society should accept rising rough sleeping as inevitable.
I say once again to the Minister that we come here in the spirit of co-operation. I genuinely believe that this Minister wants to achieve her aim of reducing homelessness. She has been going in the right direction to make sure that the Department constitutes what is necessary to deliver that, but we will look to see how this will be carried on across all Departments to achieve what we all want to achieve.
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) for securing the debate. She has been dedicated to tackling homelessness for many years, including in her work as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for ending homelessness. Rough sleeping and homelessness are issues that scarred our city region for many years, and I know that everybody at home is very proud of her and the work she does.
As many hon. Members from a number of parties have mentioned, we do not want to be here talking about this issue, but it is so serious that we must. Like all hon. Members, I was extremely concerned about recent reports of families with children sleeping rough. To be absolutely clear, because there ought to be no ambiguity, this should never, ever happen.
Let me say, for clarity, that a household with a child has a priority need for the purposes of the Housing Act 1996. That means that if a household with a child is homeless and is eligible for homelessness assistance, the household must be provided with temporary accommodation until suitable settled accommodation is secured. Where households do not meet the criteria for homelessness assistance, local authorities have a duty under the Children Act 1989 to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in need, including by providing them with accommodation where necessary. Let me say, for absolute clarity, that that applies irrespective of the child’s immigration status.
The law is absolutely clear that where a local authority believes that a household does not have a local connection to the district, it remains under a duty to accommodate until a referral to another district has been accepted. It is only when a referral has been accepted that the receiving authority must fulfil any duties to accommodate. There should never be any reason for families to be refused accommodation while there is a dispute about which authority owes that household a duty. There is no grey area here: families with children should never be left without accommodation.
Jim Shannon
That is very clear for everyone, and I thank the Minister for it. One example from Northern Ireland that I did not get a chance to mention in my speech was the case of a mother with two children who were sleeping rough in the square. The reason they could not get temporary accommodation was that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive had none at the time. However, because of its duty of care, which the Minister outlined, it made accommodation available in a local hotel until such time as temporary accommodation became available. Is that something that the Minister advocates?
Alison McGovern
I am not quite sure that I caught all the details of the case that the hon. Member raised, but if he sends me them I will happily respond to him. He will know that we do not want children to be in B&B accommodation. That is one of the main planks of our strategy, which I will come to later.
As has been mentioned, I wrote to local authority leaders and chief executives last month to remind them of their duties and to ask that they take personal responsibility for making sure that no child in their area is ever left to sleep on the street, in a car or in any other location not designed for living in. I am conscious of the case raised by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed). I am sure that he has made every effort to sort that out with Kirklees, but if he has further problems, or Kirklees has specific issues that it wants to raise with me, I trust that he will write to me directly.
We must support councils to meet their obligations, and my Department has been in contact with the councils mentioned in the report to understand how this was able to happen and to ensure that it will not happen again. More broadly, hon. Members will be aware that we recently completed the local authority finance settlement for the next three years, reconnecting council funding with deprivation. That should aid the councils that are more likely to face these issues to deal with them.
The Government are providing more than £2.4 billion this spending review period in support of the Families First Partnership programme, which is introducing reforms to children’s social care. It will ensure children and families can access timely support so that they can get ahead of this problem, as many Members have suggested. Local authorities should use that ringfenced funding to meet their duties under the Children Act. It has been great to speak to many Members and their local authority leaders about how they will do that.
We are providing record levels of investment in homelessness and rough sleeping support, including more than £3.6 billion over the three years from 2026-27 to 2028-29. That is a funding boost of more than £1 billion compared with the previous Government’s commitment, and I pay tribute to the Chancellor for taking that decision. It is right that we are investing that much, because we inherited a homelessness crisis. Members have set out just how bad things have got.
Our long-term vision is to end homelessness and rough sleeping and ensure everyone has access to a safe and decent home. The statistics that we have heard today show that, for far too many people, that is not yet the case. We published our national plan to end homelessness last December to shift the system from crisis response to prevention and to get back on track to ending homelessness.
Our plan is backed by clear national targets to increase the proportion of households who are supported to stay in their own home or helped to find alternative accommodation when they approach their local council for support. That is the prevention goal, and it should underpin everything we do. For reasons that have been mentioned—not least the experience shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher)—we must prevent first. Homelessness is too big of a trauma; nobody should experience it.
By the end of this Parliament, we want to eliminate the use of B&B accommodation for families, except in absolute, dire emergencies, and halve rough sleeping. Of course, we want everyone to have a roof over their head, but some of the problems that we are facing and the experiences of rough sleepers go deep, so we have to go to the toughest of problems.
Our plan is backed by £3.6 billion of funding, including £2.2 billion that councils are free to use to design effective, locally tailored services to deliver better outcomes and reduce reliance on emergency interventions. A number of Members asked about ringfencing. There is tension between allowing local innovation, for which ringfences are unhelpful, and putting clear ringfences around funds to ensure that all councils can tackle homelessness. It is a balance, and that is the way we have taken the decision about the funding.
Our plan sets out how we will tackle the root causes of homelessness by building 1.5 million new homes, including more social and affordable housing than has been built for years. We are also lifting 550,000 children out of poverty through the measures in our child poverty strategy, including by lifting the two-child limit.
Public institutions should lead the way in preventing homelessness. Our plan sets a long-term ambition that no one should leave a public institution into homelessness, and we have cross-Government targets to start that change and reduce homelessness from prisons, care and hospitals.
A number of Members, including the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), were kind enough to say that they believed in my will to get this done but expressed scepticism about other Departments. I hope I can reassure them that they do not need to be sceptical. My experience of working with Ministers in other Departments has been positive.
Alison McGovern
I was just going to respond to the shadow Minister. The interministerial group will meet quite soon, and we have been preparing for that. Our expert group of advisers met me yesterday, and we got a great deal of things done and discussed. I will come on to some of those, but I want to reassure Members that we have active participation in the interministerial group and across Government.
Paul Holmes
I knew the Minister would give me a straight answer, but may I push her a bit further on the remit of the interministerial group? Will she confirm her intention for how often it will meet? Is it constituted to meet a certain number of times during the year?
Alison McGovern
The interministerial group will meet regularly.
There are interconnections between homelessness and violence against women and girls, because the third biggest cause of homelessness is people fleeing domestic abuse, so we will do some of what we need to do via our work as Ministers through the violence against women and girls strategy. As a number of Members have highlighted, there is clearly a connection between homelessness and poverty. We are about to take forward the delivery of the child poverty strategy, so some aspects of what we are considering will be taken forward through that discussion among Ministers. I am very conscious that we should have meetings not for the sake of it, but to get things done. We will deliver our objectives through those three interconnected strategies, and Ministers will certainly meet regularly.
Paula Barker
I thank the Minister for the contribution she is making. Will she commit to publishing the minutes of the interministerial group?
Alison McGovern
I was going to come on to that. I will certainly commit to providing an update. It is beyond my procedural knowledge exactly what we are allowed to publish from ministerial groups, but I will certainly commit to providing an update. I was going to suggest that we might have a meeting with the APPG shortly after, so that we can provide an in-person update, because I think it would be far better for parliamentarians to be engaged in this process.
I will quickly provide an update on the work of other Government Departments, in response to the questions raised. The Treasury is leading on the value for money review of homelessness support, which should pick up the precise point that the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley made on the cost of temporary accommodation. We have talked about the disaster this is for families, but what is going on at the moment is also a disaster for taxpayers. The Treasury is working with us and the DWP on that and is actively engaged.
I am working extremely closely with the Department for Work and Pensions on incomes and the homelessness system overall, and it has been very active. With regard to the Ministry of Justice, the Minister for Prisons and I have been working very closely on people leaving prisons; he has exacting targets for reducing the number of people who leave prison to no fixed abode. I have also worked very closely with Home Office Ministers, and I will ensure that they receive a copy of the report of this debate, because I am sure Members want their opinions to be heard by them.
On health, we need to ensure that neighbourhood health services support people who have experienced rough sleeping, particularly in relation to addiction and the trauma that children who have experienced homelessness might go through. On education, Members will know the disaster it is when children have to move schools because of temporary accommodation. The Department for Education has been working closely with us on that. I hope that reassures Members that this is a cross-Government effort. None the less, we will introduce a legal duty to collaborate, to compel public services to work together to prevent homelessness.
As the shadow Minister pointed out, building more homes takes time, but our plan takes immediate action to tackle the worst forms of homelessness now. Alongside the work that the Minister for Housing and Planning is doing to bring forward much more social housing than we have seen in this country for a heck of a long time, we will increase the emergency accommodation reduction pilots into a programme backed by £30 million of funding to tackle a wider range of poor practice, including B&B and unsuitable out-of-area placements. As I mentioned, I met our expert group yesterday, and we intend to move very quickly on the toolkits that we need. Much of the information exists already; we just need to get on and do it.
We are helping more vulnerable people off the streets and into stable housing by investing £150 million in supported housing services and £15 million in our long-term rough sleeping innovation programme, to help councils with the greatest pressures to deliver more personalised and comprehensive support for people with complex needs. I could talk about that for a long time, but I will not. Members here will understand that, sometimes, complicated personal circumstances sit behind someone’s homelessness, and we need really skilled caseworkers to support people with those. Likewise, we want to get on with the work on allocations, which is under way, and I am making sure it moves quickly.
The latest data showed progress against two of our new targets. The percentage of duties owed where homelessness was prevented or relieved with accommodation secured for six or more months is up 3.7 percentage points year on year to 46%. That means a higher proportion of households at risk of homelessness or already homeless was helped to secure accommodation than over the same period the year before. That includes an increase in households helped to find accommodation before experiencing the traumatic experience of homelessness—that is the target that I really want to see go up.
The quarter in question also saw a reduction in the number of families in B&B accommodation over the statutory limit of six weeks, to 1,670. That number is still far too many, but it is the lowest since the beginning of 2023 and down 55% year on year. I am confident that we are going in the right direction on B&B use, but we need to go faster and do more.
The figures do not mean the job is done—far from it—but they show that prevention is improving and that fewer families are spending long periods in unsuitable accommodation. I have confidence that we can achieve the targets we have set ourselves, but we need to make sure that we maintain focus and, as Members have suggested, keep working right across Government to deliver.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree for securing this debate. As I said, our city is very proud of her. I hope we will never have cause to discuss families with children sleeping rough again, but I trust that Members here will secure other debates so that we can keep our focus on our homelessness strategy and make progress, as I have suggested, over the years to come.
Paula Barker
I thank all hon Members for their thoughtful and knowledgeable contributions. I also thank the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), and the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster), for their contributions, as well as the Minister for hers. I look forward to working with her constructively in the months and years ahead.
I place on the record my thanks to Crisis for its incredible work. I particularly thank Dan Hewitt and ITV for keeping this all in the public domain—the work they do is incredible. I hope that, collectively, we can all use the moral clarity that we have found today in these abhorrent cases to spur us on to build a better Britain where nobody experiences homelessness.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of rough sleeping among families with children.
UK-based Tech Companies
(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
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for UK-based tech companies.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am pleased to have secured this debate.
It is hard to measure the true economic value of the technology sector in the UK, but I think we can all agree on the sector’s huge importance for economic growth, productivity and society as a whole. That importance will only grow in the future, so nurturing and supporting our domestic technology sector is vital. To be clear, as a Conservative, I believe in the importance of competition as a driver for innovation and economic growth. To have true competition, we need to challenge monopolies. If our tech sector is to thrive in the future, competition is vital; otherwise, we will see innovative firms leave the UK.
Today I will focus particularly on our domestic app ecosystem. The UK’s mobile app ecosystem generates £28 billion annually in gross value added—equivalent to nearly 1% of GDP. It also supports around 400,000 jobs: the highest number in any country in Europe. However, despite that huge contribution to our economy, app developers face significant challenges.
Apple and Google control 95% of all mobile operating systems in the UK, and the Competition and Markets Authority formally designated them with strategic market status in October 2025. That does not mean that Apple and Google just run the app stores; they have control over far more than that. Those companies can control what developers can say within apps, block developer communications with consumers, hide customer details from developers and prevent them from telling users when something is new, better or cheaper—all the while taking up to 30% of every transaction. That not only stifles the sector domestically, but pushes up prices for ordinary consumers and drives British innovation overseas. We simply cannot afford to allow such a growing industry to be lost.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate on Government support for UK-based tech companies. My Slough constituency is a huge tech and data hub; indeed, it has the second largest concentration of data centres anywhere in the world. Does he agree that it would be an act of folly for the Government not to designate Slough as an artificial intelligence growth zone, given that £1 spent there provides a much greater return for the UK economy? We as a nation would not want to lose that.
Peter Fortune
I have a list of Government follies here, if the hon. Member would like me to pass them on. In all seriousness, I completely agree with him on the importance of the industry and those jobs, and I am sure that the Minister will pick that up when he responds.
To give an example of the issues with these monopolies, Amazon was forced to remove the “Buy book” button from its Kindle app on iPhones because Apple demanded a 30% cut of every e-book sale. Authors simply cannot afford to forgo that 30%. Instead, readers had to—this is absurd—close the Kindle app, log on to the Amazon system separately, complete their purchase and then reopen the Kindle app. It was only thanks to a court case in the United States that forced Apple’s hand that the “Buy book” button returned.
Spotify cannot include a “Subscribe” button in its iOS app, nor can it tell users in the app what a subscription costs or that a cheaper option exists outside the app. UK Spotify Premium subscribers have faced three price rises in two years, partly because Apple’s 30% cut has to be absorbed somewhere. Every Spotify user in the UK is paying more, and Apple’s rules are a direct reason why.
There are many similar cases in which Apple and Google are inserting themselves directly into the relationship between developers and consumers by forcing developers to use their payment systems. That takes away a consumer’s ability to choose their preferred payment method, causes greater friction when there are issues such as refunds and cancellations, and prevents consumers from properly benefiting from lower prices or discounts.
The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal ruled in October 2025 that Apple’s payment restrictions were neither necessary nor proportionate for security or privacy purposes. They were designed to eliminate competition. It is as simple as that. It is estimated that removing the restrictions would release £1.75 billion a year that is currently taken from UK developers and consumers, rising to over £4 billion annually by 2029. That money could go back into British engineering, creative content and the next generation of app businesses built and scaled here. We could unleash the true potential of these industries.
The ability to remove the restrictions and hand UK app developers back their rights already exists in legislation. The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 gave the CMA conduct-requirement powers—the ability not just to levy fines, but to mandate specific behaviours. The CMA can end Apple’s and Google’s control over in-app communication, ensuring that developers are free to know their own customers and tell their own customers what their own product costs and where to buy it at the best price. Could the Minister outline the Government’s view on pressing the CMA to issue conduct requirements that protect competition?
Another area that we must look at is cloud computing. The UK’s digital economy is underpinned by cloud computing, but cloud has been increasingly monopolised. The CMA’s cloud services market investigation estimated that Amazon Web Services and Microsoft control 70% to 90% of the UK’s cloud computing market. That concentration poses a number of dependency risks, including operational, financial and security vulnerabilities, and restricts market innovation and customer choice.
Just months after the Government published their “Chronic risks analysis”, there were three global cloud outages within a matter of weeks. In two of those, Amazon Web Services and Microsoft were directly impacted, highlighting the risks of over-reliance on a limited number of cloud hosts. Governments, businesses, digital platforms, AI services and individuals were materially impacted by the outages, with US companies alone suffering losses of between $500 million and $650 million. Indeed, the recent CrowdStrike outage is estimated to have cost the UK economy between £1.7 billion and £2.3 billion.
Competition can be the key mitigation for the UK’s digital dependency and, again, it is the CMA that holds the levers to tackle anti-competitive conduct and address the risks of cloud concentration. I am not calling for more legislation or regulation. We do not need it. With the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, brought in by the last Conservative Government, we have already legislated for stronger digital competition, but slow implementation and weak early enforcement risk squandering a rare pro-growth and pro-SME opportunity.
Only a small number of designations have been made so far. For Google’s and Apple’s mobile ecosystems, the CMA has relied on non-binding “commitments” rather than imposing binding conduct requirements. These non-binding commitments have no clear statutory basis under the 2024 Act, carry no legal consequences if breached and are not contemplated anywhere in the CMA’s published guidance. Their use risks weakening the regime and forcing the CMA to restart enforcement if firms fail to comply, which is precisely the outcome that the last Government sought to avoid. It is also concerning that a requirement for Google to negotiate fair terms with news publishers has been pushed back by at least 12 months, despite the CMA having previously committed to use that power in the first half of this year.
The Government must reaffirm that robust digital competition enforcement is pro-growth and central to the UK’s industrial strategy. Moreover, the CMA must ensure that there is robust competition enforcement. The levers to achieve that were put there by the last Government; it just requires some political will. Fundamentally, the UK cannot build globally competitive tech firms while a handful of dominant platforms control the routes to market, search, app stores, mobile ecosystems, cloud and key AI infrastructure.
The potential for huge economic growth from our tech sector is there, but competition is key. If competition flourishes, we will see more innovation, improved services and lower costs for consumers.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Order. We have five speakers, which gives each of them between eight and 10 minutes, so that we can get the Front Benchers in after that. I call Chris Evans.
Chris Evans (Caerphilly) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts—and I genuinely hope you have some good news about Sheffield Wednesday in the next few days.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Gentleman has not been reading the media—we had some good news this morning, which has moved us forward. I just wanted to make sure everyone is up to date with the important information.
Chris Evans
I stand corrected, Mr Betts—I was in meetings all morning, so I have not seen the sports news yet.
For constituencies like mine, which were dependent on heavy industry, the development of high technology offers new growth opportunities that we can harness in our valley communities once again. I want to focus my comments on a company called Academii. Academii helps organisations improve their workplace training by replacing one-size-fits-all learning with streamlined content, smart delivery and measurable outcomes. It is used by major employers in the energy and utility sectors, as well as by the NHS, community health boards and international clients.
Earlier this year, the business secured £700,000 of investment from the Welsh Labour Government to further develop its platform and expand its workforce. Academii is a powerful example of what a talented team of entrepreneurs and technicians can achieve when united behind a cutting-edge idea. I firmly believe that this spirit can be fostered in our universities, which can become the powerhouse of technological change across south Wales.
Clusters in university campuses can form the basis of spin-out companies, which, under the umbrella of a higher educational institution, take groundbreaking research and transform it into a market-ready product or service. Spin-outs are widely recognised for their highly effective, lucrative and sustainable business models. Their success is driven by their dynamic and entrepreneurial culture, which involves faster decision making, greater flexibility and a higher appetite for risk taking.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I recently visited the Nexus innovation hub at the University of Leeds, which does the things that my hon. Friend was just describing, with innovative spin-outs and companies genuinely innovating in really challenging areas. However, they struggle to access Government procurement because they do not have things like Cyber Essentials, but they do have the equivalent accreditation from international organisations. Does he agree that the Government should do more to recognise these accreditations, so that we do not stifle innovation?
Chris Evans
I am always happy to take interventions, but my hon. Friend seems to have written my speech for me, because I will develop that argument as I go along. I note he is from Leeds—Leeds pinch all of Sheffield Wednesday’s best managers, do they not, Mr Betts?
Spin-outs offer postgraduate students the sought-after opportunity to work in a start-up, allowing them to develop skills and experience outside of academia. At a time when many graduates are struggling to navigate the job market, spin-out companies can be a fantastic place to start their career. Places like Wales, Northern Ireland and the north-east have traditionally been reliant on public sector work and have a lack of entrepreneurship, but spin-out companies can remedy those problems. Young people can found these companies, and young people can work in them. Their success boosts employment, the economy and investment in higher education. In 2024 alone, spin-outs channelled a record £3.35 billion of investment into university research. Such investment not only benefits the economy but ensures that promising technologies are not abandoned due to lack of funding.
While much of this funding is awarded to spin-outs in the golden triangle of Oxford, Cambridge and London, Swansea University has bucked the trend. It has emerged as one of the UK’s leading academic institutions for generating spin-out companies, having established 58 spin-outs since 2011. Swansea’s recent successes include Ail Arian, a business that recovers silver from printed electronics, and Corryn Biotechnologies, which has designed wound dressing that mimics the natural healing process of the skin. Celtic Vascular Ltd is another Welsh spin-out that deserves recognition for its groundbreaking work. Its team of researchers has pioneered AI-driven software that detects coronary heart disease with 92% accuracy.
I am proud that Welsh universities are leading the way in generating spin-out companies and inspiring others outside the golden triangle to do the same. However, the Government must do more to support spin-out companies. The biggest challenge that academics face when spinning out is finding the financial support to bridge the initial gap from the lab to the market. The UK Government recognised that challenge in their 2024 autumn Budget, in which £40 million was allocated to early-stage spin-out companies. Although that funding is welcome, it falls short of what is needed. For context, £40 million is approximately the cost of bringing just two drug-discovery programmes from inception to their first in-human clinical trials. Yet for a share of the Government’s first £9 million tranche in 2025, UK Research and Innovation was overwhelmed with more than 2,750 expressions of interest. There is a huge gap in funding at the point when researchers want to bring their discoveries out of the lab.
UK-based investors largely avoid scale-up investments, unwilling to take risks on products that have not yet been prototyped or introduced to the market. The grants awarded by Innovate UK are simply unreliable. They reached a peak of £150 million in 2023, but the funding for spin-outs fell by 44.5% in 2024 to £83.3 million. That reflects a shift in the Government’s wider investment strategy: the allocation of research and innovation grants is becoming more targeted and selective. Early-stage spin-out companies have directly lost out to this new strategy. In January 2026, Innovate UK paused its smart grants programme, which was designed to bring original, high-impact innovations to the marketplace. In its place, a new growth catalyst programme has opened, targeted at spin-outs that are ready to scale. Grants for the scheme must be aligned with private investment, which means that eligible companies are expected to be market-ready.
It has been said that a “valley of death” has subsequently emerged between the lab and the market, which many potentially game-changing innovations fail to span. To avoid that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) said, they are forced to rely on the US for capital. In return, the facilities and workforce are based across the Atlantic.
Ministers have a duty to turn the tide on this issue. With better UK-based support, this country’s technology, healthcare and life sciences sectors, let alone the economy, would be emboldened and much richer. I therefore ask the Minister whether the Government will provide more financial support for projects in pre-investment phases of development, beyond the £40 million set aside in the 2024 autumn Budget. Will they allow the British Business Bank to play a key role in providing that support, given its recent expansion and its position at the heart of the Government’s growth agenda?
I do not need to tell the Minister, who is a fellow Welsh MP, that Wales is home to a wealth of talent, innovation and entrepreneurial spirit. I want to see this nation thrive, but that will happen only if the Government provide the support and investment needed to unlock its full potential. I call on them to do just that, before other states around the world do it for us.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) on securing this important debate. We have heard from both sides of the Chamber that the British tech sector spreads into all our constituencies, so it concerns us all.
When the Government came to power, they said that their central mission was to provide growth. I posit that a key way to do that is by supporting our small and medium-sized businesses, because that is where growth comes from.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend share my view that, although we can be rightly proud of having the third most valuable tech ecosystem in the world, we cannot be complacent, especially amid increasing international uncertainty? Shearwell Data in my constituency is exactly the sort of business that he refers to. A family-run business, founded by Richard Webber in 1992, it now exports livestock management systems internationally. Mr Webber is a true local champion: he not only runs that fantastic family businesses, but works at the heart of our community in Wheddon Cross. Does my hon. Friend agree that the flight of UK tech companies to other markets such as the United States shows that we must do more to ensure British companies can start, stay and scale here?
Mike Martin
I thank my hon. Friend for her comprehensive intervention, which speaks to exactly the issues that I will raise.
The key example is DeepMind, which was the world-leading AI company. We, the Brits, failed to create the ecosystem, funding and risk-taking capital to enable it to scale fully. It was then bought by Google, and now the British Government contract with Google rather than with DeepMind. That is exactly my fear: even though we are the world’s third AI power, that could move away from us very quickly if we do not create the right ecosystem to support our tech firms.
If this Government are serious about supporting growth, we need to look at small and medium-sized enterprises. It will not surprise hon. Members that I have some examples from my Tunbridge Wells constituency. First, Capital Web develops AI software to help businesses to improve productivity. That is on the application side of AI; we are never going to compete on the frontier model side of AI, but the UK can certainly compete on how we implement those frontier models to work cases. I will also give a bit more detail about Adzuna, a firm based in Tunbridge Wells that helps people to find jobs.
The problem in the UK is one of scaling up. We often have support for businesses that are very small. We might have research and development tax credits or innovation grants, or we might help them to spin directly out of universities. However, what just does not happen in the UK is moving them on from the position where they have a concept and patent and are perhaps ready to scale rapidly. Those firms are left to go abroad, be taken over, or perhaps wither and see the market move on and eclipse them. That is the real danger.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
I held a roundtable in my constituency with the Startup Coalition just two weeks ago. We found that one of the biggest barriers was not an absence of talent or expertise in my town, but a poverty of access to information, advice and guidance. No one had heard of small business start-up loans, the £500 to £25,000 Government-backed loans, which are really critical. That was one of the things people critically needed. That is a big issue. I would ask the Minister how we improve communication to places such as Weston-super-Mare.
Mike Martin
That is an excellent point. It is very much something that the Government can do, because they understand where capital can be found and how to create the legal and regulatory ecosystem that enables these companies to thrive.
Let me touch briefly on access to capital—I am thinking of slightly larger amounts than those the hon. Gentleman just mentioned. Pension funds are a huge source of capital. In the UK, trillions are under management in our pension funds. This is something that Canada does very well. Canada’s pension funds operate almost like specialist investors, pumping billions of dollars into AI, infrastructure and software. To pick another example that is dear to my constituency, South East Water, which many hon. Members will have seen me rail against, is 25% owned by NatWest pensions—our favourite cuddly UK bank—which makes its money by selling debt to South East Water at a rate of 10% interest. That is not pension fund investment that is driving growth in the UK. We must do better. We must think about how we can push and guide our pension funds, and all those millions that are under investment, to invest in growth sectors in the UK, rather than going abroad.
Let me turn to reforming public procurement. At the worst end of the spectrum is probably the Ministry of Defence, where it takes six years from first contact to signing a contract. That is just to sign the contract, not to deliver the piece of military hardware and test it or have it in service. The stories out of MOD procurement would not be out of place in an episode of “The Thick of It”.
That is the worst case, but then there is the Department for Work and Pensions. Andrew in my constituency founded Adzuna, which is effectively a super-duper job search thing that uses AI to match people’s profiles to the skills needed and so on. It took him two and a half years from approaching the DWP to signing a contract. Andrew started out with a laptop at his kitchen table, and businesses that size cannot wait two and a half years. Cash is king—and they will either have gone out of business or decided to go somewhere else by the time that contract is offered.
Whether in defence, where people actually need to contract much more quickly because of the pace of technological change, or Government, who actually need an effective job search tool on their websites, these timescales need to be compressed. In that way the Government will open themselves up much more to small firms instead of just the big firms that are able to take two and a half years on a punt for a contract with the DWP.
To sum up, there are a number of things that the Government could do around information sharing—I thank the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) for making that point—and access to capital, particularly encouraging pension funds to invest. They should also look at procurement and focusing that on small businesses, because small businesses are the ones that deliver growth. That is where we get growth in our economy—much more so than from big businesses. The Government have a huge set of levers to pull, so I implore the Minister, “Could we perhaps start pulling them?”. I look forward to his remarks.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) for securing such an important debate—a debate that is of significance to my constituency and the role it plays in supporting UK-based tech companies.
In my former career as a chartered surveyor, I worked on a project in the constituency to create an innovation zone around Glasgow international airport, funded in part by the UK Government’s city deal. The Chancellor has now committed to further support with £30 million of direct investment from the UK Government to expand that project. This Labour Government’s commitment to continue to invest directly in such long-term initiatives is most welcome, and it has made a huge impact on the economic and upskilling opportunities for generations of residents in my constituency.
The zone, which includes the Advanced Manufacturing Innovation District Scotland—also known as AMIDS—would not be there without UK Government support, which has helped to fund large infrastructure works including two new bridges, land reclamation, decontamination and active travel routes. All that preparatory construction work paved the way for the iconic anchor building, the National Manufacturing Institute Scotland, to be completed. Its completion has already acted as a catalyst for future investment. It is helping to make tech companies more productive, resilient and sustainable. It also pioneers and harnesses AI to drive smarter, data-led production, turning breakthrough ideas and inventions into high-impact industrial products. The National Manufacturing Institute Scotland is also a leader in the circular economy and in recycling industrial products such as wind turbine blades.
Working in conjunction with academia from across Scotland and the local West College Scotland, that collaboration drives innovation and new technologies. The new innovation zone supports emerging sectors such as photonics, which is important for medical imaging, solar power and high-speed telecoms. Advanced manufacturing in the zone will also support sectors such as net zero shipping, energy-efficient aerospace, the circular economy and green jobs. It is a model for how the Government can drive growth and support innovation in the tech sector.
I will conclude by thanking the Government for undertaking recently to identify barriers to growth, including considering further measures to support access to finance, which is crucial for the emerging tech sector. All those measures are most welcome.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As always, it is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts; thank you for all you do for us in relation to Westminster Hall. I also thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) for raising this issue and thereby giving us all an opportunity to participate in this debate—and it is always good to see the Minister in his place. I wish him well in the role that he plays and we very much look forward to hearing his response to the debate.
I always say good things about Northern Ireland, but today I want to talk about the things that I believe put us at the top of the tree when it comes to cyber-security. Northern Ireland has become the cyber-security centre of Europe—it is increasingly possible that it might even be the global cyber-security centre—but that situation did not simply arise out of nowhere. There has been a dedicated focus on investing in the sector, and on training young people to think differently and to become involved in it.
My parliamentary aide attended a grammar school that typically focused on maths, English language and science, yet she recalls a careers day when an adviser from Queen’s University in Belfast came in and advised her and her classmates to consider tech and computer science, saying that those would be the future of employment and job security in Northern Ireland. That was back in the year 2000. How right and how prophetic that university adviser was.
Sometimes along life’s way we meet people who will have an incredible influence on our lives; we all have those people, when we look back. That university adviser was one of those people; he had a vision, and in particular a vision for young people. Many of the people he taught are now in that category themselves, in that department or that section.
Dan Aldridge
I just want to pay tribute to a number of lecturers at the universities in Northern Ireland. I used to work for the British Computer Society and the Northern Ireland branch was phenomenal. If the hon. Gentleman has not yet made contact with that branch, to speak to it about its cyber-security work in Northern Ireland, it would be a fantastic group of people for him to connect with.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for that intervention; it is always good to get an intervention that reinforces the point of view that I am putting forward. Obviously, he has a personal knowledge of this issue and we thank him for that, too.
Due to the dedication and focus of universities in Northern Ireland, in particular Queen’s University in Belfast, cyber-security quickly became a focal point for careers. Subsequently, Northern Ireland, because of its unique combination of world-class academic research, a high concentration of global firms and a stable, highly skilled talent pipeline, has developed a well-established reputation in this field.
However, we all know that we can never rest on our achievements or laurels, but must continue to strive for more. That is why it is imperative that funding exists to keep pace with and even outstrip our competitors in providing skilled workers and innovation, supported by world-leading university structures. Northern Ireland leads the way in that regard and it is good that it does so.
The Centre for Secure Information Technologies at Queen’s University in Belfast is the primary driver of world-class academic research, and we need to retain and enhance funding for that research to continue. The centre is the UK’s innovation and knowledge centre for cyber-security and is the largest of its kind in Europe, recognised by the National Cyber Security Centre as an academic centre of excellence in both research and education. Those are big plaudits for Queen’s University and its work.
Belfast has consistently ranked as the No.1 global destination for US-based cyber-security foreign direct investment, with more than 100 cyber-security businesses and teams located within just three miles of the city centre, hosting European or global security operations for firms including Rapid7, Proofpoint, IBM Security, Microsoft, Nvidia and Nihon Cyber Defence, as well as international financial giants such as Aflac, Allstate and Citi, which has established its global cyber-security operations centre in Belfast. Again, that is an indication of the confidence across the world in Belfast, in Queen’s University and in Northern Ireland.
We have the highest percentage of qualified IT professionals in the United Kingdom and Ireland, with more than 77% holding degree-level qualifications. Added to that is the fact that operating costs in Northern Ireland are approximately 40% to 55% lower than in other parts of western Europe. With a 40% reduction in typical salary costs compared with London, it is easy to see the attraction. The money that has been invested in growing this space has had a real return for the local economy—plenty of high-paying jobs and opportunity.
The sector generates more than £258 million in direct gross value added for the local economy annually, and supports almost 2,800 roles across more than 120 companies, with the average advertised salary in the sector exceeding £53,000, which is significantly higher than the regional private sector median. The recent £3 million investment in the Centre for Secure Information Technologies is estimated to unlock some £10.7 million in broader economic impact across the United Kingdom.
I am not quite sure if the Minister, in his role, has had a chance to go to Northern Ireland? If he has not, I encourage him to go. I think he would be impressed. Everyone knows that I am in favour of support for the Union; I think we are all better together. We have no Scottish nationalists or Plaid Cymru here to say otherwise. In this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we all help each other, and there are great advantages to being a part of this, the best Union in the world.
If the Minister gets the opportunity to go, he would be impressed. He may tell me he has been there. If he has, that is fantastic news. Investing in growth in this sector is a must. I look to the Minister to ensure that Northern Ireland sees her share of investment, because we have proven already that we can not only provide the goods, but do so much more.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) on securing this important debate. I suspect that, at this point, I am in danger of labouring the points already made by other hon. Members, but I will persist. Perhaps it is a sign that we all know what needs to happen. I am sure the Minister will speak to those issues.
The UK tech sector employs more than 1.7 million people and contributes more than £150 billion to the UK economy. Our technology ecosystem has created more than 185 unicorn companies, which are start-up companies valued at more than £1 billion. I suspect that, at the end of this debate, a word cloud would have the word “ecosystem” as the largest word, but there is good reason for that.
Innovation does not happen on its own; it requires the right conditions, such as access to funding, clear regulation, market confidence, skilled workers and a Government who understand the importance of helping companies grow. That is particularly important for small and medium-sized businesses, which form the backbone of the UK economy. In the UK, there were 5.7 million SMEs, including 5.4 million microbusinesses, in 2025. Those companies often develop some of the most exciting ideas, but they also face the greatest challenges when trying to scale up.
One area where the UK has a huge opportunity is climate technology. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on ClimateTech, and having spent nearly a decade working in renewable energy finance before entering Parliament, I have seen how much potential this sector has. Between now and 2050, the world will need to remove 165 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, with annual removals reaching about 10 billion tonnes a year by the mid-century if we are to limit global warming to between 1.5°C and 2°C. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has made it clear that without carbon-removal technologies, those goals will not be met.
Alison Taylor
The hon. Member mentions a specific sector of the tech economy. Does he agree that tech companies do best when they are clustered together, particularly in innovation zones, so that they can share emerging knowledge and technologies, and link in with academia?
Edward Morello
I certainly agree that, if we want to become a market or world leader in a particular technology space, it is vital that we channel funding and support into those areas where we have the most opportunity and a competitive advantage.
Climate technology is not only an environmental priority, but a huge economic opportunity to lead a sector the world will need for decades to come. The UK’s greenhouse gas removal sector alone is now valued at £1.2 billion, with investment increasing by more than 39% in 2024—faster than the technology sector as a whole. According to analysis aligned with the Climate Change Committee’s seventh carbon budget, greenhouse gas removal technologies could support over 60,000 high-quality jobs in the UK by 2050. The Government have already taken some positive steps: funding for carbon capture and storage clusters, investment in innovation programmes, such as direct air capture and bioenergy carbon capture, and plans for new clean tech innovation challenges. Those are all important developments.
However, challenges remain, particularly when companies try to move from early innovation to large-scale deployment. Many climate technology companies face what is often called the valley of death. Early-stage funding can help to get ideas off the ground, but when companies reach pilot or demonstration stage, that funding often disappears. Data shows that although almost all seed-stage companies move forward, only one third successfully progress beyond series B investment. At that point, the technologies often require significant capital investment to scale, which requires the Government to project confidence to the sectors and investors. Without stronger support mechanisms, whether through the National Wealth Fund, the British Business Bank or other targeted policies, many promising technologies risk stalling before they ever reach market.
In other sectors, there is more the Government can do. A fantastic company called Sintela in Dorchester in my constituency develops advanced fibre-optic sensing systems capable of detecting movement and activity across long distances of infrastructure. The technology has applications in security, energy systems and environmental monitoring. Last year, the company secured orders from US Customs and Border Protection worth more than $90 million. That contract has now been expanded to $200 million through to 2028, which represents the largest contract globally for distributed fibre-optic sensing technology.
Small companies like Sintela can struggle to gain the same level of access to Government support and trade opportunities as larger firms. When business delegations travel abroad with Ministers or during state visits, the companies included are often the same large multinational businesses, but SMEs are often where some of the most exciting innovation is happening. If we want to support British tech companies properly, we must also ensure that small and medium-sized firms are included in trade missions, international delegations and export promotion.
The UK needs a clear long-term approach to science and technology. That includes raising research and development spending to 3.5% of GDP, investing in digital infrastructure, supporting local government capacity and ensuring that the benefits of technology are spread around the country. It also means continuing to invest in green technologies, which is essential if we are to tackle the climate crisis, while creating new industries and job opportunities. The UK has many of the ingredients needed for success: world-class universities, strong research institutions and an entrepreneurial technology sector. What we must do now is make sure that the environment is right for those companies to grow.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
We now come on to the Front Benchers. Everyone is entitled to at least 10 minutes, but I think you can work out that you have a little bit more if you want to take it.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I commend the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) on securing this essential debate.
Entrepreneurship is in my blood. Both my parents ran their own businesses. My mum launched the website for her business over 15 years ago and was so tech-savvy that she had a larger Twitter following than me—and that is when it was called Twitter. As someone who went on to launch my own tech company and took part in the New Entrepreneurs Foundation, I have met so many fantastic entrepreneurs and I am so pleased that we are debating Government support for UK tech, but, boy, do we need more from the Government.
On one hand, the UK tech sector is an immense success story, and one that we should be proud of, built on the legacy of Ada Lovelace, Alan Turing and Tim Berners-Lee. My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) mentioned DeepMind. We have the third most valuable tech ecosystem in the world at nearly £1 trillion. On the other hand, the UK tech sector is a story of frustration, stifled potential and a looming threat that great companies and ideas that are incubated here will be sold off because of a ceiling of funding.
I felt that the most powerful way to tell that story today was to amplify the voices of tech leaders themselves. These are the people who are passionate about growing world-class companies here in the UK, but their frustrations are real. It often seems more of a fight to innovate than a celebration of progress. I thank the scores of tech leaders who shared their views with me. Sadly, I cannot get them all in today, but that shows how vital this debate is. I hope that the Government will give this issue more time at some point.
I have five requests, and I ask the Minister to address as many as he can. The first one is “procurement, procurement, procurement”. Even the National Audit Office concluded that the Government’s procurement strategy actively favours large, predominantly foreign suppliers, which was brought up in a debate yesterday. Stephen Kines, the co-founder of Goldilock, an award-winning cyber-hardware company, called for the Government to buy UK products and said,
“Don’t endlessly innovate in ‘innovation theatre’ programmes only”.
I also heard from Doug Monro, the CEO of Adzuna—I am pleased to hear from the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells that Adzuna was able to get a public contract eventually, after two and a half years. Doug urges the Government to
“buy tech and AI from British startups, not build in-house or buy from massive American companies”.
He shared the powerful message that,
“We can transform public services, cut the welfare bill, and reduce taxes if you’d only let us.”
The Government should be celebrating “made in Britain” by buying “made in Britain”. That is why the Lib Dems have called for a comprehensive public sector technology policy and investment plan and tabled digital sovereign strategy amendments to the cyber Bill. As the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells mentioned, this is about growth.
My second call is to fix funding fast. The funding desert for scale-ups, that valley of death that we heard about, is well known, but it is worrying how normalised it has become. Ben Rose, the co-founder of Supercede, warns that many tech firms are forced to attract capital from overseas to continue growing at pace—we all know that story, unfortunately. Mark Thomas, the CEO of Appnalysis, notes that the £250,000 limit of the celebrated seed enterprise investment scheme has been eroded by inflation and rising costs to the point that it barely buys 12 months of runway. He asks that the Government look at increasing the limit of the scheme. Leo Rogers, the CEO of Curvo AI, calls for R&D tax credits to be extended to cover compute costs, which in the world of AI are really important. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) mentioned the important issue of financing smaller start-ups, which was mentioned by several entrepreneurs who contacted me. They said that would be helpful to get off the ground and to keep going. Sometimes the funding is there, but the communication of where to find it is not.
That is why the Lib Dems have called for, among other policies, an increase in R&D spending to 3.5% of GDP and better support from the National Wealth Fund and the British Business Bank to de-risk and unlock innovation. We also want a review of IR35, because that is where a lot of the workforce in tech are. The university spin-out support that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) mentioned is important. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells talked about pension funds, and the use of those mega pension funds and where that money can go will be vital to unlocking a lot of innovation in the UK.
My third point is that we must treasure our talent. Great talent helps to grow great companies, not only by upskilling at home but by attracting experts from overseas. There are many calls to align, for example, the innovator founder visa with Innovate UK. Claudia Radu, the CEO of Circe, says that we must make sure that talent visas are easier to get. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the skills for the next generation, and we must ensure that our talent and workforce planning as a country is aligned with the skills we need for the future. That is why the Lib Dems believe that there needs to be a national people strategy alongside an industrial strategy, because without those skills and that talent, we cannot deliver on economic ambition.
My fourth call is to “think smart regulation”. Tech founders understand the importance of avoiding a race to the bottom, but they are often bogged down in red tape. The App Association warns that tech companies are
“overburdened with regulation, tax, and uncertainty caused by ever-changing rules”.
That is why I increasingly believe in standards and smart, outcome-focused regulation that supports innovation—and the pace it requires—and helps to build trust. The hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill talked about the use of competition, which is a vital aspect of that.
The fifth call, which is also vital, is to lift up small businesses and start-ups—do not forget them. Not only are SMEs and start-ups the backbone of our economy, but all scale-ups started there; several were mentioned today. Karen Atkinson, the CEO of Mediaholix, says,
“I don’t feel that there is any support for small companies. It feels like the government are focusing on the big companies like Meta and Google, which really doesn’t benefit this country in the long run. Quick wins and vanity rather than a true understanding of what it takes and how. Overall the Government are making it exceptionally difficult for small companies to grow.”
Another founder put it more starkly, saying,
“Currently, Parliament has gamified the system against the success of British SME and micro-SME innovators.”
That support in the beginning, whether staff costs or business rates, is something that the Liberal Democrats have raised the alarm on. We call on the Government to do more. Finally, Alex from Synthesia sums it up well. He says,
“Buy software made in the UK, simplify procurement for British start-ups, and keep regulation simple and outcome-focused.”
I have a dream that we will grow our fantastic UK tech landscape. As my Friend the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) mentioned, we can solve the biggest problems, such as climate change. We can drive that change, but more than that, we could be the country that takes in scale-ups and does not fear that the companies that incubate here will go elsewhere. Anthropic, for example, may not be welcome in the US; I hope it would be welcomed in the UK. The Government must do more to back British tech for our security, economy and the great people driving innovation in Great Britain and around the globe.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) on securing this incredibly important debate. He brings a unique blend of glamour and tech nerdery to the House. Frankly, it is something Parliament could do with much more of.
I am grateful for the valuable contributions from the hon. Members for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor), for West Dorset (Edward Morello) and for Caerphilly (Chris Evans). There is a real showing of strength for the tech sector across the country, which I welcome.
As we are debating Government support for UK-based tech companies, I would like to do a bit of scene-setting. Before 2010, Britain’s digital economy was fragmented and under-developed; London’s emergence as Europe’s tech capital was not destiny; the Silicon Roundabout was only nascent; Government digital services were scattered across thousands of outdated websites; and the connection between our world-class universities and a thriving start-up ecosystem had not yet been fully realised.
In Government, the Conservatives deliberately worked with the tech sector to create an environment in which it could grow—the hon. Member for West Dorset made a point about how we need to do that—which included targeted measures on start-ups, such as the seed enterprise investment scheme. Scale-up has been mentioned as a real challenge that remains today, as has inflation in relation to the SEIS. We supported Tech City, which turned east London into a global hub for start-ups and innovation; we modernised Government services through the creation of the Government Digital Service and platforms like gov.uk; and we invested heavily in digital infrastructure, substantially expanding gigabit broadband coverage. The hon. Member for Strangford talked about how our parties like to help each other to help every corner of the United Kingdom. I remember that particular help on gigabit broadband was given to the DUP when a particular political deal was done a few years ago.
Over the following decade, that strategy paid off. Entire sectors, from fintech to artificial intelligence and from cyber-security to digital health, took root and expanded. Today, the UK digital sector generates well over £200 billion in GVA and employs 2.6 million people in its digital companies. In 2025, the combined market valuation was $1.2 trillion. It is the largest tech ecosystem in Europe, and among the largest outside the US and China. I confess that when Labour wangs on about 14 years, I say, “Yes, 14 years in which Britain built Europe’s most dynamic tech sector and the economic output of our digital sector more than doubled.”
We were also alive to the risks that a strong tech sector could pose if it was not managed correctly. That is why we introduced major legislation to shape the digital economy, and promoted competition and consumer choice. Principally, that was the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which addressed the market powers of the largest digital platforms. The principle behind that legislation was simple and profoundly Conservative. We believe that in a strong, competitive, capitalist economy, success should come from innovation, talent and providing a great product to the customer, not from gatekeeping power or monopoly control.
That brings us to the challenge at the heart of this debate, which is that in digital markets, power has been concentrated in a handful of global firms. Those firms are brilliant; they bring many tools and skills, and they bring scale. However, that scale has consequences. If we are to prevent it from being used to steamroller other businesses that may be more innovative or provide a better product to the consumer, and if we are to generate more growth and retain more value in this country rather than see it taken abroad, we need digital markets to be open and competitive.
One obvious place for intervention is the mobile app ecosystem. For many digital businesses today, the app stores operated by Apple and Google provide incredibly useful and efficient distribution platforms. However, that value comes with a toll, because it creates huge gatekeeping power for those companies. Consumers may not realise it, but that risks costing them and our economy significantly. Developers are often required to use the platform’s payment systems and to pay commissions of up to 30% on digital purchases. That is a gigantic revenue stream generated from not doing an awful lot.
Those companies may argue that they provide security and maintenance and so on, but app store commissions for Google and Apple are thought to generate up to £2 billion each in net revenue from their UK operations. That means higher prices for consumers, fewer resources for innovation, greater entrenchment and platform dominance. Then we throw up our hands and ask, “What can realistically be done? What is the alternative to those companies?” It becomes a downward spiral where we have less power to deal with these challenges.
Google and Apple’s power extends far beyond simply running app stores. They can control direct communications and what developers can say to customers, insist on particular payment platforms, prevent developers from informing users when products are cheaper elsewhere, and so on. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill listed some critical examples, but he also mentioned companies such as Amazon. We are all familiar with the sheer power of Amazon, but if it cannot sufficiently challenge app store market power, what chance does a smaller British tech company have?
The legislative framework to address this exists in the DMCC Act, which gave the Competition and Markets Authority conduct requirement powers and allowed it to mandate specific behaviours. However, developers, competition lawyers and tech businesses tell me that they worry the CMA has gone soft, with long investigations and voluntary remedies. They believe it reflects political direction.
This exposes a wider problem with the Labour Government. We left them with the strongest tech ecosystem in Europe, but I fear they have no real plan for growth. As a result, they have a troubling reliance on big tech companies, because they are telling them they will give them big investment headlines—but that risks entrenching dependency and stifling home-grown innovation.
In their first set of returns, Labour Ministers had met big tech firms roughly 70% more often than their Conservative predecessors. That culminated in the US-UK tech deal, where there were a lot of big headlines, but I am not entirely sure what the substance was. There were interesting articles in The Guardian this week about some of those deals and I think there was a lot of circular investment going on. There was also a very interesting debate yesterday in this Chamber in which Labour MPs began to question some of what was going on; they were worrying about the dependency being created, along with the security and economic implications that brings.
Last year, the Government asked the competition watchdog to support
“the overriding national priority of…economic growth.”
However, if growth is defined as just bringing in big tech, it is predictable how the regulator will act. In February, the CMA approved voluntary commitments from Apple and Google. In fairness—I have spoken to it about this directly—it contends that this could deliver faster results. However, smaller tech firms worry that it will delay action on the substantive issue of fees.
As we highlighted in yesterday’s debate on tech sovereignty, the UK risks drifting into a position of high dependency and low resilience, where too much of our digital economy relies on infrastructure and platforms that we simply do not have any control over. That matters not just for innovation but for economic strength, consumer protection and national security.
I must stress that this is not an argument against American companies; it is an argument about competition and the dangers of its absence. In fact, courts in the US have already upheld these principles to the benefit of smaller US tech firms. We must ensure an open digital market that rewards innovation from wherever it comes and gives UK consumers and developers the same freedoms that American developers can now enjoy because of that court ruling.
The same problem exists with the CMA’s cloud inquiry, which is examining the extraordinarily important issue of market concentration. We expect a determination this month. Amazon Web Services and Microsoft dominate the cloud market, and the Government recognise this as a chronic risk. It is a red light that will be flashing more urgently after the three recent global cloud outages, not to mention the destruction of AWS data centres in the Gulf. The answer to our chronic dependency must surely come through robust competition measures. We await the CMA’s strategic market status decision with bated breath.
The rapid development of AI could, in the best-case scenario, inject real competition into these markets, with AI agents empowering the consumer. Or—this is my real worry—it could entrench the market dominance and power consolidation that we have seen in other parts of the digital economy. Will the Government and the regulator start to think about the power of agentic AI in particular? What happens when an AI starts to curate products for the consumer in ways that shut out smaller vendors from the picture, or necessitate expensive deals with the AI giants to get products into the agent’s selection?
What kind of digital economy do we want? Do we want one that is dominated by a handful of global gatekeepers, or one where a broad range of innovative companies can compete, innovate and grow on merit, delivering a diverse economy and benefits to the consumer? As Conservatives, our view is very simple: we have to give UK tech firms the tools to win. Those are: low taxes, so that innovators can invest and scale; cheap, abundant energy and high-quality digital infrastructure; access to the best global talent; and the celebration of successful people, not taxing them out of the country with envy-driven politics. It is about public procurement that backs British innovation, deeper pools of investable capital and, critically, strong competition policy that ensures that no company, no matter how large or powerful, can use its market position to drive up prices and crowd out competition. That was our approach in office, and it remains our vision for the future of Britain’s tech economy. I hope that the Minister can set out some specifics about how he, too, recognises the importance of competition in the digital sphere.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Can the Minister make sure that he allows two minutes at the end for the mover to wind up?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) for securing this important debate on Government support for UK-based tech companies. I am grateful to him and to all other hon. Members across the Chamber for their contributions. They did a sterling job of showing that the UK is truly a buzzing tech economy in every single part of the country—right across the constituencies represented here and beyond.
This Government are committed to supporting the UK’s thriving tech ecosystem. We are proud to be home to the largest tech sector in Europe, valued at nearly £1 trillion. The success of UK-based technology firms benefits us all. These are some of the fastest growing parts of the economy and are already employing millions of people. The innovations they bring are delivering major benefits to people and communities right across the country, transforming everything from the way we work to how we manage our health.
Given the luxury of time, I propose to respond to each of the points raised by hon. Members. First, I very much appreciate the points on competition policy made by the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill, and shared by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez). Of course, I am reluctant to mention any specifics about the interventions, investigations or engagements the CMA is pursuing as an independent regulator. As the shadow Minister acknowledged, the commitments that the CMA has looked at could be quicker than a full conduct requirement process.
The CMA assures the Government that it continues to monitor firm compliance. If Apple and Google fail to meet their commitments, the CMA will consider the use of statutory powers to take further action. I am conscious that it has just finished consulting, as the shadow Minister mentioned, on the first set of remedies and commitments in the light of the designations of Google, in search, and Apple and Google, in mobile platform markets. I expect very soon to hear greater detail, as well as firm timelines, on that particular point.
The virtue of the previous Government’s digital markets regime is that it is flexible and proportionate, and allows for some remedies that are quicker, and others, where this is due, that are more robust. The Government expect that the CMA will act in line with its growth and competition mandate. Those two issues overlap much more than we often give the CMA credit for.
I will briefly take the opportunity to address the shadow Minister’s history of the UK tech sector over the last 14 years. Having been in that sector through part of that time, although I very much value the growth seen in the period, I am also conscious of the particular fact that drove me into politics: over that entire period—one of the most productive periods in global technology markets—no one growing up in this country ever saw a company go from zero to the global top 10; in the United States, in that same period, people saw eight out of those top 10 companies do that. The levels of capital investment and IT in this country were materially below that of the United States. When the shadow Minister talks about the benchmark as being European growth, I fear I have to say, given that it is ambition season among Conservative Front Benchers, that she might consider joining that and raising the ambition to being a global first, not just a European-relative first.
In that period, as the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill and the shadow Minister noted, power concentrated in the cloud market in particular and right across US big tech. It was clear to me at the time that the Government were much more focused on engagement with US big tech and exactly the trend that the shadow Minister described—the power concentrated in the cloud market.
The shadow Minister’s points on agentic AI are very well made. I will make sure that we think about that deeply and engage with the CMA on the implications for agentic AI, the possibility of bundling and the limited competition that might result.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) raised the virtues of the Welsh ecosystem. It is an ecosystem that I know and deeply value personally. I particularly value my hon. Friend’s advocacy for Academii, in his constituency. His point about clusters anchored by Welsh universities is really well made. As a Government, we have committed over £1.5 billion to the question of how research translates into commercialisation. I would be happy to engage further with him on any particular instances where the Government can do more, in his constituency and beyond.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards)—the AI MP—who is no longer in his place, made a similar and important point about Leeds’s Nexus hub. I have visited Leeds in this role, and I particularly value the contributions of Leeds’s tech sector to healthcare and financial services innovation.
The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) made a deeply important point about procurement, which was shared by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins). I have a particular interest in defence procurement that I hope to come to more fully in my speech.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), who is no longer in her place, has always been a strong champion for family businesses in the contexts of technology and agriculture. I share her ambition for UK tech businesses to start, scale and stay here.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) has deep experience, and is also no longer in his place—despite that experience. I agree with him that although our policy is often in a good place, there is a lot more for us to do to spread awareness of that policy. I would be happy to visit him, and others, to be a small part of spreading that awareness.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) for her strong advocacy for the innovation zone, both prior to and subsequent to coming to this House. She has won £38.7 million for travel support in particular and transport support more generally in that innovation zone. I will say how excited I am about the historic growth in AI investment in the wider region, which I hope will create a series of opportunities for investment, and opportunities for young people growing up in and around Glasgow to take part in it.
My hon. Friend’s mention of photonics is deeply important. Photonics is not just a British strength but an increasingly important vector for national security strength globally in the semiconductor context. I am grateful to her for championing that subsector.
In response to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I note that Northern Ireland is indeed close to my heart. I grew up visiting Northern Ireland and Belfast for lots of debating competitions. He will be glad to hear that, in this role, I was back in Northern Ireland at the artificial intelligence collaboration centre at Ulster University, seeing not just the world-leading cyber capabilities in Belfast and Northern Ireland but the transformational effect that Ulster University’s investments have had on the city by creating opportunities for young people. He will also be glad to hear that just this morning, I spent time with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland talking about our shared ambition to do even more to support the cyber and AI sectors in Northern Ireland.
The points of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) about energy tech were well made. I feel very strongly that our plans on clean energy are best pursued if they make the most of AI and modern technology. I think that they are pursued with a deeper sense of building public consensus if we are able to show that our clean energy values align with our prosperity aspirations around AI and technology, not just domestically but through Britain’s ability to export lessons and technology to other places, and to move the needle on global climate change.
Edward Morello
Shortly before the debate, the Minister said he would like to visit Weston-super-Mare and other locations. I invite him to beautiful West Dorset to visit the fibre optics company Sintela, which is one of the UK’s biggest success stories.
Kanishka Narayan
I have a 100% record so far of committing to visits when asked. I do not want to set too much of a precedent, but given the numbers in the room, I would be happy to take the hon. Member up on his kind offer as well.
The hon. Member also made an important point about SME representation on trade missions; on the three international visits that I have been on—to the US, South Korea and India—we have been primarily focused on SMEs. If he has recommendations of firms that would benefit from such engagement, I would be keen to take him up on them—perhaps we can discuss that in West Dorset during my visit. On word clouds, which he mentioned—I know a thing or two about word clouds—he is right about the presence of the word “ecosystem”. I would add “deeply thriving” to that, because that is what Britain’s ecosystem is.
I am delighted to hear about the history of entrepreneurship in the family of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, and I am keen on any lessons from her mother about Twitter engagement. I also share and value her ambition for more entrepreneurship; that dream is shared across the House as well. I will come to her five points, which I think the Government are equally focused on.
I will now set out some of the things that the Government are doing. As I mentioned, we start from a position of considerable global strength. Four of the world’s top 10 universities are in the UK, and we have a proud history of technological innovation, but there is clearly more to be done. That is why, in our modern industrial strategy, we set out the first dedicated plan to support the UK’s digital and technologies sector, alongside a separate plan for life sciences. For digital and technologies, we have focused on six frontier technologies with the greatest potential to drive growth: advanced connectivity, AI, cyber-security, engineering biology, quantum and semiconductors. By 2035, we want the UK to be one of the world’s top three places to create, invest and scale up a fast-growing technology business.
Building on the industrial strategy, we went further still at the 2025 autumn Budget. We set out a package of additional support for founders and innovators to start and scale businesses here in the UK, including reforms to Government procurement, tax and our public finance institutions. As the Chancellor made clear, the Government are backing the next generation of UK tech start-ups and entrepreneurs. These plans are about making sure that we are supporting our tech companies at every stage of their development.
A great tech company starts with an idea. That is why we are making a record public investment in R&D, with spending rising to £22.6 billion by 2029-30. We have one of the most generous R&D tax credit relief systems in the entire world, and I have personally heard testament to that from a series of founders in the UK ecosystem, not least in AI, over the past few weeks.
Through our industrial strategy, we are also making sure that investment is targeted to bring innovation to market, with £7 billion for innovative companies to scale and commercialise technological and scientific breakthroughs. To ensure that the benefits are felt right across the country, we are backing high-potential innovation clusters throughout the UK through programmes such as the local innovation partnerships fund.
Brilliant ideas alone, of course, are not enough to grow a business, so we are taking a whole-of-government approach to ensure that the right conditions are in place for businesses to reach their full potential. We are expanding the British Business Bank to give high-growth tech firms access to long-term scale-up capital. We are upskilling private investors to invest in deep tech through our science and technology venture capital fellowship programme. We are ensuring that firms have access to the best skills and talent through our £187 million TechFirst skills programme and we are hoping to attract the very best minds in the world through the Government’s global talent taskforce, as well as the £54 million global talent fund.
We are not stopping there. Across the board, we are looking at how we can use the Government’s levers to support our technology ecosystem. Part of that is about infrastructure, whether that is connecting people, businesses and universities through initiatives like the Oxford-to-Cambridge growth corridor, or funding the specialist infrastructure that tech companies need through the AI research resource and engineering biology scale-up infrastructure programmes.
It is also about regulations that help, not hinder, new products to reach the market. That is why we have set up the Regulatory Innovation Office, which has invested over £12.5 million already in helping regulators to adopt new tools and approaches. Sometimes it is challenging to bring new technologies to market, so we are also reforming how the Government procure technologies to lead the way and back British SMEs.
In the autumn Budget, we announced an advance market commitment, backed with £100 million of Government funding, to buy products from novel and promising UK chip companies—an important economic as well as national security focus—once they reach a high-performance benchmark. I know that the Ministry of Defence has committed to a significant budget allocation to novel technology procurement and I am keen to ensure that the design and process for that are as compelling as the scale of that ambition.
This debate is about UK-based businesses, but we must also recognise that we are part of a global market, with the huge opportunities that that offers. We are working hard with our international partners to boost collaboration and open new markets for innovative firms globally. We have agreed industrial strategy partnerships with France and Japan, have a Saudi-UK strategic partnership and an India-UK technology security initiative, and are pursuing deeper connections still with other key markets. Last autumn, the top US tech firms, mentioned across this debate, committed to investing £31 billion in the UK.
We are right across the things that matter to start-ups here in relation to capital: the force that is the BBB investing more; the National Wealth Fund investing more; a sovereign AI unit investing earlier; and the Mansion House pension fund reforms that are spurring greater investment. We are bringing capital to the service of British start-ups.
In the context of compute—a critical input for AI—both our AI growth zones programme and our AI research resource programme are ensuring that British companies are at the front of the queue when it comes to adequate compute for AI. When it comes to Government as a customer, the advance market commitment and the reforms that I mentioned in relation to the MOD aspire to that and to ensuring that the Government are the best partner that UK start-ups can benefit from.
When it comes to building a sense of community for talent in this country, the global talent taskforce, the global talent fund and, crucially, the enterprise management incentives scheme—now one of the world’s best tax incentive schemes for early-stage employees to have deep equity participation in start-ups—mean that Britain is at the front of the queue in convening a compelling community of tech talent. When it comes to clarity on regulation, the AI growth lab, the Regulatory Innovation Office reforms that I mentioned and the growth mandates for regulators mean that Britain is regulating dynamically —moving regulation at the pace of technological progress.
At the heart of all this is a culture that prizes innovation and that says to entrepreneurs that their success is our national success, and that their companies are national champions when they create jobs and invest in frontier innovation here. We are radically shifting Britain’s culture to being a culture of agency and innovation.
In that context, I am grateful to all Members across the House for their partnership in that mission. The UK’s exceptional technology sector is a key national asset. The steps that the Government are taking will ensure that UK-based tech companies thrive at every stage of their growth.
Peter Fortune
I thank everybody for their contributions. Let me start with the party spokesmen. I pay tribute to the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), for her wisdom and her towering intellect in recognising the self-evident glamour that is dripping from me even as I stand here—it takes one to know one. As ever, she made informed points—and of course I agree with them, because she is my boss.
I thank the Minister for his response. There were many points in it that I agree with and some that I would like to have further conversation on—particularly the points about procurement. That is really important and will become an increasing challenge as we move forward.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins), set out a five-point plan that I would struggle to disagree with. In particular, outcomes-focused regulations would ensure that we have proper competition. It was encouraging that all three party spokespeople spoke from an informed and passionate place. That bodes well for the future.
I turn to the Back-Bench contributions. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) talked about what a targeted group of engineers can do when they are given the space to flourish. He made some important points about UKRI and how it needs to be reorganised. We recently met the new chief executive, and there is a lot of work to do there, so perhaps the Minister would like to focus on that and push the way that UKRI distributes those funds.
I turn to the hon. and gallant Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin). I had a quick look on Wikipedia and found out that we were in the same regiment; I did not know that before. I think he was a young second lieutenant when I was a mere legend of history. We will meet afterwards and swap some stories. He highlighted the absurdity of losing potential unicorns—companies that start and can grow here—which are not able to get to the place they need to because there is no incubator for growth. That point was very well made.
The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) talked about how important access to finance is for the great companies that she highlighted, not just in her constituency but right across Scotland. If there were an injection of capital, we could see some glowing achievements.
The hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) talked about how technology can be used, and he especially focused on climate. We will face problems over the next 10 or 20 years, and we will need to develop that technology, some of which will have to be sovereign technology so that we can face those challenges.
Last but never, ever least, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) rose to his feet to say that he has many great things to say about Northern Ireland; we all know that Northern Ireland has many great things to say about him. I was amused when the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) asked whether he had spoken to a company in Northern Ireland. He has spoken to everybody in Northern Ireland—twice. He made an important point about how the cyber-security industry has grown in the past 20 to 30 years, and I want to push the Minister gently on that. Something that was highlighted to us at Space-Comm last week was the need to develop the defence investment plan and get it out as quickly as possible. I will not put the boot in, because the debate has been good natured, but a lot of people in industry are really looking for that to be brought forward.
I am encouraged by this debate, which has been good natured and well informed. We all agree that if we get this right, with the right focus, we can be a world leader in this industry. We will punch not just above our weight but as technological champions. We have the opportunity to take the UK economy into the second half of the 21st century and beyond. I thank hon. Members for their contributions.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for UK-based tech companies.
Public Body Data Collection: Sikh and Jewish Ethnicity
(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
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Sikh and Jewish ethnicity data collection by public bodies.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to her role. For more than 40 years, Sikhs and Jews have been recognised in law as both ethnic and religious groups. That is long-established; it was confirmed by the 1983 Mandla v. Dowell-Lee judgment and reaffirmed by the Equality Act 2010. Yet, in practice, our systems still fail to acknowledge what the law clearly states.
Nearly six decades after racial discrimination laws were introduced, public bodies still do not collect ethnicity data on Sikhs and Jews. This is not a technical oversight; it is a structural problem with the way public bodies and our Government collect ethnicity data—one that prevents us from understanding inequality, recognising discrimination and properly protecting communities the law says we must protect.
In December 2024, I introduced my ten-minute rule Bill, the Public Body Ethnicity Data (Inclusion of Jewish and Sikh Categories) Bill. The Bill provides that where a public body collects data about ethnicity for the purpose of delivering public services, it must include specific Sikh and Jewish categories as options for a person’s ethnic group. This is about how the United Kingdom delivers its public services; it is not a theological discussion, as the Office for National Statistics has told all public bodies that they can use only—this is really important—the current ethnicity data categories for service delivery.
Time and again, national reviews have shown that Sikhs and Jews are missing from the datasets that shape decisions about public services. In 2018, the Women and Equalities Committee heard that the Government’s race disparity audit had identified around 340 datasets across Government, yet not one included data on Sikhs. My own written parliamentary questions have revealed that Government Departments do not collect ethnicity data on Sikhs and Jews.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady on all that she does on behalf of the Sikh community. I am very happy that we have developed a friendship over the years through freedom of religious belief and that we are able to stand together for each other, and that is something that always encourages me.
Does the hon. Lady agree that although Sikh and Jewish people are legally recognised as ethnic groups under the Equality Act 2010, current public data collection often reduces them solely to a religion, which is wrong? Does she agree that Jewish and Sikh people, and other minority communities, face both subtle and overt forms of discrimination, and that it is therefore imperative that public bodies collect accurate ethnicity data? That would send a clear message that Sikh and Jewish people, and others, are valued, visible and protected in every part of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Preet Kaur Gill
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point, and I will come on to why this is important in practice. We are both legislators in this House, and he is right: we both take our responsibilities very seriously and want to see all communities treated fairly under the law, so we must implement it. I really value his intervention and thank him for it.
As I said, my own written parliamentary questions have revealed that Government Departments do not collect ethnicity data on Sikhs and Jews. As the hon. Member has just said, the only information collected is religious data, but religious data is inconsistent and incomplete, and is rarely used in designing or delivering services. It also excludes people who are ethnically Sikh or Jewish but do not practise their faiths. User need has been clearly evidenced by the plethora of evidence available, and that simply cannot be ignored by the ONS.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. My constituent Dan has written to me to express his strong support for Sikhs and Jews being able to identify as an ethnic group. He is Jewish, but not religious, and says it is important for him to be able to register as belonging to a group not currently permitted under the census data. Does the hon. Member agree that Jews and Sikhs do face discrimination, whether they are religious or not, and that it is important for their identity and the delivery of public services to be able to identify their ethnicity?
Preet Kaur Gill
Absolutely; I think that is really important. I have a staffer who, equally, is Jewish and does not feel that he is religious, and he wants the option to tick his ethnicity because, as he says, “I am Jewish.” This is simply giving people the option; no one is forcing anyone to tick any other box—they can tick any box they think reflects their ethnicity. But given the Equality Act, and given race hate and the rise in antisemitism, we absolutely should be collecting ethnicity data. My staffer should not be invisible.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I wish to make a medical point. Considering the clear evidence for the genetic propensity of Jews to develop certain medical conditions and diseases, is it not right that, in terms of data, the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care treat Jews as both a religious and an ethnic group?
Preet Kaur Gill
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I really value his expertise in this House. Health inequalities are an area where we really see this issue being played out. The NHS is doing some directed work with the Jewish community; I know that, because it is happening in my constituency. That is because many Jewish women of Ashkenazi descent are predisposed to breast cancer, for example, and I can give lots of similar examples about the Sikh community. That is why we must consider the real-life experiences of those in our communities—they are not only invisible, but the health inequalities they face are not being addressed, as a result of the situation we find ourselves in.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
I am proud to represent a very large Sikh community in Sandwell, which is near my hon. Friend’s constituency. What she campaigns for—for ethnicity data about the Sikh community to be recorded—is really important for organisations such as the NHS as well as for Home Office data and crime data. We have suffered some very serious anti-Sikh hate crime in West Bromwich recently, which the community is very upset about, and I am standing with them against it. Can she say more about how recording this data will help not just NHS and health data, but other types of public data?
Preet Kaur Gill
My hon. Friend does some fantastic work locally with her communities, and I know that she supports this campaign and really understands the real-life impact it has. She talked about anti-Sikh hate. We have seen a rise in hate crime across communities, but it is especially marked in the latest Home Office data. The data shows that there has been an increase of 20% in religious hate against the Sikh community. I will go on to say a bit more about how hate crime is recorded for both the Jewish community and the Sikh community.
When public bodies do not count a community, that community is invisible. That is clearly the case for Jews and Sikhs. My Bill addresses that gap. It would give Jews and Sikhs the simple and fair recognition that the law already promises. As legislators, it is our duty to ensure that the law is upheld and implemented. It is not optional for arm’s length bodies or Government Departments; the law is the law.
Covid-19 showed us what is at stake when communities are not counted. When the ONS belatedly analysed covid outcomes by religious group, it revealed that Sikhs had died at disproportionately high rates, even adjusting for deprivation, region and other socioeconomic factors. Critically, Sikhs were affected differently from other south Asian groups, proving that the existing ethnic categories failed to capture the reality, and for the Jewish community, the death rate was almost twice the rate of the general population. If we are serious about tackling health inequalities, we must be serious about collecting accurate data. After all, it is about life and death. If the evidence from this work is not compelling enough for the ONS, then I really do not know what will be.
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) stated, we have recently seen horrific incidents of anti-Sikh hate crime in the west midlands. There have been two separate racially aggravated rapes of Sikh women, including one just outside my constituency, and a brutal physical attack on two Sikh taxi drivers. Of the 115,990 hate crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales between April 2024 and March 2025, 71% were recorded as being “racially aggravated”. Yet despite the Home Office requiring police forces to provide the ethnicity of victims since April 2021, we only know the ethnicity of victims in 40% of offences, and within that 40%, Sikh and Jewish categories are not offered. So the racially aggravated rapes that those two Sikh women were subjected to were not recorded as anti-Sikh hate crimes.
As I said earlier, of the 9% of hate crimes that were recorded as being religiously aggravated, Home Office data shows a 20% increase in crimes specifically targeting Sikhs. Are we saying that Jewish and Sikh victims do not matter? I think that is a reasonable question for both communities to ask.
The Jewish community continues to face horrific abuse, having the highest rate of religious hate crime of any group. The terrorist attack at Heaton Park synagogue in Manchester was an awful reminder that there is still much more to be done to fight antisemitism and keep British Jews safe.
The lack of accurate data collection for the offence of racially aggravated hate crime is hiding the true severity of anti-Sikh and anti-Jewish hate crime, which means that the police and the Government cannot put proper targeted protections in place. The Sikh community is asking the Government, the Home Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government why they are not recognising and recording anti-Sikh hate crimes. What are they saying to that? That it is because the ONS asks them to only use the existing ethnic categories.
The ONS does not seem to understand that Jews and Sikhs face racial hatred, which is distinct from religious hatred. How are we meant to track and combat this religious hatred without data? Why does the Minister think the ONS is treating Sikh and Jewish communities in this way, given the levels of hate that they have recently faced and the decades they have spent campaigning for fairness and equality?
After many meetings and much correspondence from me over the past eight years, the ONS has acknowledged that ethnicity standards must reflect the United Kingdom’s diversity. The Government Statistical Service, led by the ONS, recently consulted on additional categories for the ethnicity harmonised standard, but the criteria for the evaluation of the responses, which were published last week, leave me apprehensive. Despite assurances to the contrary, I was disappointed that the criteria were almost identical to those used to decide the categories for the last census, in 2021, in which Sikhs and Jews were in the last four groups to be considered from a list of 55. Those should not be treated as the same exercise. The harmonisation standard is primarily intended to assist public bodies to meet their equalities responsibility—I say that again: to meet their equalities responsibility—and best serve all Britain’s diverse communities. The purpose of the census is, of course, much broader.
With that in mind, I was struck by the lack of any legal test. Sikhs and Jews have been legally recognised as ethnicities for decades. We know that religion data is not used by public bodies that implement this standard. In fact, the ONS knows this, and has publicly acknowledged it. Surely the GSS, led by the ONS, needs to consider the bigger picture and form a harmonised standard with its implementation in mind. If Sikhs and Jews are legally protected ethnicities, public bodies have a legal duty to monitor their outcomes and deliver services to address inequality. The GSS should want to develop a harmonised standard that allows public bodies to meet their legal obligations.
The ONS has claimed in meetings that there are apparently hundreds of potential ethnicities that could be included, but in the landmark 1983 case Mandla v. Dowell-Lee, the Law Lords made life easier by establishing crucial criteria for defining an ethnic group. The Minister should signal to the GSS that, as legislators, we expect the starting point of its considerations to be legally recognised ethnic groups such as Sikhs and Jews, given the protections in the Equality Act 2010.
The second criterion—assessing whether there is a lack of alternative sources of information for the group—similarly demonstrates the ONS’s short-sightedness. Although many Sikhs may choose to record their religion as Sikh, the ONS knows that the question is optional, is not used to inform policymaking or service delivery, and is irrelevant to the execution of ethnicity equalities duties.
Finally, the subjective “acceptability” criterion does not give me faith that the ONS has learned any lessons from past oversights. In the run-up to the 2021 census, the ONS pushed aside calls for a Sikh ethnicity tick box, citing divisions in the community—an argument that I am disappointed has been repeated since. I remind the House and the ONS that nearly 100,000 Sikhs and 65,000 Jews ticked “other” and wrote in their ethnicity in the census. That is hugely significant, because this huge number of respondents from the two communities is far bigger than the number of responses to any consultation, focus group or exercise that the ONS may choose to carry out.
Citizens want democracy to work for them, so that they can have trust in our political system. That is our duty as legislators. I am therefore keen to understand what the Government are saying to the 165,000 Jews and Sikhs who clearly sent a message to the ONS and Government that they want the option to tick “Jewish” or “Sikh”.
I am not advocating or forcing anyone to identify in a certain way. Respondents would still be able to record their ethnicity as they choose, as would any person from any background. The question is whether the GSS and ONS give greater weight to established legal precedent or a few dissenting voices in a focus group.
That brings me to the relationship between the Government, the ONS and Parliament more broadly. In a recent meeting, the ONS made it clear that it expects the Government to tell it their data needs, yet in all my correspondence on this issue over past years, Ministers have responded by stating that they are relying on the GSS and ONS. Let me be clear: it is right that our country’s official statistics are independent of Government. However, at some point the relationship has shifted, and we have lost our way. The Government should obviously not be able to write their own scorecard, but that does not mean that Government Departments should not engage proactively with the ONS to outline what frameworks they need to best serve the British public.
I tabled questions to every Department asking whether they fed into the consultation on the harmonised standard. The responses I have gotten back have been hugely disappointing. Many Departments dodged the question, telling me to wait for the ONS’s response to the consultation later this year to see whether Departments fed in. How does that give Jewish and Sikh communities any faith that, while they are dying disproportionately, we in this House are committed to addressing that inequality? It is a simple question. This is about transparency.
I am grateful that the Home Office confirmed that it provided an organisational response. The relationship between the Government and the ONS should be reciprocal. These Departments hold the data, but many of them say that there is no data. They deliver services that are not directed at these groups, so they should be working with the ONS to push for better data that ensures that they can meet their legal equalities duties.
The ONS is funded by the taxpayer and consists of civil servants. Civil servants must deliver for the public. In January, I tabled a question on ethnicity pay gap reporting and received an interesting response. The Minister who responded, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), stated that the recent consultation on ethnicity and disability pay-gap reporting considered whether ethnicity data should be collected following the GSS and ONS current harmonised standard, which does not include specific “Sikh” and “Jewish” categories. Will the Minister outline what provisions would be available for Jews and Sikhs to challenge ethnicity pay gap reporting if they are not included? This also demonstrates that some Departments recognise that they are not required to follow the GSS framework. I gently encourage Ministers across Government to consider whether the GSS harmonised standard is adequate for them to meet the equalities duties.
To conclude, this campaign has the support a broad coalition: the Board of Deputies, the Community Security Trust, the Antisemitism Policy Trust, the Sikh Federation, the Sikh Council UK, the UK Gurdwara Alliance, many health professionals, local police and local government. Those organisations understand the lived reality of their communities. They see the consequences of missing data every single day in healthcare, public safety, education, housing and employment.
In June last year, Birmingham city council became the first local authority in England to include Sikh and Jewish ethnic categories when collecting data and delivering services. I am grateful to the Birmingham Labour group for its leadership on this issue, but will it really take every council in the country passing its own motion for Sikhs and Jews to be counted? What we are asking for is simple: fairness. For more than 40 years, Sikhs and Jews have been recognised as ethnic groups in law. It is time for public bodies to recognise them in practice and for legislators to implement the law.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Satvir Kaur)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) for tabling this important debate, and I thank other Members for joining us. Over many years my hon. Friend has championed the rights of Sikh and Jewish communities. Those communities contribute so much to British life, and both our families are great examples of that.
The science of statistics helps us to understand the world and our place in it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston has made clear, that is particularly the case for minority groups, who so often feel unseen and unheard by their Government. We should always strive to identify data gaps that need addressing. The issues raised today regarding Sikh and Jewish data, and the impact of data gaps relating to those groups, could not be more relevant or timely. As we speak, these topics are under active consideration by the Government Statistical Service as part of its review of the harmonisation of ethnicity standards. That is a critical process. I know that my hon. Friend and I will follow its progress closely and look forward to reading its findings when they are published in the autumn.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston eloquently set out the impact of the current data gaps regarding Sikh and Jewish communities. As she mentioned, those became particularly apparent during covid and in administering other public services. That is at the heart of this debate, and the Government are committed to serving all our minority communities. My hon. Friend and other Members can be reassured that, as part of the review, the ONS has committed to looking at adding more ethnicity tick boxes, including options for Sikhs and Jews.
As my hon. Friend is aware, as part of the review the ONS held an open consultation between October 2025 and February 2026. The general public and all Government Departments, including the Government Statistical Service, were invited to respond to the consultation. The heads of profession for statistics in every Department were contacted on the day the consultation launched and again in January, a month before it closed. The ONS has committed to publishing all the submissions it received in April. I have personally asked the ONS to contact my hon. Friend directly when the information is available, as she has raised concerns about when that will happen.
Additionally, as part of the consultation process, the ONS engaged with key leaders in the Jewish and Sikh communities, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Health and Care Jewish Staff Network, the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, the Jewish Association for Mental Illness, the Sikh Federation UK and the Supreme Sikh Council UK. Now that the consultation has closed, the submissions are being analysed.
Last week, the Government Statistical Service published the evaluation criteria for assessing the proposed new tick-box response options. The three headline criteria are the strength of user need, the lack of alternative sources, and acceptability, clarity and data quality. I hear my hon. Friend’s concerns about these being the same as before. I have spoken directly with the chair of the UK Statistics Authority and the permanent secretary of the ONS on the specific matter of Sikh and Jewish ethnicity tick boxes, and I have been assured that this will be considered as part of the review. I have further been assured—and I am confident of this—that at this stage the option to add tick boxes for Sikhs and Jews as ethnic groups is an open question and that the ONS will reach an impartial, evidence-based decision.
My hon. Friend mentioned the ethnicity pay gap, which I am happy to take away.
On the issue of legality, the Equality Act 2010 and the public sector equality duty are key components of the Government Statistical Service review, and the user need for data to support equality monitoring for protected characteristic features predominantly in the evaluation criteria. Under the Equality Act, race is defined to include colour, nationality, and ethnic or national origins. That means that, under the Act, Sikhs and Jews are a racial group by reference to their ethnic origins. Both are also religious groups under the Act. Let me be clear: the Government, the ONS and the Government Statistical Service all recognise that, as my hon. Friend highlighted, Sikh identity and Jewish identity are ethnic as well as religious identities.
It is important to clarify that the Act does not specify particular ethnicities as being protected. Apart from anything else, that would mean that we live in a country that has unprotected ethnic groups. I am sure my hon. Friend would join me in agreeing that that would be completely unacceptable. In fact, the Equality Act provides protection to everybody on the basis of their ethnicity, and of their religion or lack of religion. The Act protects all ethnicities, not some over others.
However, protection under the Act does not legally mandate the inclusion of a tick-box option for data collection purposes. Indeed, there are many other ethnicities—hundreds, in fact—all of which are recognised by the Government, that also do not have a tick box, such as Kurdish, Persian and Hispanic/Latino. Because there are so many ethnic groups that do not have their own tick box, individuals are given the option to write their ethnicity. In the 2021 census, 287 different ethnicities were recorded and published. Tick-box response options in the survey form simply cannot include all the ethnic groups, which is why the tick-box option should never be seen as a list of official or recognised ethnicities.
As I have set out, decisions on tick boxes involve a number of factors, including user need for the data, data quality, public acceptability, clarity for respondents, and the impact on comparability of data over time. I hear what my hon. Friend said about the need and the possible gaps, which is why the ONS is analysing and considering this issue as part of its review. It will publish it findings in the autumn, which she, I and other Members keenly await—alongside many in the Jewish and Sikh communities, as she mentioned—and we will go from there.
I thank my hon. Friend and other Members for raising the important issue of hate crime. We are united in our determination to tackle these abhorrent crimes in the UK. Everyone in this country deserves to feel safe and live their lives free from violence. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston will know that the UK Government Statistical Service is decentralised. How hate crimes are recorded is determined by the police, not the ONS. It is something I strongly encourage her to raise directly with the Home Office, as I know she already is.
Preet Kaur Gill
Can I seek clarity from the Minister? All the correspondence I have had from the Home Office says that it has been told to use existing categories in the census, according to the ONS, and that is why it does not collect the data.
Satvir Kaur
I am happy to take that away.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important topic, and for her ongoing hard work advocating for the Sikh and Jewish communities. I am keen to emphasise that whether Sikh and Jewish ethnicity tick boxes should be introduced is an open question. I reassure my hon. Friend that a clear and credible procedure is in place to make an informed decision. The Government should not and will not pre-empt the ONS’s ongoing, independent and impartial piece of work. That means we all eagerly await the publication of the Government Statistical Service’s findings this autumn, at which point I anticipate that she and I will be in regular contact about the next steps, based on the ONS’s findings.
Question put and agreed to.
Disability Equipment Provision
(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
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the provision of disability equipment.
I am grateful to the Speaker’s Office, which oversees the ballot that leads to the selection of debate topics. I am truly very pleased to have secured this debate to provide us all with the opportunity to shine a light on the issues that many people across the country are facing in accessing disability equipment.
I particularly welcome Milana Hadji-Touma, who is representing herself and a number of others today; I thank her for attending. I also thank the 653 people who have shared their experiences and provided moving testimonials, which have been invaluable in my preparation for this debate. I appreciate the time and energy that has gone into each response, and I reiterate my thanks and appreciation for all those who contributed.
I want to begin by offering some quotes from the responses, including some from my constituents:
“My daughter had to wait two years for her wheelchair.”
“I wouldn’t be able to function without my stairlift, my powered wheelchair and my crutches.”
“It is about my safety, my dignity and my ability to live independently.”
“I use a shower chair and a toilet frame which might seem small items but they have transformed my day to day safety and confidence.”
“With the correct equipment, I was able to complete a master's degree at a top university, become a teacher, learn to drive, hand cycle across eleven countries and live a full and rich life.”
Around 25% of the UK population are disabled, so access to disability equipment is essential. It alleviates everyday struggles and allows thousands of people to live safe and independent lives, which boosts personal confidence and mental wellbeing. Whether it is wheelchairs, living aids or home-adaptation items like grab rails, the devices offer numerous and powerful benefits, transforming lives so that the activities of daily life become more manageable, both for those dealing with disabling conditions and for those who provide care, including family members, friends and care workers.
Those benefits were echoed throughout my survey. One respondent stated:
“My disability equipment is my entire life”,
while another reported:
“It simplifies tasks, turns impossible activities into manageable ones with the right support, eases physical pain, reduces moments of embarrassment or vulnerability, and—most importantly—fosters greater independence and less dependence on others.”
Despite the benefits, 64% of respondents revealed that waiting times for disability equipment were longer than expected. As I said, one person reported that their daughter waited for a wheelchair for nearly two years, while one of my constituents highlighted the issues that arise from delayed equipment provision, stating:
“Without proper assessment and provision, disabled people can be left living in environments that actively worsen their health or place them at risk of injury.”
The testimonies I have shared show that there is a growing belief that the system to provide disability equipment is becoming increasingly unsustainable. With complaints about waiting times, quality of equipment and poor communication around access, it is no surprise that over 650 people responded to my survey in the space of four days. In addition, hundreds more people gave testimonies to inform the latest report from the all-party parliamentary group for access to disability equipment, published last October. Among stories of frustration and disappointment, the report revealed that 63% of carers and 55% of equipment users felt that services were getting worse.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. I agree with absolutely everything he has said. He talks about the problem with access to equipment; I know of one case, which is representative of many that come across my desk, that concerns the inability to hand back equipment after use. A constituent contacted me whose mother had died after two years of home care. She had a hospital bed, three commodes, an orthopaedic chair and a walking frame. The NHS provider had gone into receivership and there was no method whatsoever for her to hand back the equipment. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are compounding the problems for people getting equipment by not reusing the stuff that is already out there?
Seamus Logan
I do agree. Indeed, that problem causes a massive cost to the taxpayer as well.
It is no surprise that 74% of equipment providers were aware of patients experiencing delayed hospital discharge due to unavailable community equipment. The APPG’s report recommended and called for the implementation of a national strategy to ensure the cohesive and comprehensive delivery, monitoring and financing of disability equipment.
Complaints about the current system and provision of equipment have been reported by various other organisations, including the UK charity for young wheelchair users, Whizz Kidz, which described wheelchair services as “underfunded, inaccessible, and fractured.” In June 2025, it was reported that Citizens Advice receives a new complaint about faulty aids every hour.
My own pedigree in this area goes back many years—in fact, to 1996, when I first joined a health and personal social services commissioning organisation, under the leadership of my great friends Mary Wilmont and Kevin Keenan, both former directors of social services in Northern Ireland. We examined in great detail the wheelchair services for people who were deaf or blind, hard of hearing or visually impaired. One report stands out in my memory—not because I authored it, but because it was a simple idea to address the challenges facing people in getting to a hospital appointment. We called it “Getting There”. That was 30 years ago.
Although this Government need to “get there”, the challenges in the existing system are more profound. In England and Wales, the provision of equipment is currently run by the NHS and local authorities, which are primarily responsible for facilitating care needs assessments and subsequently approving and providing equipment. As a result, available equipment, the length of waiting times and the quality of adaptations are increasingly becoming a postcode lottery.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the patchwork system to which he referred is, through delay and dysfunction, denying many disabled people the independence they deserve? A 56-year-old constituent of mine in Somerset with a progressive muscle wasting condition has been left effectively housebound and in severe pain for months while trying to obtain essential wheelchair adaptations. May I appeal to the Minister’s extensive good will and ask him to look at that case?
Seamus Logan
I agree with the hon. Member, and that highlights the need for a national strategy and a review of the current organisational arrangements.
Age UK has noted that, due to a lack of national guidelines on timelines, long waiting lists are common, partly due to shortages in that noble profession, occupational therapists. To mitigate the situation, multiple organisations have been set up with the sole purpose of supporting those in need of disability equipment in the face of a failing system. They include Back Up, a UK-wide charity that works with people affected by spinal cord injury and provides vital wheelchair skills training. The Motability Foundation has awarded £36.4 million in grants to customers of its Motability scheme to help them access adequate and good-quality equipment, as many people have resorted to self-funding permanent or temporary equipment. The foundation has also conducted an economic assessment of wheelchair provision in England and recommended that greater integration across services is needed to prevent variation in the quality of provision.
In Scotland, the handling of disability equipment and adaptations is carried out by integrated authorities—united bodies in which local authorities and NHS services work together to provide more cohesive and community-focused health and social care planning. To guide those bodies, the Scottish Government agreed a memorandum of understanding some years ago, setting out a standardised approach for the provision of equipment to maintain consistency across all local councils. During engagement with voluntary organisations in this field, I was told that the Scottish approach is paying dividends. I recommend to the Minister that a similar approach should be considered for implementation in England and Wales, because the system needs change now.
Thousands of people across the UK are sick, sore and tired of being unheard after countless complaints. When will their voices be taken seriously? Greater national leadership is urgently needed to put an end to the insecure and uncertain system in which someone’s ability to obtain necessary life-supporting equipment is based on where they live rather than their need. Everyone has a right to access disability equipment and live a safe and independent life. The pressure is on the UK Government to step up and redesign the system, and respond to the many calls to establish a national strategy.
A consolidated approach holds the potential to improve oversight, reduce waiting times and ensure consistent and reliable access to disability equipment for everyone, no matter where they might live, so let me pose just one simple question to the Minister: in responding to the debate, will he please set out the reasons why he would not agree to take forward a national strategy in this area?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Order. Six Back Benchers want to speak in the debate, so I suggest about five minutes each as a guideline.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary groups for access to disability equipment and for wheelchair users. It is also well known that one of my children has cerebral palsy and uses a wide range of equipment, from a wheelchair to postural seating for eating and for bathing and so on, so I have become a bit of an expert in some of these matters over the years. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing the debate. There will be a separate debate later this year, through the Backbench Business Committee, on wheelchair provision, which I will be sponsoring.
On the point made by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), the collapse of NRS Healthcare last summer has caused real issues across the country. My Bexleyheath and Crayford constituency borders Kent and I know that there have been issues there, as there have been for other local authorities, and I have been working with organisations to try to reduce them. However, recycling continues to be an issue, and it is addressed in the recommendations of the APPG’s report.
As chair of the APPG for access to disability equipment, I am delighted to contribute to this debate, and I pay tribute to Newlife, the charity for disabled children, and the British Healthcare Trades Association for their dedication and hard work in advocating for users of disability equipment. As has been said, our first report, “Barriers to Accessing Lifesaving Disability Equipment”, was published in October. The report resulted from our inquiry—our first inquiry, in fact—into the systemic barriers that prevent millions of disabled children and adults across the UK from accessing the medical and community equipment that they need to live safely and independently.
I want to highlight some of the evidence that we heard. We found that 71% of people feel that the system providing hoists, grab rails and other essential medical equipment is not currently meeting their needs, and our first key recommendation was the implementation of a national strategy. Currently, there is no cohesive national strategy for community equipment and care provision, which has resulted in inconsistent experiences across the country. The APPG recommended that a national strategy should be overseen by a Minister, who would ensure that a national directive is issued to local authorities to clarify whose responsibility it is to provide equipment. That would ensure consistency and reduce confusion.
The APPG heard evidence that the system responsible for delivering essential community equipment is fragmented, inconsistent and too often failing the people it exists to support. Responsibility is split between local authorities and integrated care boards, but in practice that joint responsibility—I know this at first hand—frequently leads to unclear accountability, variation in provision and what many families and professionals describe as a postcode lottery. Often, delays are such that families order equipment and then wait a year or two, by which time it is obsolete. We heard that in the feedback we received for the report.
The report highlighted the consistently long waits for assessments and equipment, which worsen conditions and increase costs. In fact, 74% of professionals and equipment providers said that they are aware of patients who have experienced delayed hospital discharge because essential equipment was unavailable at home. Not only do those delays increase the financial strain on the NHS and pressures on hospital beds and staff time, but they slow down elective care and place further strain on the social care system.
One of the report’s key recommendations is to implement a co-ordinated national plan that includes clear targets, workforce investment and the streamlining of processes to reduce delays and prevent unnecessary hospital stays. Maximum service timeframes should be aligned with the wheelchair service standard of 18 weeks to ensure consistent, accountable delivery. Equipment providers from across the country said that every authority works differently, with little alignment between local areas and very limited national oversight of how services are delivered. Our inquiry found that 33% of equipment users are still waiting to receive approved equipment, with one in five waiting more than two months. That highlights the real consequences these failures have for the people who rely on the support. Despite the scale and importance of this sector, there is no single Minister with clear responsibility for ensuring that services are working effectively for patients.
It is clear that the system needs change, and I would be grateful if the Minister would consider the APPG’s recommendations to introduce a national strategy for community equipment and wheelchair services in order to eliminate the postcode lottery in provision and provide proper national oversight and monitoring of services, and to introduce of a co-ordinated national plan to reduce delays in the provision of community equipment. The APPG will be meeting on 26 March, and the Minister and all other Members will be welcome, if they can find time in their busy diaries, to join us.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Betts. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing this debate.
Disabilities impact the lives of many people in the south-west of England, with older people some of the most affected. Age UK says that disabilities affect 40% of people over 60 but 75% of people over 80, and they are a particularly pressing concern for people in mid and east Devon, where a third of residents are aged 65-plus. Hearing loss is one such disability. It is all too common among older people and has some serious consequences. The Royal National Institute for Deaf People and SignHealth report how people with hearing impairments are less able to take advantage of other health treatments. Access to healthcare is obviously necessary for older people, and any obstacle is a great concern.
Devon’s provision of hearing aids faced a major shake-up last year, when Chime Social Enterprise, which had been praised by its users, stopped providing NHS audiology services in Devon. Chime had provided rechargeable hearing aids, along with drop-in clinics for emergency repairs, based out of community hospitals. Since Chime’s departure, there has been frustration about the provision. A constituent in Honiton whose ears were damaged when he was doing national service with the Royal Artillery, wrote of being redirected endlessly to different bodies for a simple hearing aid repair. A constituent from Seaton told me that models offered by the new providers are “shoddy”. He has already had two hearing aids become unusable because the tubes slip out of the rubber mould. That would have been a simple £60 replacement with Chime, but now, he wrote, he wonders whether the
“next stage is a conch shell”.
I wish to draw particular attention to the case of Mary Dickinson. I met Mary last year at a remembrance service in Sidmouth. She is aged 92. She was an NHS nurse for most of her life and to this day volunteers at Sidmouth Hospice at Home. For those acts of service, she was awarded a lifetime achievement award by the British Red Cross. Mary, like many others, was provided by Chime with rechargeable hearing aids, which worked very well. She has paraesthesia and arthritis in both hands, so the idea that she should now be able to replace the batteries in her hearing aids is really quite wild. She said that if I wanted to obtain batteries for hearing aids, the best place I could look would be down the side of her settee, because there are many down there.
The NHS stated that it cannot offer Mary the rechargeable hearing aids any more, despite them being the only ones that she can use at the age of 92. Mary is a pensioner with no savings, yet she was told that her only solution, if she was adamant that she wanted rechargeable hearing aids, was to buy them herself. Given that she is in receipt of only a small pension she appealed to the NHS board, but without success. Scrivens, the new provider in Devon, has likewise refused to offer her the rechargeable hearing aids. If Mary is sat with somebody in the course of her work at Hospice at Home, she wants to be able to hear them speak and to be able to speak with them, much as she has done with patients throughout her life. If NHS Devon in particular, and the NHS more broadly, wants to ensure that everyone has access to disability provision such as hearing aids, it must really ensure that the equipment it provides is appropriate each and every time.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I want to speak about three things in this debate, which was helpfully secured by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan).
The first has already been dealt with but requires some amplification: the system is not working as well as it should. The figures that we heard quoted about access to wheelchairs, for example, are stark and surprising. In researching for the debate, I was surprised that, according to figures from NHS England—and we heard it again from the hon. Member—70% of wheelchair users wait more than three months for their chair, 30% wait more than six months, and 15% more than 12 months. Those are pretty astounding figures.
I say to the Minister: do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If those people could be provided with some help—perhaps not the chair ideally suited to their needs but something that assisted them—through a recycling scheme, I am sure that they would feel that the authorities were at least making an effort. If someone is sitting at home, hearing nothing and getting nothing, they must get increasingly frustrated. Let us be more creative in how we improve those numbers. Recycling equipment has to be at the heart of that. It is not a perfect solution, because equipment often has to be tailored to the specific requirements of the individual concerned, but it might help.
The second point I want to raise is about housing. There are real problems with adapted housing, with the obligation on developers to build enough adapted houses, and with local authorities facing up to their responsibilities. I know that you are a great expert in this field, Mr Betts—a greater expert than me—but I would like to go back to the days when adapted housing was built for the elderly, the infirm and the disabled, perhaps with a resident warden who would take personal care in their interests and be available night and day for their needs. I am talking not about a distant individual obtained by means of a telephone or—heaven forbid—online, but about someone with hands-on knowledge of local residents. That existed in our lifetimes, and it does not exist now in any significant shape or form. Let us think again about best practice from past times in respect of housing, and create some obligations on local authorities and private developers to build a sufficient number of adapted homes.
It is not just me; various reports have indicated the need. Analysis published in January 2026 by the Office for Equality and Opportunity, “Disabled people’s lived experience of housing in the UK: an evidence review”, stated that there are specific requirements or financial provision to provide suitable housing, but that the physical design of adaptations needs more understanding of individual needs, and that too often adaptations were not focused on the quality of life, wellbeing or independence of the person living there. Let us do more, and better, in respect of housing.
My final point—I said I was only going to make three—is perhaps something that others will not raise, or certainly have not so far: the way that the provision of all kinds of other services can support disabled people. For example, various organisations that represent the blind and partially sighted have reported that flat bank cards have been a huge disadvantage to partially sighted people. Access to cash is actually quite important, because coins, which can be felt and are tactile, are important for small transactions. These small things make a huge difference to people’s lives. We need to think more laterally, and give considerably more thought to such small ways in which we as a Parliament, and the Minister as part of a Government, can make a huge difference to disabled people in all our constituencies.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing this debate, which is timely because I want to highlight the case of a constituent and ask the Minister to work collaboratively with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to intervene urgently in what has become a deeply troubling example of administrative failure in the DWP’s Access to Work scheme.
My constituent lives with cerebral palsy and ME. She wants to do exactly what Government policy encourages people to do: work, contribute and maintain her independence. To do that, she requires a wheelchair through the Access to Work programme—an essential piece of equipment that enables her to remain in employment. My constituent has done everything asked of her ever since her first application in July 2024. Her assessment was completed, quotes for a suitable chair were submitted and the case had progressed to the point of an award. Then, the system failed her. In September 2025, her case manager informed her that he was retiring, and that the case had been passed to a colleague, who would contact her. That contact never came.
Despite my constituent’s repeated attempts to follow up, no one in the Access to Work scheme took ownership of the case or progressed the order. Instead, months later, she was told that her case had been closed due to “no contact” since July, which was demonstrably untrue. When my office intervened, the Department acknowledged the issue, and stated that it would contact my constituent within 10 working days. That deadline then passed. When she attempted to chase the matter herself, she spent nearly an hour on hold, only to be told that the manager was unavailable. What is perhaps most concerning is the reason now being given: the Department would prefer my constituent to submit a completely new application for the wheelchair, rather than reopen the existing case, purely because reopening it would affect its management information.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
Last year saw the first fall in Access to Work approvals in more than a decade, including a 16% drop in approvals for aids and equipment, despite the alleged surge in disability claims overall. That suggests that, behind the scenes, the Government have instructed the DWP to get tougher on approval criteria, but without announcing any formal change to policy in public. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a strange way to go about improving employment prospects for the disabled?
Alison Bennett
My hon. Friend makes an important and interesting point, and I very much want to get underneath the detail of why that change has happened.
Returning to my constituent’s case, I want to ask the Minister three questions to which I believe my constituent deserves a response; if he is not able to answer them, perhaps he can write and raise these matters with the correct Minister. First, does the Minister agree, as I hope he does, that the case should urgently be reopened? Secondly, does he disagree with the DWP’s apparent position that the integrity of its management information is more important than ensuring that a disabled person has the equipment that they need to work? Thirdly, will he ask his colleagues in the DWP to review the so-called integrity of the Department’s management information, given the serious concern that cases may be closed and replaced with new ones in a way that creates the appearance of efficiency, when the reality for constituents like mine is repeated failure?
At its best, Access to Work is a transformative scheme, but when the system fails and the metrics appear to matter more than the people who the scheme exists to support, confidence is undermined. My constituent is not asking for special treatment; she is simply asking for the Department to finish the job it started. I hope the Minister will help me to swiftly put that right.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is again a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts—it has been a long afternoon for you and for me. We have been here together all this time.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for leading the debate. Debates in Westminster Hall give us a chance to recollect things that we sometimes forget about. The hon. Gentleman bringing this issue forward has, all of a sudden, flooded our minds with examples from the last year of our constituents’ needs.
I hope the Minister will know that I will give a Northern Ireland perspective of where we are, to add flavour to the debate and highlight some of the problems that we have. Provision of disability equipment is of paramount importance to many disabled people across the United Kingdom. When equipment works well, it can significantly improve independence and quality of life. The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency has concluded that, according to the 2021 census data, 24.3% of the population of Northern Ireland—almost quarter, or some 463,000 people—had a long-term health condition or disability that limited day-to-day activities. I regularly see those people in my office back home. The hon. Gentleman for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East reminded me of the particular problems that we have.
A significant majority of people will require adaptations and equipment to help support them. It is crucial that they have access to the support that they need. The hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) mentioned equipment that is unused because someone passes away or they have to go into a home. That includes disabled beds, commodes, walking frames, crutches and sometimes even stairlifts. Stairlifts are there for people to get up to their bed and they might still be workable. If they are compatible and useable, they should be collected. It is not just a problem in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but a problem in mine as well.
I want to make a wee plea for wheelchairs. Many of the people who come into my office have acute, complex and severe disabilities. They need a modern wheelchair. I am not being critical—it is never my form to be so—but the ordinary wheelchair was probably okay years ago when it was just a matter of getting about. Today, for people to have a decent life, they need to have a wheelchair that is compatible, workable and gives them freedom.
I know the Government cannot fund it all, but many people have crowdfunded or have done charity drives to acquire those wheelchairs. I am going to age myself with this example, but when I was younger my first pair of glasses were what they called the Milky Bar Kid glasses; they were the round ones, and I can well remember them. We progressed on from that and, to be fair to the Government, they will keep that progress going. People deserve to have a quality of glasses that they are happy with and can relax with, and the same applies for wheelchairs.
My office is contacted weekly, or even daily now, by constituents who are awaiting occupational therapist assessments to adapt their homes to their needs. Most recently, people have been waiting for up to a year for assessments, and for further years for works to be carried out. I am sure that it is the same on the mainland, including in Scotland.
We dealt with a recent case where a constituent’s occupational therapist had done the assessment and said that her bathroom was in no way suitable for her needs. To make it accessible, they needed to take the bath out, put a shower in, put a stool in the shower and make the doors wide enough—I am not smarter than anybody else, but I am involved with these cases regularly, so I understand fairly quickly what people need.
The lady is in pain daily and is struggling to do the bare minimum, from showering to using the toilet. After two years, she heard from her contractors last Friday—this is a fresh story—who agreed the plans, got things measured up and said that they would see her the next week. They were due back at 8 am yesterday to commence the work, but they never showed up. I understand that making adaptations for disabilities is not always a profitable job for contractors, but if they commit to something, they should turn up and do it, for goodness’ sake. I am not one to blame anyone, as issues arise and priorities shift, but there must be a level of accountability for the completion of works.
Furthermore, we must take the extra step to ensure that in businesses and work places, adaptations for those who are disabled are prioritised. For example, businesses across the United Kingdom have automatic doors for people who are disabled and in wheelchairs. They are not just a convenience but a vital accessibility feature that ensures that all customers, including those with disabilities, can enter and navigate premises safely and independently. That is just a small point, but it is one that I have noticed, as have Members across this Chamber, I am sure. Automatic doors support people using wheelchairs or mobility aids, as well as parents with pushchairs, and they create a more inclusive environment that meets both legal accessibility standards and modern expectations of equal access.
These are all things we should talk about, but it is all well and good for us to talk about it. I understand the issues; we are here not to criticise the Minister or the Government, but to try to find a constructive and helpful way forward. More often than not, funding is the critical issue. I would gently suggest that the Government need to ensure that physical support can be accessed, and the reasons for the delays must be tackled at their root cause. I believe that the UK Government, and the Minister, will collaborate closely with the Northern Ireland Executive to tackle backlogs for assessments for disability equipment by co-ordinating funding, and by streamlining procurement, which is also important—if the Government buy 10,000 disability beds to distribute across all the United Kingdom, there must be a better way of doing that procurement. Again, I am trying to be helpful with that. I am sure that they will also share best practices.
I thank you again, Mr Betts, for your patience and for your chairship—you have done incredibly well.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
We now move on to the Front Benchers. The Liberal Democrat and Opposition spokespeople will have five minutes, and the Minister will have 10. There is a bit of flexibility on that time, so we can be a little more generous if required.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing this debate. I also thank you for your chairmanship today, Mr Betts.
There are fantastic organisations in Epsom and Ewell that support my disabled constituents, including Mid Surrey Mencap, which I met last year. Its work is profound, but without the right equipment, organisations can only do so much. A lack of equipment often leaves people reliant on family members to manually help them with essential tasks, including going to the toilet and washing. From grab rails to shower seats, equipment can mean the difference between dependence and independence.
The report on this issue from the APPG for access to disability equipment revealed that staff shortages, supply chain delays and inconsistent local authority processes cause widespread delays to equipment provision. It is clear that we need structural change, and the NHS reform Bill provides an opportunity to deliver a co-ordinated, national approach on disability equipment. Will the Minister commit to using that legislation to deliver this?
It is widely recognised that access to wheelchairs varies significantly across the country, and demand is skyrocketing. In September 2025, the charity Whizz Kidz was forced to close its wheelchair waiting list for the first time in its 35-year history because of high demand. Moreover, the average wait time between being discharged from hospital after life-altering injuries and being assessed for a wheelchair is 10 months. Although the Liberal Democrats welcome NHS England’s wheelchair quality framework, I am concerned that with ICBs facing cuts and reorganisation, a framework may not have the impact necessary to deliver change.
What makes matters worse is that equipment wastage in the NHS is huge, and we only need to go to the local tip to see it. In July, I wrote to the Minister for Secondary Care following concerns from a constituent about NHS equipment wastage. In her response, she highlighted the Design for Life road map, which includes a framework for decontamination infrastructure across NHS trusts to enable the safe sterilisation and reuse of medical equipment. I find it shocking that disabled people are waiting months or even years for equipment, while other patients are forced to throw away useful equipment that could be reused once they have recovered. Will the Minister confirm how much equipment has been diverted from waste since the road map was published over a year ago?
The debate has reinforced a simple but vital truth: everyone deserves to live independently and with dignity. After the Conservatives left social care in disarray, the Liberal Democrats are committed to ensuring that people with disabilities have access to suitable housing, meaningful employment and the opportunity to enjoy the activities that make life fulfilling. I ask the Minister to make the simple commitment that specialised services and disabled equipment will no longer be treated as an afterthought but as an essential part of enabling people to live full and independent lives, and to work if they can do so, and that more equipment is reused.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
It is lovely to see such a thoughtful, thought-provoking debate, with cross-party unity on the question of how we can better support our constituents who are suffering. It could be with a stairlift, a shower, a home aid or an adaption. When I was a GP, I saw what difference that can make to people. More recently, I visited Mounts & More in Stoke Golding, a company of specialists who support wheelchair users. Margaret and her family started Mounts & More in Market Bosworth in 1996; it fits mounting systems, such as for augmentative and alternative communication, to wheelchairs. The company’s best example is of Professor Stephen Hawking—it fitted the specialist holding position for such equipment. It also drives innovation and the small business side of things that we so long for in the UK.
I am keen to dive straight into some of the questions asked, as time is short, but before I do so, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for being so succinct in his well thought out speech. He is a rare parliamentarian in that he had only a single question for the Minister. I congratulate him on that. He raised a significant point about strategy. The Government say they do not have a plan to bring forward an equipment strategy, and they tend to point towards the ICBs as the commissioners on this.
There is going to be some difficulty, though, if the ICBs are cutting their staff by 50%. I do agree with the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), who asked whether there is an opportunity to look at what can be done in the forthcoming health Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister would set out whether this is a consideration when it comes to dealing with support for people with disabilities.
I have another question for the Minister on the disabled facilities grant. The Government have done a review, which is welcome, and recently published their look at the issue. As more and more people become infirm—the good news is that they are living longer, the bad news that they have more disabilities—the need will go up. It is not clear from the information that has been published just how that will be monitored. How will we ensure that the funding is going to the right place and working? There is a calculator on the website that says how it will be redistributed, but I point out that clarity on accountability will be hugely important. I would welcome input from the Minister on what that will look like.
Sir John Hayes
On that specific point, the Government have said that that additional money for the grant will provide about 5,000 additional home adaptations. It would be really useful if the Minister, when he responds, could describe how local authorities will access that funding, how those 5,000 adaptations will be distributed across the kingdom and what kind of adaptations we are talking about. Are we talking about adaptations to new build houses or long-standing traditional houses in the private or public sectors? A bit more detail on that would be very welcome.
Dr Evans
My right hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. This is part of the problem in how we get different parts of the system to work together to get a full understanding of the situation; that is most important for those who are affected, but also for the commissioners who are trying to make the decisions on where the equipment goes. I hope the Minister has heard that and will be able to work it into his response.
I was very pleased to hear the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), the chair of the APPG, raise the very important issue of the insolvency of NRS Healthcare. For those who do not know, NRS Healthcare accounts for about 40% of coverage, covering 15 million people and 21 local authorities across the country. Its insolvency showed a weakness in the way we deliver our supply.
I wrote to the Government back in the summer to try to find out what was being done and what lessons had been learnt. I received a generic response early on in August, saying that things are being kept under review. It stated:
“The Department continues to monitor the situation closely and will support LAs to learn lessons and consider the implications for future resilience in this market.”
I followed up very quickly and wrote back in September to ask more questions, but unfortunately I have not as yet received a response. I have with me a copy of the letter that was sent asking questions, particularly about what lessons have been learnt in this case and, more importantly, what is being done to implement more resilience in the supply chain. I would be grateful if the Minister could take a look.
If such a thing were to happen again, given the stark economic situation we are facing, which I appreciate is outside the scope of this debate, it would have knock-on effects for some of the most vulnerable in our society. I would be grateful if the Government would set out exactly what they are doing to make sure the supply chain is secure.
Finally, I want to raise concerns about the better care fund. The Government have been clear in the 10-year health plan about their promise to reform the fund, which has been very useful in bringing pooling together. However, we have already noticed that NHS England has already reduced the amount of additional voluntary funding it was putting in by £388 million. The example given by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) goes to the heart of the question: looking from the top down, how do we make sure these things are all integrated? How do we understand what ICBs, councils, the NHS and charities are doing through their provision?
I would be grateful if the Government could set out where they see that better care funding fitting in and when we will actually see the outcome of the changes they propose. It appears that there have been delays in the national neighbourhood health service guidance and delays in the better care fund. Without that structure and without joining it all together, it is very difficult for those scrutinising the system and, more importantly, those working in and using the system to understand exactly what to expect and when. I would be grateful if the Minister would be kind enough to set that out.
I thank Members for their thoughtful contributions today, because, at the end of the day it is really important to shine a spotlight on those constituents who suffer the most and get on with it the most. They are the most pragmatic, fantastic people, and their support is paramount.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Minister, it would be helpful if you could allow a couple of minutes at the end for the mover to respond.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
Mr Betts, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing the debate, as well as all Members who contributed.
We, of course, want disabled people to access and experience healthcare services on an equitable footing and to have a healthcare service that is responsive to their needs. That includes making sure that they have the right equipment at the right time to maintain independence for as long as possible, whether that means wheelchairs, mobility aids or other assistive technologies.
We recognise the profound impact that delays in receiving disability equipment have on people’s quality of life, and I will set out the action that the Government are taking. Before I do so, however, I want to take a moment to acknowledge the points raised by the hon. Members for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) and for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), particularly the cases they raised. I will certainly ensure that I take a personal interest in the case described by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead and that the relevant DWP Minister also has an opportunity to address that particularly harrowing case.
The Liberal Democrat Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), asked for an update on the Design for Life statistics on recycling and reusing, and I will get my officials to get back to her on that.
We are committed to ensuring that disabled people have access to the services and support that they need. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), asked about our NHS reforms and whether that might be an opportunity to think about better end-to-end commissioning and strategising on the topic. I can assure him that those conversations are being had both in the context of disability and, with regard to special educational needs and disabilities, in the Department for Education. There are a number of topics that, if we are honest with ourselves, have been often neglected in the last couple of decades and have a material impact on the quality of life for disabled people, sometimes for want of very simple changes to practice and, potentially, legislation, so I am very happy to take that on board with the Bill team.
The reforms that we are taking forward in the health and social care space will hopefully help us to achieve what I have outlined. The 10-year health plan specifically identifies disabled people as a priority group for the development of neighbourhood healthcare, offering more holistic and ongoing support. We are making £4.6 billion of additional funding available for adult social care in 2028-29, compared with ’25-26, to support the sector in making some of those improvements. In July ’25, the Government announced that they would develop a new plan for disability, setting out a clear vision to break down barriers to opportunity for disabled people. That of course aligns with every Department having a Minister responsible for disability. We meet regularly to discuss challenges, particularly some of the ones highlighted during this debate, which often do not fit neatly into one Department’s purview.
As hon. Members will be aware, health and social care are largely devolved across the UK. I will talk mainly about England, but of course I am the representative of a Scottish constituency, like the hon. Member who opened the debate, and he will understand if I just mention that we are committed, through the Barnett formula, to funding the NHS in Scotland, as we are doing in England; there is a £9.1 billion real-terms uplift in the Scottish budget over the period of the spending review.
In England, integrated care boards are responsible for commissioning services to meet the health needs of their local population, and responsibility for providing community equipment to disabled people typically falls at the moment, as has been outlined, to local authorities. They have a statutory duty to make arrangements for the provision of community equipment to disabled people in their area. That equipment can be free for the recipient if the person is assessed as having eligible needs. Types of support include equipment to enable people to live more independently, such as grab rails, walking aids and wheelchairs for short-term use. Responsibility for managing the market for these services rests with local authorities.
For people with long-term, complex mobility needs, support is provided by the national health service, based on assessed need. That may involve the provision of specialist equipment adapted to the specific needs of the individual, and can include both powered and manual wheelchairs.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
As someone who, growing up, spent a long time on children’s wards at the Royal London hospital and the Royal National orthopaedic hospital and relied on disability equipment, I know that often this service provision is very patchy. Whizz Kidz has described the system as “underfunded, inaccessible, and fractured” and I have also heard that from constituents in Beckenham and Penge. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that the Government should look at how we can ensure that high standards are common right across the country on this?
Dr Ahmed
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. He always channels personal experience in such a productive way and he is a credit to this House in the way he conducts himself. I remember his maiden speech with great fondness in that regard. I do agree, and I will come later in my speech to how we can maintain quality more persistently across the whole system.
Access to temporary wheelchair provision to support hospital discharge is also determined locally by ICBs. We recognise that elements of the NHS—despite it being on the road to recovery—are functioning below par and that many people are waiting too long to access equipment such as wheelchairs. During the pandemic, some wheelchair services experienced lower referral rates, which led to a surge in referrals post pandemic. Because of that, providers not only reduced their services but now, of course, face a backlog of referrals. That has meant unacceptable waiting times for both adults and—sadly—children, and those have fluctuated as services work to recover.
However, action is being taken to address waiting times in England. In October 2025, we published the NHS medium-term planning framework, requiring all ICBs and community health services to actively manage and reduce waits above 18 weeks and to develop a plan to eliminate all 52-week waits. The community health services situation report will be used to monitor ICB performance against waiting-time targets in 2026-27, and it currently monitors waiting times for children, young people and adults under
“Wheelchair, orthotics, prosthetics and equipment”.
These targets will guide the system to reduce the longest waits first.
Sir John Hayes
Have the Government made any assessment of the return and reuse of equipment? That is not always possible, as I said earlier, but it would be an incredibly powerful message to send to many of those people who have waited so long, and, I think, a very straightforward thing to do. If that assessment has not been made, will the Minister commit today to making such an assessment? That would be a positive outcome from this debate.
Dr Ahmed
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and to those who raised this matter earlier in the debate. It does trouble me deeply that we have a situation in which equipment is going unused when there is that need in another part of the system. I actually feel that quite acutely. Hon. Members may know that I am a vascular surgeon; at times, unfortunately, some of my job involves having to amputate people’s limbs for end-stage vascular disease. I see for myself that transition from someone being able-bodied to needing assistance, and, where that assistance is not available, the impact that has, especially when people know there is this lack of productive exchange of equipment in the system highlighted by hon. Members today. I am therefore very happy to take the issue forward with my officials to see what can be done further to marry the demand and the supply together in the country.
Regarding wheelchair provision, NHS England has developed policy guidance and legislation to support ICBs to commission effective, efficient and personalised wheelchair services. I again nod to the remarks from the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East on making sure we get better, more efficient and personalised service provision.
In April 2025, NHS England published the wheelchair quality framework, developed in collaboration with the NHS England national wheelchair advisory group. The framework is designed to assist ICBs and NHS wheelchair service providers in delivering high-quality provision that offers improved access, outcomes and experience. NHS England introduced personal wheelchair budgets, including legal rights, in 2019, providing a clear framework for ICBs to commission personalised wheelchair services that are outcomes-focused and integrated. Those budgets give people greater choice over the wheelchairs that they are provided with. Additionally, the model service specification for wheelchairs sets out that wheelchair assessments should take place in the most suitable environment based on the needs of that individual.
NHS England is aware, as am I, that several complaints have been made about the quality of services commissioned by some ICBs. NHS England is working through the appropriate regional teams to gain intelligence from those ICBs on quality concerns and contracting arrangements, to fully understand the issues being raised.
Dr Ahmed
Well, I have not got time. I will write more fully regarding his correspondence. I am genuinely disappointed, if it is true, that he has not been responded to since September.
In addition, the 10-year plan makes a commitment to reviewing the complaints regulations. NHS England and the Department are developing those together to achieve better accountability. The Government are also taking wider action to support disabled people through the 10-year health plan. On neighbourhood health, the neighbourhood health service will support disabled people to have choice and control over their care. That includes increasing the uptake of personal health budgets, which provide individuals with that greater choice and control over how their health is assessed and their wellbeing needs are met.
One aim is to have a neighbourhood health centre in each community, bringing the NHS, local authority and voluntary sectors together to create a holistic offer that meets people’s needs in the place that they are. We expect these services to be designed in a way that reflects the specific needs of disabled people, with a focus on personalised, co-ordinated care. I particularly think that this is an opportunity, as we move care from hospital to the community, to address some of the concerns raised in the debate today.
On social care, the Government are also driving forward improvements for disabled people. We are enabling people to have more choice and control over their care—through greater use of direct payments, for example. We are also expanding care options to boost independent living at home and have recently confirmed £723 million for the disabled facilities grant in 2026-27. The total DFG budget across 2025-26 and 2026-27 is £150 million more than the total budget across the previous two years. That represents an 11% increase and will support more disabled people to get the vital home adaptations that they might need.
The Better Care Fund, which took effect in April 2025, is a framework for ICBs and local authorities to make joint plans and pool budgets to deliver better joined-up care. That can include the provision of assistive technology and equipment, such as wheelchairs. This financial year, ICBs and local authorities plan to spend £440 million on assistive technology and equipment, and we have introduced care technology standards to help them to choose the right support. In addition, as we move from hospital to community, commissioners can, if they wish, think about better co-commissioning, transcending traditional boundaries between local authorities, social care and the NHS.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East for securing this important debate and I want to respond to a question he asked. Whether we call it a strategy or a framework, there is a real opportunity at this time of change in the NHS—including the development of a national quality board at NHS England, which will come into the Department of Health and Social Care once NHS England is abolished —to genuinely think about how we define “quality” for disabled people and about the equipment and the spaces that they use. Again, I will be very happy to discuss that with my colleagues in charge of the quality board. I will write to the hon. Gentleman with specifics that we can perhaps tease out after this debate today.
We recognise the life-changing impact that having timely access to suitable disability equipment can have on the lives of disabled people across the United Kingdom, in every nation. The Government are dedicated to ensuring that all disabled people have access to the services and support that they need to live a fulfilling life; the presence of disability Ministers in each Department is certainly progress in that regard. Our work to reform health and social care, alongside the new plan for disability, will also help us to achieve that.
Seamus Logan
The breadth of the debate today has demonstrated that an hour is simply not enough to deal with this topic. As the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) said, housing and domestic adaptations are a topic all on their own, as is access to work under the DWP. There is also transport to consider; we could have spoken about transport issues for hours.
I am disappointed by the number of Members present for the debate, but of course it has been a very busy day so it is perfectly understandable. However, I encourage colleagues who are present, especially the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, to try to raise this topic with the Backbench Business Committee so that we can get this whole discussion into the main Chamber in future.
I particularly thank the chair of the APPG, the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), as well as all Members who have contributed to the debate today, especially the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), and the Minister himself. It has been a very busy day for the Government—even a difficult day, at times—so I appreciate his time and the passion with which he spoke about this topic. He genuinely wants to see improvement in this area. If the July 2025 new plan for disability can bring forward a framework, strategy or improvement, we would all very much endorse that.
Finally, I thank the Chamber engagement team. We sometimes take them for granted, but they are responsible for helping parliamentarians such as myself to bring informed debates to the main Chamber and Westminster Hall. I thank them very sincerely. With that, I will close.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the provision of disability equipment.
Written Corrections
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministerial Corrections
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Housing, Communities and Local Government
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Reed
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.
[Official Report, 9 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 80.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed):
Steve Reed
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 areas and begun to set up neighbourhood boards so that local people can decide for themselves how that money is spent.
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.
[Official Report, 9 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 91.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government:
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 up to £4 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.
Representation of the People Bill
The following extract is from Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill on 2 March 2026.
Samantha Dixon
…I reassure Members that citizenship will be taken on board from key stages 1 and 2 in primary education as a result of this legislation. The curriculum assessment review that is coming in will address the issue for teachers and give them the confidence to address this enhanced curriculum.
[Official Report, 2 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 692.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon):
Samantha Dixon
…I reassure Members that citizenship will be taken on board from key stages 1 and 2 in primary education as a result of this Government’s policies. The curriculum assessment review that is coming in will address the issue for teachers and give them the confidence to address this enhanced curriculum.
Work and Pensions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Stephen Timms
…Looking back, that worked rather better than people might have anticipated, but it meant that in 2021, only 5% of work capability assessments were carried out face to face. After the pandemic, there was a very slow return to face to face: in 2024, only 13% of work capability assessments were face to face.
[Official Report, 4 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 397WH.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Social Security and Disability, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms):
Sir Stephen Timms
…Looking back, that worked rather better than people might have anticipated, but it meant that in 2021, only 5% of work capability assessments were carried out face to face. After the pandemic, there was a very slow return to face to face: in 2024, only 12% of work capability assessments were face to face.
Science, Innovation and Technology
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lincoln Jopp
Does the Minister think that that will expand or detract from the commissioner’s personal responsibilities and accountabilities?
Ian Murray
I do not think that it will expand or detract from them. The role of head of the Information Commission is exactly the same as the role of Information Commissioner. Obviously, before the role was held by an individual with the Information Commission below them. The regulations are formalising that under the 2025 Act. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman on the terms and conditions of the Information Commissioner.
[Official Report, Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee, 4 March 2026; c. 6.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Digital Government and Data, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray):
Ian Murray
I do not think that it will expand or detract from them. The role of the Information Commissioner will be split among the members of the Information Commission.
Written Statements
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust: Independent Review of Maternity and Neonatal Services
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
Yesterday, alongside bereaved and harmed families from Leeds, I announced the appointment of Donna Ockenden as chair of the independent review into maternity and neonatal services at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS trust.
Donna Ockenden brings considerable experience as a nurse and midwife, and a strong record of exposing systemic failings in maternity care. Her leadership of the maternity reviews at Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS trust and Nottingham University Hospitals NHS trust demonstrates her commitment to ensuring that families’ voices are heard and acted upon and her appointment will help us rebuild the confidence of families.
As well as the harrowing accounts that families have shared with me over the last few months, Leeds is one of the largest teaching hospitals in Europe and its perinatal mortality rates remain higher than comparable trusts.
The terms of reference for this review are now being finalised. It will examine stillbirths, neonatal deaths, serious incidents, hypoxic injuries and maternal deaths occurring between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2025 —with the chair’s discretion to bring in more recent cases that would significantly add to the review’s findings. We will be taking an “opt-out” approach so that no voices are missed: all families whose care meets the criteria for the review will automatically be included unless they wish otherwise. As well as clinical care, the review will consider governance, accountability and how the trust handles concerns raised by women, families and staff. It will set out clear, evidence-based actions to improve safety, quality and equity of care.
The Government will work with Donna Ockenden and families to finalise the terms of reference, ensuring their experiences and priorities shape the scope of the review. Individual clinical case reviews are expected to begin in August.
I want to personally thank Leeds families for the openness and courage they have shown in sharing their accounts with me over recent months. I do not underestimate the trauma that they have experienced by revisiting their experiences in those meetings. This review must deliver for them and their babies and for all families who rightly expect safe, high-quality NHS maternity care. Donna Ockenden’s leadership will help drive the lasting change that is urgently needed.
We recognise that some of the issues being identified at Leeds may exist in other trusts across the country. While many women have expressed satisfaction with their care during pregnancy and birth, stark inequalities remain and maternal mortality has worsened. This is unacceptable and it is why I commissioned the rapid national investigation led by Baroness Amos, who has engaged with hundreds of families and staff to inform her interim findings published last month. Her final recommendations will be published in June. I will shortly launch the national maternity and neonatal taskforce that will turn these recommendations into the action needed to deliver lasting improvements.
In the meantime, we have taken immediate action to improve safety. This includes: investing over £130 million to make maternity and neonatal units safer; rolling out programmes to reduce avoidable brain injury and give early warning signals about possible issues with care; launching an anti-discrimination programme; and backing Martha’s rule which gives families the right to an urgent second opinion.
I want to reassure women who are accessing maternity care at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS trust that significant action is already under way to improve maternity and neonatal services, under the national oversight of NHS England. Over 500,000 women across the whole country give birth every year and the vast majority of those are safe. I encourage any woman who has concerns about her pregnancy to speak to their midwife.
While change will not happen overnight, we are determined to ensure all women receive safe, personalised, and compassionate care. This Government will not rest until women, babies and families get the care they need.
[HCWS1393]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morgan of Drefelin) (Lab)
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.
Secondary International Competitiveness and Growth Objective (FSR Committee Report)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Noakes
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Financial Services Regulation Committee Growing pains: clarity and culture change required. An examination of the secondary international competitiveness and growth objective (2nd Report, HL Paper 133).
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to introduce this debate on the Financial Services Regulation Committee’s report on the secondary competitiveness and growth objectives. These were set for the Prudential Regulatory Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023.
I must start with some thanks. Special thanks go to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, formerly my noble friend, still my friend, but now our distinguished Lord Speaker. He chaired the committee from its inception some two years ago with great skill and energy, and the House owes him a debt of gratitude. Thanks also go to our clerk, Beth Hooper, and her colleagues in the Committee Office, as well as to our specialist advisers Professor Rosa Lastra and Mr Michael Raffan. Of course, no committee could exist without its members, some of whom are speaking today, and I thank them, too.
The committee was set up as a direct result of debates about the accountability of the financial services regulators during the passage of the 2023 Act and we chose as our first major inquiry the secondary competitiveness and growth objectives created by the Act. These require the PRA and the FCA to facilitate the international competitiveness of the UK economy, in particular in the financial services sector, and its growth in the medium to long term. They do not override the regulators’ primary objectives, but they are an important element in the complex hierarchy of objectives, have-regards and regulatory principles that we summarise in Appendix 7. These objectives are new territory for the financial services regulators and there is great interest in the financial services sector about the impact that the objectives will have. It is unsurprising that we received a large amount of evidence, both written and oral, as set out in Appendix 2. We have also received responses from the Government and both regulators.
The 2023 Act was Conservative legislation but, with growth as the Labour Government’s number one mission, it was good to see that they embraced the initiative. The financial services sector is important both directly as a component of the UK economy and as an enabler of growth in the real economy. Financial services account for about 9% of GDP. As the Government’s financial services growth and competitiveness strategy, which was published after our report, pointed out, the sector’s contribution to output and productivity growth has fallen behind the rest of the UK economy, so this focus on financial services is important.
I have one final opening remark. We reported at a point in time—last May—that this is not a static area. I have just mentioned the competitiveness and growth strategy, but many other initiatives from the Government and the regulators have emerged or been fleshed out in more detail since then. I am sure that the Minister will reel off a lot of that when he responds later, but let me just say to him that those who are following this debate are interested in what is actually being achieved in terms of growth and competitiveness. I hope that his closing remarks will reflect that.
Our report is long and our conclusions and recommendations run to 77 paragraphs; I will not be able to cover them all, noble Lords will be relieved to hear. There are three angles on the secondary objectives in our report: first, the impact of regulation on the financial services sector; secondly, the impact of that regulation on the wider economy; and, lastly, the role of government.
The UK has a complex regulatory architecture, which we set out in Appendix 6. The PRA and the FCA are the lead actors, but there are many interfaces and overlaps with other bodies. The Government have started to address this with plans to roll the Payment Systems Regulator into the FCA and a consultation to address the interface between the Financial Ombudsman Service and the FCA, which many cited as a major problem. We welcomed these reforms, which must be completed.
In evidence, we heard how financial services firms are inundated by information requests, that the cost of regulatory compliance in the UK was considerably higher than in other jurisdictions and that the regulators did not focus on the cumulative burden of regulation on firms. The FCA’s consumer duty was often cited as lacking clarity and proportionality. We also heard that the regulators take far too long to deal with authorisations, with a disconnect between the regulators’ views of their performance and the experience of firms.
While we were encouraged by a new focus on operational efficiency in the regulators, in particular in authorisations and related performance metrics, we were disappointed that the Government resisted our recommendation that they should undertake international benchmarking as a spur to further UK improvements. Cumulatively, the evidence that we received pointed towards there being a regulatory premium, which discourages investment in UK financial services.
Lurking beneath all these detailed areas lies the complex area of culture in the regulators, which we characterised as risk aversion. Culture is the most difficult thing to change in any organisation. There are encouraging signs that the regulators are trying to change what they do and how they do it—for example, overhauling their voluminous data requirements—but the jury is still out on whether their culture is changing in a deep way.
Turning to the impact of the secondary objectives on growth in the wider economy, one of the problems that we found was that the effect of actions by financial services regulators is not well articulated either by the regulators or by the Government. In addition, the metrics that the Treasury has set in order to monitor progress simply do not deal with much beyond operational processes in the regulators.
Financial services firms, particularly banks, are an important source of funding to businesses, enabling the investment that is needed to underpin growth in the economy. Despite constant assertions that a lack of investment is one of the key factors behind lack of productivity growth in the UK economy and that more productive investment is essential to achieving the Government’s growth mission, we were surprised to find that data do not exist on the proportion of total lending that finds its way into productive investment. We said that the Government and the Bank of England should work on this and, while the Financial Policy Committee has published some findings on high growth firm financing, this falls a long way short of our call for proper data on economy-wide investment. On Monday this week, Positive Money reported that only 6% of bank lending last year went into productive investment. The Government really must start to take this seriously.
The Committee delved into the arcane territory of bank capital, which is a key determinant of lending capacity. We received evidence that, unlike in other countries such as the US, the approach of the PRA starts from the position that the Basel rules, which were aimed at international banks, should apply to all UK banks. The PRA is at long last introducing a small domestic deposit takers regime, which is less onerous and which we welcomed, but the PRA applies the rules in their entirety to mid-sized banks. Mid-sized banks are also hit by the minimum requirement for eligible liabilities—or MREL—rules, which mean that they have to raise costly capital once they hit the MREL threshold or alternatively manage their businesses so as to keep below the threshold. Neither course is good for lending into the productive economy.
An additional problem is that large banks can minimise their risk-weighted assets, and hence their capital, by using approved models—called the IRB approach—but the approval process takes many years, and few mid-sized banks have achieved it. We made a number of recommendations, including asking the PRA to consider a more proportionate judgment-based approach to setting bank capital requirements rather than slavishly following Basel III, and to speed up its IRB approval process. We also said that the Government should work with the Bank of England to look at the cumulative impact on regulatory capital to get the right balance between financial stability and the need to finance productive investment.
The Bank has now increased the MREL threshold, but only to keep pace with inflation. In addition, the Financial Policy Committee has reported that overall bank capital levels can be reduced by one percentage point, and the PRA has said that it will improve the IRB process. Although this is welcome, there is no sign yet that it will improve matters for mid-sized banks, and the PRA is unreceptive to the idea of a proportionate, judgment-based approach. This may be a missed opportunity.
We did not focus entirely on banks. We noted that the Solvency II regime should help insurance companies to unlock more capital for productive investment. We also noted the Government’s pension scheme reforms and recorded our serious reservations about the mandation power, which could force pension schemes to invest in particular ways. The House will express its opinion on that next week during the Report stage of the Pension Schemes Bill.
The final area of our report covered the role of government. We did not find clarity about how the policy objective of growth in the economy was to be achieved by the regulators, and the Government have set metrics that shed no light. The Government need to grasp this issue. I have already referred to our recommendation on benchmarking the performance of the regulators internationally; the Government have not embraced that either, claiming that it is difficult to do. That is not a good reason for not doing it, and I urge the Government to look at it again.
We could not avoid getting into risk appetite, especially as the FCA has regularly called for the Government to set their risk appetite. We did not fully agree with that, but we did think the Government could be more specific about the policies they wanted the regulators to action. We called for this to appear in the Government’s financial services sector strategy, but that strategy was silent. I hope the Minister will explain why the Government refuse to get involved in risk appetite.
Lastly, we recommended that the Government should keep the secondary objective under review. I do not think it controversial to say that it is still a work in progress. We asked that the Government update Parliament and the committee annually, in particular on whether the objective is achieving growth in the UK economy. I hope the Minister will today confirm that the Government will do that, and say when we will see the first of these annual reports. I beg to move.
Lord Kestenbaum (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, on an excellent opening to the debate. I am aware that she has recently taken over the chairing of the committee and will no doubt bring to that role her hard-earned reputation for penetrating insight, intellectual rigour and—above all, for all those who have worked with her—no-holds-barred candour. This is also an opportunity to pay tribute to her distinguished predecessor as chair of the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, whose chairmanship was nothing less than a master class and who, as noble Lords are well aware, has gone on to a higher place.
I was privileged to serve as a member of the committee and believe that the report is particularly timely, for in pursuit of economic growth in this country we continue to confront short-term headwinds and long-standing structural reform. In simple terms, the unenviable combination of no clear engine for economic growth, decades of low productivity and weak business investment compared with other advanced economies makes the Government’s secondary objective for our regulator all the more critical at this time.
With that said, and however much we would wish it otherwise, it does not seem self-evident that the primary and secondary objectives sit in perfect alignment; or at least, as evidenced from this report, much change is needed for that to be the case. With that in mind, allow me to draw three illustrations from the very subtitle of this inquiry: namely, culture change—the noble Baroness referred to it already—or, as I will suggest in my remarks, it is more like an aching need for nothing less than cultural transformation.
My first illustration of the cultural impediments that stand in the way of the regulator grasping this inquiry’s nettle is implicit in the regulator’s very own response to the report, for consider this: this has been the most comprehensive inquiry of its type on this issue. It lasted over a year, it runs to 145 pages and hundreds of hours of evidence were taken from industry, trade bodies, government, financial services and the like, all of which culminated, as the noble Baroness said, in 77 recommendations. They are 77 individual, well-evidenced, tightly argued recommendations for comprehensive change at the regulator, if this secondary objective is to be pursued in earnest. So it was rather dispiriting to read a somewhat patronising opening response from the regulator to the inquiry, whose top line is:
“We are pleased that we have work underway, or already completed, that addresses most of the Committee’s recommendations”.
Perhaps one could not wish for a more tangible illustration of the need for cultural overhaul, one that puts a premium on a regulator that acknowledges its shortcomings, embraces radical evidence-based solutions—this inquiry —and demonstrates full accountability, rather than a response that basically said, “Nothing to see here”.
My second illustration of the pressing need for the type of cultural transformation that the inquiry called for is a subtle one. It is a deft line in the report:
“We were disappointed by the difference in candour between the evidence we received from industry in public and the views expressed to us in private”.
It is the inverse of my favourite political joke: the senator who was asked what he felt of a young, promising congressman, Bill. He said, “Bill? I think so highly of him that I am even prepared to praise him in private”. In this case, it is the opposite: the suggestion—not just a suggestion—that, in public, firms and trade bodies would toe the party line but, in private, they were somewhat more forthcoming, if I can put it that way. That might say everything about the health of the ties between the regulator and the regulated and, perhaps more particularly—I am sorry to say it—the trust deficit that lies between them. The fear of the regulated in expressing a candid view in public is hardly conducive to the type of dynamic, competitive business sector that the secondary objective has in mind.
Finally, the third illustration emerging from the report also draws on my personal experience. As declared in my register of interests and elsewhere, I have spent much of my career in the financial services, particularly in listed and regulated businesses. As a result, and sadly so, I fully recognise evidence that spoke of supervisory teams mostly having limited or no experience of the fields that they were supervising. My own experience has been of enforcement being overrigid and often indifferent to the realities, complexities and uncertainties of business life. This inflexibility becomes a brake on competitive ambition and often seems to run through supervisors like a stick of rock. A slavish adherence to what has been described elsewhere as the
“total elimination of all risk”
hardly seems conducive to the innovative competitive economy that Governments of all stripes aspire to. My own experience was simple, and sometimes positive. At the top of the food chain, our interactions with regulators were often constructive, engaging and solutions-oriented. Deeper into the system, the middle and junior ranks might show a modicum of willing, but too often a lack of understanding of financial services businesses and their complex realities.
So I offer three practical illustrations based, in some measure, on my experience of not just the culture change needed, as the report suggests, but the culture transformation. If we have learned one thing about competitive economies, it is that, when you have the right culture, especially a leadership culture, you will overcome most structural impediments. Conversely, if you do not have the right culture, especially at the top, no amount of structural overhaul or, indeed, well-meaning secondary objectives will help—a cautionary tale for our regulators and their political masters.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I start by declaring an interest: I have a registerable shareholding in Fidelity National Information Services Inc. It has been fascinating to be a member of this committee, which for this report, as we have heard, was so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, who, as we all know, has moved on to greater things. I also thank our new chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for introducing this debate with her usual clarity.
The noble Lord, Lord Kestenbaum, said that this report is timely and I agree with him, but I would not go as far as to agree with him about the timing of this debate. The report was published almost nine months ago and I confess that it has taken me a little while to get back up to speed and remind myself what it said. I hope that future reports will be considered in a more timely manner.
At the outset, it is worth saying, as we do in our report, that the secondary growth and competitiveness objective has provided a valuable stimulus for the regulators to consider the impact of their activities on growth and competitiveness. We should recognise that they have taken this seriously. Of course, there is a balance to be reached between looking at the impact of regulation on growth and ensuring that risks, both systemic and to the consumer, are proportionately managed. There is a sense that, following the 2008-09 financial crisis, the pendulum has swung too far towards eliminating risk, but we clearly need to be alert to the danger that it might swing back the other way, as we rightly put greater emphasis on growth. We must also recognise that a stable, predictable, even dull regulatory environment has been and is an important aspect of the attractiveness of our financial services sector, but it must be proportionate.
It is a long report, so I will highlight just one or two of the points that we raised. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Kestenbaum, pointed out, concerns were raised about the culture of the regulators. It was very noticeable that witnesses seemed much more prepared to be candid with us in private sessions than in public. Miles Celic, CEO of TheCityUK, put it rather bluntly when he said:
“There is a concern … that, as one person put it to me, being critical of the regulator publicly will result in an enforcement punishment beating later”.
That is concerning. It implies a lack of trust between the regulators and the industry. The regulators should recognise that and do everything possible to overcome it.
Mr Celic also gave us the example of an American company with operations in both the UK and the US, which said that
“regulators in the US … started from the position of asking, ‘What will the impact of what we are doing be on growth?’ But his experience in the UK was that the regulatory starting point was, ‘What will the impact of what we are proposing here be on risk?’”
It seems more difficult than one would expect to make international comparisons of the burden of regulation and there seems to be a reluctance on the part of both the regulators and government to research this fully. We received plenty of evidence that the UK regulatory burdens are significantly greater than those in comparable jurisdictions such as the US. The CEO of Marsh McLennan told us that
“on a direct cost-only basis, the UK is at least six times more expensive than our next most expensive country from a regulatory perspective”.
The Investment Association told us that
“industry headcount for Compliance, Legal and Audit has almost tripled from 2009”,
and other witnesses gave us stark examples of the amount of data that has to be provided, often for unclear purposes, as the data requirements are greater in the UK than in other countries. This may be anecdotal, but it is clear that, at the very least, the UK has gained a reputation for being a disproportionately high-cost environment from a regulatory perspective.
Rigorously analysing compliance costs internationally may be difficult, as the regulators and other analysts make clear, but unless we gain a clear understanding of how we compare to other countries it will be very difficult to understand if and where regulation is creating barriers to growth. This really must be addressed and measured to the extent possible.
However, the Government say in their response that “direct comparison is difficult”, which, to be frank, is pretty weak. They go on to say:
“The government and regulators will continue to consider how the regulators’ efficiency and performance can be meaningfully compared to those of international comparators”.
That was over six months ago, so perhaps the Minister can update us on what further consideration they have carried out in those six months.
The driver for this apparently higher level of regulation in the UK is the risk-averse culture that our report highlights. Regulators understandably became more risk averse after the financial crisis. I have some sympathy for the regulators here; it is very easy for us politicians and the Government to tell the regulators that they should tolerate greater risk, but the regulators know that if some serious risks were to crystallise, the blame would still fall squarely on them. If the Government want to see greater risk tolerance and a lighter-touch regulation, which I think we all want to see, they need to be much clearer about what is acceptable and to accept their share of responsibility if the risk crystallises, not just blame the regulators when it goes wrong.
We also mention in our report regulatory mission creep. Again, there is always a tendency for this—regulators will regulate—and it is right to call it out. But again, we in Parliament and those in government need to take some responsibility for this, too. We keep putting an ever-growing list of objectives, and in particular have-regards, on to the regulators. I know that I am guilty of this myself; I supported the net-zero have-regards in the FSMA 2023, which I now regret, having gone through this process. It can be no surprise that, if we keep adding to regulators’ remits, they will react by adding rules, data requirements and other onerous burdens to meet those. There needs to be a regular review of the objectives and the have-regards so that regulators are able to concentrate on their core purpose and reduce unnecessary burdens on the firms that they regulate. The Government and we as politicians need to be more disciplined about adding to the mission creep of regulators.
It is welcome that the FCA appears to be learning lessons from other jurisdictions. A good example is the creation of a Singapore-style concierge service to support international investment, which is very welcome. I look forward to seeing real metrics about how effective that has been once it has been up and running for a while.
The committee had a lot of discussions about what we mean by growth and competitiveness. First, there is the growth and competitiveness of the financial services industry itself. It is a very significant part of the economy, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said, so growth of the industry will have an impact on overall GDP of itself. But the secondary objective goes beyond the industry itself, requiring the regulators to consider the international competitiveness of the economy of the United Kingdom and its growth in the medium to long term. It is there that the secondary objective becomes rather less clear.
The link between financial services regulation and wider economic growth does not seem to be widely understood or well researched. Economic growth is driven by new investment into and by business and into productive assets. We saw very limited evidence of how regulation has much impact on that and a lack of data on how much investment is made by the financial services sector into productive assets or growth companies. This needs to be improved. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what the Government are doing to improve that understanding, as we recommended.
I will finish by referring to a current piece of legislation that is going through the House—the Pension Schemes Bill, to which we will be returning on Monday and indeed on which we had an exchange just 45 minutes ago in the main Chamber. Our report highlights that the pension industry is fragmented and underinvests in UK productive assets. I, and I think the committee, agreed with the Government that action should be taken to improve this, which the industry has also agreed. The Pension Schemes Bill tries to address that and a lot of what it includes is good. For example, the proposed value-for-money framework should encourage funds to look more at returns rather than just fees, which should allow funds to consider a wider range of investment types. However, the Bill also includes the blunt instrument of giving the Government the power to mandate asset allocation by pension funds, which the committee raised serious concerns about.
I will ask this Minister exactly the same question that I asked the Minister in the Chamber 45 minutes ago and that I did not receive an answer to. I have asked this several times and still have not received an answer, so I hope the Minister will actually answer it this time. If not, I would be perfectly happy for him to write to me with a real answer, rather than the platitudes that I have received so many times so far.
It is really simple: why do the Government think that pension funds have been so reluctant to invest in these UK productive assets that the Government are so keen for them to invest in? They keep telling us that these are fantastic assets and that there are fantastic returns to be made from them, so why are pension funds not doing it? This is not a rhetorical question, and I really would like an answer.
The reason I ask is that surely a better way to encourage pension funds to invest in UK productive assets would be to identify and remove the barriers that are preventing such investments from being made, and to make those investments more attractive. Surely that is a better way than forcing pension funds to make investments that they do not wish to make.
Baroness Moyo (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I point to my registered interests: I serve on the boards of Chevron Corporation, Starbucks and the Oxford University investment endowment, all of which are impacted by the regulatory environment in the United Kingdom. I welcome that we are having a debate about a growth objective for our financial regulatory environment and regulators—the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority. Even so, this report is clear that, although Parliament gave the mandate of a growth objective to the regulators back in 2023, it has not yet adequately been acted upon.
It is understandable that, in the report, many in the financial services industry have expressed frustration at the persistently high regulatory burden in the United Kingdom. But, in the historic context, the intrinsic caution shown by regulators is not a surprise, given the scale of the damage caused in the 2008 global financial crisis to both the financial system and the wider economy. Yet such an aggressive regulatory stance has considerable costs. For example—I know this from my own experience, having served as a board member of Barclays bank from 2009—the regulatory reaction and, specifically, the costs ascribed by the UK regulators to holding certain assets ultimately led to the disposal of international businesses, a decision that the firm would likely not otherwise have taken.
Overcoming regulatory caution is clearly not simply down to a mandate in a piece of legislation; it is about a fundamental shift in mindset, culture and risk aversion, which has already been mentioned—a shift that those working in a regulatory body may see as counterintuitive. Yet this shift is much needed. I therefore support the call in the paper for the FCA’s and PRA’s senior leadership to drive cultural change through their organisations. We of course must all recognise that, although not impossible, this is a very difficult proposition.
Such a shift must surely recognise and involve a concerted investment in education around two specific points. The first is the need for a fundamental understanding of the harm of the prevailing regulatory burden and the cost to business and economic growth of the status quo. In particular, it is vital to understand the consequences of regulatory duplication and overreach for business output, productivity, employment, taxation and wider economic growth. Specifically, regulators need a better and more practical understanding of how high regulatory burdens impose real costs in terms of time and financial expense, making the UK less competitive on the international stage. I was struck by the data showing that one firm employed 78 compliance officers for the UK market alone, compared to 73 covering 40 other countries in its European and Middle Eastern operations.
Secondly, it is important to innately understand the impact of regulation on innovation. This is a particularly crucial point given the enormous benefits as well as the costs that AI promises. It should be a priority to really grasp how this AI supercycle could append the UK’s growth fortunes and longer-term outlook for the country’s prosperity. In the United States today, for example, estimates suggest that, through productivity gains and increased capital investment, AI could add as much as 1.5 percentage points per year to the country’s GDP growth.
Were similar gains to occur in the United Kingdom— I am in a sense spitballing here—GDP growth could soar close to 3% per year here in the UK, thereby clearing a crucial hurdle to where we can put a dent in poverty and materially improve living standards within a generation. Yet, despite this appealing prospect, UK regulation is regularly blamed for weak capital markets, including a poor IPO environment, and paltry investment by cornerstone investors such as UK pension funds, endowments and insurance companies, all of which should be powering AI investment.
The unattractive UK investment landscape, buttressed by constraining regulation, could at least in part explain why the report highlights concern over a series C funding gap, which is forcing much-needed growth companies to leave the UK when they seek to raise in excess of £50 to £100 million.
To put it simply, the country needs less regulation, not more. In essence, policy should be attracting investment, not forcing investors, and a more growth-focused regulator is bound to attract more capital investment. I therefore agree with the serious reservations expressed by the committee regarding any proposal to mandate pension funds to comply with the prescribed asset allocation.
This debate comes when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has downgraded the growth outlook of the country to just 1.1% in 2026. Worryingly, this reflects how the country was already on a long-term structural economic decline, and the war in Iran will only dampen our growth prospects.
The essential question is this: in five to 10 years from now, will Britain’s economy in real terms be bigger, smaller or just the same? To alter our economic prospects from today’s growth malaise and set us on a prosperous trajectory, regulation must be relevant, on point and, most importantly, appropriately curtailed. Doing so will ensure the longer-term prospects of the financial services sector, which, as noble Lords have already heard, is critical for the economy. It will ensure that the sector is stronger and better equipped to serve as an engine of growth for our economy.
Lord Hill of Oareford (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a board member of Intercontinental Exchange in the United States, and as an adviser in Europe to Santander and Visa Europe. This enables me to see the very different regulatory approaches in different jurisdictions, which is, indeed, one of the themes that we have already referred to today.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Noakes—in keeping with tradition, I almost called her Lady Bowles, an in-joke among committee members—for setting out the range of issues so clearly at the beginning and for taking on the burden of chairing us. I much enjoyed the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Kestenbaum. How sad we are that he is no longer with us—on the committee, I mean; it is not that the noble Lord sits before us as a hologram, or agentic AI as I believe it might be called. I want to highlight a couple of points from the deliberations of the committee and the report.
First, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has already said, the secondary international growth and competitiveness objective has made and is making a difference. I admit that when it was introduced I was initially sceptical and thought it might just be a piece of window dressing. But in fact, in the hands of motivated Ministers—which I am glad to say we have had—it has turned out to be of real use. It has helped us open up a more intelligent discussion about risk. Direct parliamentary accountability through our committee, backed up by a system of metrics, has also given us some scaffolding, off which we have been able to build a better debate and a better system of holding regulators to account. I think we have seen how the regulators themselves—it must be said that they were initially extremely doubtful about this requirement, if not resistant to it—have started to warm to it. Indeed, they now argue that it is helping them to improve both their regulatory and their supervisory practice. So far, so good.
But as our report points out, and as my noble friend Lady Noakes has already said, we should think of this whole area as a work in progress, not as a fixed point. After all, our own risk appetite as a society is not fixed, nor is that of our international competitors. Indeed, we have only to look at recent regulatory developments in the United States since we started our inquiry to see just how dynamic and competitive that landscape is.
Therefore, as the report argues, we need to keep the metrics by which we judge the performance of the regulators under constant review. We should seek to tighten them, to be more ambitious, to raise the bar and to keep on pushing for better performance. Here, as we have already heard, the Government’s response to the committee’s recommendations was, I have to say, disappointing. Metrics may not sound very dramatic or poetic, but they are the means by which we can shine a light into the world of regulation and supervision. I argue that the Government should be more ambitious here, and so should our regulators.
I will draw attention to one other area: the question of whether we could do more to differentiate between how we think about regulating wholesale and retail markets. We raised this in the report, and we heard evidence that suggested that attitudes of mind developed in the field of consumer protection are, as it were, leaking across into the regulation of wholesale markets. Here, obviously, risk appetite and sophistication of investors are completely different, and it is in wholesale markets that London’s claim to be a global financial centre will be won—or lost. Ministers have given us hints that they think it is worth thinking more carefully about this wholesale/retail distinction, and perhaps the Minister might feel able to give us another hint today.
I have a final word for the financial services sector itself. Just as we want to prevent mission creep from regulators and supervisors, so the sector needs to prevent it in its own compliance departments, legal advice and board discussions. If we want to have a new attitude in Britain that is more accepting of risk, we cannot just blame everything on the poor old regulators. Yes, they have their share of responsibility, but the primary responsibility surely rests with the politicians, who have for too long outsourced the management of risk.
I believe that this report starts to unpack many of these issues, and it helps us in the long march of improving how we regulate and supervise financial services, unlocking more innovation and, ultimately, more capital to invest in our economy.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to my declaration of interests in the register, in particular to my role as a non-executive director of Unity Trust Bank.
It is a privilege to serve on the Financial Services Regulation Committee, and it was a particular privilege to be part of the team producing this report under the able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. The evidence gathering gave committee members a bird’s eye view of the complexities and confusions embodied in current thinking on the role of the financial services industry in the pursuit of growth—everyone’s goal for the UK economy. Hence the need, as the report’s title stresses—and as noble Lords have also raised in the speeches we have heard—for clarity and culture change.
Let me deal with complexities first. It was clear from the evidence that the committee received that financial regulators are still operating under the dark shadow of the global financial crisis of 2008 to 2010. Risk aversion is the cultural norm and stability the dominant objective. Combined, risk aversion and stability do not make for the most dynamic growth platform. The combination has arisen due to the lack of macro- prudential tools in the global financial system. Despite the clear recognition of the macro dangers back in 2010, building in the buffers and shock absorbers that might do the job in global financial markets has proved beyond the capabilities of the international regulators in Basel.
Unable to manage risk macroeconomically, regulators have ramped up microeconomic risk management instead, significantly increasing the scale of risk aversion, the complexity of regulation and the costs of compliance. It was clear in the material presented to us that there was little or no evidence of any clear, well-defined relationship between the plethora of microprudential measures and the resultant level of systemic risk. Unfortunately, financial crises, often linked to innovation in financial products, tend to come out of a clear blue sky, from unexpected directions. Think of the role of credit derivatives in the global crisis: they were heralded as an efficient means of management of systemic risk; they proved to be the engine of systemic collapse. Can the Minister be confident that, in today’s world of anonymous, instantaneous, global crypto trading, the financial system as a whole is safer than it was in 2007? Has the new cost-benefit unit at the PRA addressed this question? If so, can the Minister tell us something of its conclusions?
What has been the cost of all this post-crisis regulation? On a pragmatic level, the report, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, noted, calls on the Government to commission an independent study of the administrative costs of compliance and, particularly, the relative costs of compliance as compared with other jurisdictions. It is enormously disappointing that the Government appear not to have taken note of this recommendation. What has been the wider economic impact of post-crisis regulation? It is clear that the proportion of business lending emanating from the UK banking system has fallen from up to 90% in 2007 to less than 50% today. Enforced risk aversion has squeezed business lending out of the banks and into private capital markets. What has been the impact of this migration on systemic risk? I leave that question in the air—a topic for another day.
I turn now from complexity to confusion. Throughout the committee’s investigation, we received evidence that particular institutions, whether banks or building societies, had “invested heavily” in the UK economy. Billions of pounds-worth of investment was itemised, but it soon became evident that the claimed scale of the investment exceeded the scale of gross fixed capital formation in the UK economy—something wrong, surely. The confusion arose because the term “investment” was used in two quite different ways. On one hand, it referred to the financing of the creation of new productive assets—the assets that are counted in the figure for gross fixed capital formation. On the other hand, it referred to the purchase of assets in secondary markets. For example, the representative of a major bank referred to the billions of pounds that his bank had invested in the UK economy, but when asked whether it funded the purchase of new productive assets, he replied, “We don’t do that”. Similarly, both building societies and banks referred to the billions invested in mortgages, yet well over 90% of mortgage lending is for the purchase of assets—houses—that already exist, not for new build. That 90% or more of investment does not fund real investment at all.
A similar mix-up seems to permeate the Government’s calls, via the so-called Mansion House agreement and similar encouragements, for financial institutions, including pension funds, to invest more in riskier equities rather than in the bond markets. But these so-called investments are in secondary markets, not in the creation of new productive assets.
We tried to untangle these confusions in the committee but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, noted, we were not helped by the Bank of England. It told us that it did not have data on the breakdown between investment by financial institutions in secondary markets and investment that actually results in the creation of new productive assets. Of course, there is a relationship between the two—the presence of active secondary markets provides the comfort of liquidity to the flow of funds into real investment—but that relationship is ill defined and opaque.
The Government have recognised that the squeeze on microprudential regulation has gone too far, and the Chancellor has suggested that regulators should be less risk averse. But this raises two vital questions that it would be helpful for the Minister to address in his summing up. First, are the Government confident that an increase in secondary market investment will result in an increase in the funding of real investment in new productive capacity? Secondly, are the Government happy to see an increase in systemic risk as the price of the relaxation of risk-management constraints?
The source of the dilemmas that lie behind these two questions is that the competitiveness and growth objective has been characterised as an issue of risk management, but it is not; it should be seen as an issue of institutional reform. The committee received evidence from a number of medium-sized fintech companies, all of which had successfully raised funding in the order of £35 million to £80 million to scale up their businesses. They had all raised those funds from venture capital firms in the United States. None of them could get their money in the UK.
The venture capital industry in this country—the financial institutions that invest in real investment—is tiny, with total assets under management of between £30 billion and £40 billion, which is less than half of 1% of the total value of assets under management in the UK. That is dwarfed by the venture capital funds in the US, with $700 billion under management, which is around 4% of their total assets under management. It is also dwarfed by the EU, which has venture capital assets in excess of $220 billion. The EU venture capital industry is growing rapidly with the support of European Investment Fund programmes. We desperately need real investment institutions—venture capital firms—similar to those in the US and the EU.
Of course, the Government have promoted the National Wealth Fund as a source of real investment in Britain, but even here there is a lack of radical new direction. Companies applying to the National Wealth Fund for the sort of scale-up funding required by the fintech firms I mentioned earlier are typically asked to show evidence of the value of their endeavour by securing private funding first. Note the wonderful paradox: the National Wealth Fund has been established because private funding has failed to do the job, and its investment decisions are dependent on the decisions of the private funders that have failed to do the job. Without major institutional change that directs financial flows toward real investment, the search for growth will be in vain.
What sort of change do I have in mind? What would I propose as a radical alternative? Regulators today require banks to hold specific proportions of their balance sheets in a defined mixture of instruments designed to maintain necessary regulatory capital and necessary liquidity. In the jargon of the day, it is mandatory. Why not add to these requirements the condition that, to secure a banking licence in the UK, a tiny proportion of the bank’s assets should be committed to venture capital, either through an entity of its own or through an approved venture capital entity? Even this tiny commitment would transform the flow of funds into venture capital investment in this country, and indeed would transform the culture of UK finance. This is certainly a radical suggestion but, without radical institutional reform, it is difficult to envisage the financial services sector playing the dynamic part that is required of it in Britain’s economic renaissance. Clarity and culture change are required.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, it has been a great pleasure and privilege to serve on this committee, not just because I have served under the distinguished and stimulating chairmanship first of my noble friend Lord Forsyth and now of my noble friend Lady Noakes but because of the calibre of the committee. None of the committees I have ever served on, in this or the other House, has assembled so much expertise. Indeed, I shocked my wife by pointing out that I had the least expertise of anybody on the committee. She thought for a moment that I was becoming modest, but it actually is true. This reflects the high level of expertise of everybody else, including the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who actually has expertise of having been a regulator as well as having worked, as many of us have, in the financial sector.
The only benefit of delaying this debate, from when the report was committed until now, is that it falls in the week when we celebrate the 250th anniversary of the publication of The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. This gives me an opportunity to try to bring to bear some of the insights he brought to this issue of regulation. Above all, he was famous for saying:
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest”.
Of course, competition ensures that businesspeople, in pursuing their self-interest, must satisfy the desires of their customers efficiently.
Self-interest is not our only motive, but it is the strongest, and it is the strongest for all of us, not just those working within business—and that includes regulators. That is why we should recognise that regulators regulate in the interest of regulators, and that interest does not necessarily and always coincide with promoting the growth of either the financial sector that they are regulating or the economy as a whole and its competitiveness, which of course are new secondary objectives. Because of the relative absence of competition between regulators—although there is of course competition between the regulators of different countries, as pointed out by previous speakers—we are tasked, as a committee, with ensuring that the regulators in this sector try to pursue the objectives of promoting growth and competitiveness.
We found a number of symptoms of this factor that regulators regulate in the interest of regulators. For example, time can be of the essence for any company setting up, appointing new management or undertaking some new activity for which it requires approval, but time is much less pressing for regulators. There were complaints that regulators take an inordinate time to approve, for example, board appointments and even appointments of people who have been approved for other financial services companies and are active there. The regulators get around time limits that have been imposed on them for concluding their appointments or approvals by restarting the clock whenever they seek new information.
I have a second example. Other people complain that regulators refuse to answer “what if” questions from people being regulated: “What would happen if I did such and such?” But regulators should not see their task as simply deterring or punishing companies for breaching the rules. They should help them actively comply and tailor their business to make sure that it is legitimate.
Thirdly, we were told that in Singapore the regulators offer a sort of concierge service, as it is called, particularly to companies newly entering the market and those newly entering Singapore itself and unfamiliar with its rules and regulations. In the past there seems to have been a reluctance for our regulators to add that role of helping people to the role of telling them what they cannot do.
Fourthly, we had some rather confused discussions with the FCA about its request that the Government should define the appropriate appetite for risk. Many of us thought that it was for individual investors to decide what risks they were prepared to take with their money. Of course, financial advisers need to make sure that investors whom they are advising do not unwittingly take risks that they could not absorb, and the adviser should tailor their advice to the reasonable risk appetite of those they are advising. But it emerged that the regulators meant that they were worried about the risks to themselves, since the regulator would be blamed if any companies failed or defrauded investors. It seems that they wanted some quota of companies that would be allowed to fail or not be properly regulated and carry out frauds. That was their idea of a risk appetite, rather than the risk appetite of the investor.
For a similar reason, regulators—not just in the financial sector—put too great an emphasis on box-ticking. They are conscious that if something goes wrong, questions will be asked about how assiduous the regulator has been. So the regulator needs to be able to show that it has at least ticked all the boxes, made companies go through all the formal checks et cetera, even if those procedures rarely prevent wrongdoing or financial mismanagement. Ideally, regulators should allocate most effort to supervising companies that are the greatest cause of concern. When I was a financial analyst, we were always aware of some of the symptoms of companies that should be a cause of concern—late accounts, constant changes of accountants or lawyers, dodgy people on the board and so on. It is these to which the regulators should devote most of their attention.
An unusual feature of financial regulation is that since Brexit the regulators have had the task of setting regulations as well as administering them. They have had to review the body of regulation inherited from the EU, at the very least adapting it to make it work where they—the FCA and the PRA, rather than the EU—are now the ultimate regulators, but also revising it to fit the UK’s needs now that we are free to do so.
So far, there have been only relatively modest changes. Why is that? Partly, I think it reflects bureaucratic inertia: people are always happy with the status quo. More significant is that even companies that implemented EU regulations reluctantly and at great cost are not keen on changing it, even to make it simpler, especially if those companies recognise that the more burdensome the regulations, the greater the barrier they are to the entry of new competitors.
Despite there being only modest changes so far to the rules that we inherited from the EU, industry values the changes that have been made and seems to have lobbied successfully to be excluded from the reset of our relationship with the European single market, which is currently going on. The financial sector seems to have no desire to return to EU rules, still less to accept dynamic alignment in future without even having a vote on it. Indeed, the Chancellor herself is implicitly willing to diverge further where it helps and has called on the regulators to seek ways to change the regulations to make them encourage growth and competitiveness.
I recommend that the Government go back to the ministerial briefs that were prepared when these directives and regulations were first negotiated. I had to negotiate some from the very first in the single market, the second banking directive and so on. I cannot remember a brief that did not begin, “We don’t want this directive, Minister, but we can’t avoid it so let’s try to seek some of the following list of amendments to improve it”. If we went back to those briefs, we would find a good working idea of changes that might be needed to make those directives simpler, less burdensome, more appropriate and more growth and competitiveness promoting.
The final point that I want to make echoes that made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. It became known as the Eatwell thesis and I was its seconder in the committee. It is that the impact on the economy—the growth of the whole economy, not just the financial sector—depends on the amount of lending by banks and investment of the nation’s savings by financial institutions that goes into the creation of new assets, not just the purchase of secondary assets. Sadly, in this country the total volume of lending has not recovered to the previous level since the great financial crisis of 2008, unlike in the United States where, after a couple of years of delay, it returned to that rate of growth. We received conflicting evidence about why this may be. Some said that it is simply that the United States is different from us and the rest of Europe because it has the tech giants and that stimulates the economy and demand for lending. That may be part of the reason, but others said that US banks, especially regional banks, have been regulated with less onerous demands for new capital, which means that they are freer to increase the amount of lending to the real economy. That is a crucial issue, to which we need to return and make sure that, if it is true, we increase the amount of lending that meets the Eatwell criterion.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, I thank him for giving me the opportunity to reflect on the life of Adam Smith. The noble Lord said that Adam Smith wrote that it was not benevolence that ensured that he got his dinner. I point the noble Lord to a book by the Swedish feminist writer Katrine Marçal, Who Cooked Adam Smith’s Dinner? Through all his life, not just when he was a child but including when he was writing The Wealth of Nations, the answer was his mother. The benevolence of his mother kept Adam Smith fed all through her life. Perhaps we should think a bit more about benevolence and caring and those aspects of our society. The inability to see that is, of course, one of the great faults of our current mainstream economics.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for her clear introduction and I thank her and her committee for their labours, even though I come at the issues covered in this report largely from a different perspective, one that is not represented in the report, although it is widely represented in civil society by organisations such as Positive Money, the Finance Innovation Lab, Transparency International and Spotlight on Corruption. While the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and I often agree, I have respectfully to disagree with his statement that we all want to see lighter-touch regulation. I do not agree with that statement. I will, however, commend the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for raising concerns about the engines of systemic collapse that we face and his commitment to radical institutional reform that is so urgently needed.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Mayo, who asked whether in the future the economy will be bigger, smaller or the same, I think that there is a far more important question than that. Will the economy—our financial systems, enterprises and activities on these islands—be able to feed us, house us and not threaten the security and stability of our society and state or those of other states on this single, fragile planet on which we all depend? Will the financial sector be harming or threatening us or supporting our well-being and survival?
It is notable that I am one of few speakers in this debate who does not have to declare financial interests or a past record of working in the financial sector. That is a grave pity. I address this comment to noble Lords who are not in the Committee today but perhaps are reading Hansard tomorrow. It is far too important to the state of our country—to the issues of poverty, inequality, housing and food security, which I will come back to—for these issues of financial regulation to be left only to insiders. These are crucial issues for all of society and we need far broader perspectives on them.
On those broader perspectives, during the passage of the now enacted Financial Services and Markets Bill, I spoke at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report against the inclusion of a competitiveness and growth objective for the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority. In its report, the committee focuses on
“the progress made in driving the regulators”—
the word “driving” is interesting—
“to support growth, both in the financial services sector and, crucially, in the wider UK economy … while maintaining the UK’s position as a global financial centre with a robust financial regulatory system”.
As I said at Second Reading, the final cause or aim—robust regulation—is essentially incompatible with growing the sector. Corruption and fraud are so enmeshed in the system that growing it inevitably means growing financial crime, and our regulatory approach is failing to address that. As I said in Committee, we should aim for a more secure financial sector that provides useful, effective and safe services to individuals and the real economy.
As organisations such as the International Monetary Fund have reported, there is an optimal size for a country’s financial sector, at which it provides the services that an economy and population need. Expansion beyond this size causes damage, increases inequality, boosts criminal behaviour and creates many other ills. Among those ills is what is broadly known as the London laundromat—the dirty and corrupt money of oligarchs and dictators that is being deposited, held and, all too often, washed here in London.
That is not in any of our interests. Nor is the level of risk in this age of shocks—geopolitical, climate, health and more. I note that the headline in today’s Financial Times:
“America has become an agent of chaos in world energy markets”.
And it is not just energy markets, of course. It is telling that, as the Evening Standard reports this week, the new Iranian leader of a theocratic, dictatorial, deadly-to-its-own-people regime, Mojtaba Khamenei, the successor to his father, Ali Khamenei, is said to own high-end Kensington properties through associates. They are apartments situated on the sixth and seventh floors of a building close to Kensington Palace and believed to be worth more than £50 million—although there are also servants’ quarters on the ground floor.
Regarding the current lack of regulation and the level of risk taking, a report in today’s Financial Times is headlined:
“Collapse of UK bridging loan specialist has sent reverberations across Wall St amid fears of weak underwriting standards”.
It refers to the refinancing merry-go-round of Market Financial Solutions, into which Barclays, Jefferies, Santander and many others put hundreds of millions of pounds before it suddenly collapsed last month amid allegations of fraud and double pledging of collateral, with creditors claiming a shortfall of £1.3 billion, and about £283 million unaccounted for.
My focus would be not, as in recommendation 1 from the committee, the cost of compliance but rather the costs and risks of non-compliance. These are practical costs and reputational costs, as the UK seeks to establish its place in a fast-changing, unstable geopolitical environment. I note in that context that the latest Corruption Perceptions Index from Transparency International shows that Britain has been slipping down the rankings since 2015. We were in seventh place then, and we are now in 20th place, with a score of 70 out of 100. That is a scoring of our financial regulation and how the outside world sees this.
Lest it be thought that I am picking just one example, I note that some other work by Transparency International identified a £40 million central London commercial property held by a company controlled by a trustee who is a member of a Singaporean money laundering gang serving time in jail, as well as £55 million-worth of commercial property owned by a former Malaysian Finance Minister via trusts—he died before a criminal trial into his wealth could take place.
I have identified areas in which I very much disagree with the committee, and I will now pick up some points with which I agree to some degree, particularly that made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes: the failure of the financial sector to actually serve the real economy. I am drawing here particularly on excellent work by Positive Money and the figure that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, mentioned: only 6.6% of bank lending last year went towards productive investment in the real economy.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
As I was saying, only 6.6% of bank lending last year went towards productive industries in the real economy— I am basing this on Positive Money. The group used the Bank of England’s annual money and credit statistics to find that net lending to productive industries increased by just £9 billion last year, compared with £52 billion for mortgages and £68 billion for the finance, insurance and real estate sectors.
To break that down, lending to electricity, gas and water industries made up more than half of the increase among all the productive industries. I have to slightly question the “productive” label, given that we know that the privatised water sector in particular has seen a huge amount of payments out in terms of dividends and fat-cat pay and has continued to be loaded down with debt. There is a question over how productive that actually is. Manufacturers and transportation firms did indeed see a small uptick in credit, which is encouraging, but lending to the wholesale and retail trade fell by £1.8 billion—a decline for the fourth year running. In these figures—this picks up points made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell—mortgages accounted for 57% of bank lending and the FIRE sectors for 28% of lending. We are seeing a real misallocation of resources if we come back to the questions with which I started: is the financial sector making sure that we can feed ourselves, house ourselves and be secure in a very uncertain world?
One of the other things that this is very much associated with, as Positive Money often draws attention to, is rising inequality. For people who own assets, this lending funds further increases in the price of those assets, while people without assets are left even further behind. In fact, it is interesting that mortgages are the only type of lending that has seen significant increases in outstanding credit since the last financial crisis. This is one of the main reasons why property prices have skyrocketed. It is of course very clearly interlinked with the housing crisis that is affecting so many millions of people.
I will conclude with a point that I do not believe anyone else has raised but that I think is important. It is about the importance of financial education, and I entirely agree with the committee in its recommendation on this. I note this with regard to the Department for Education, as there is now an independent curriculum review. This surely has to be part of that review in focusing on ensuring that our schools provide education for life, to help people to live rather than just for exams or just for jobs. I also agree with the recommendations— I think the Government broadly agreed too—that the Treasury must work with the FCA and the industry to support adult education about finance. There is a huge inequality of arms in the information that consumers have when they are faced with the financial sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, raised the issue of cryptocurrencies. That is perhaps a particularly extreme area where we are seeing the targeting of younger people and people from minoritised communities, but, for everybody, many feel a real fear when confronted with having to deal with the financial sector, particularly online. Increasingly, of course, most dealings are online. This is something that stresses people out. They worry about being ripped off or about being the subject of fraud—of course, we are the global fraud capital. Giving the public—consumers—the tools to try to somewhat level the playing field with the financial sector is a crucial point on which I can entirely agree with the committee.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
I thank the Minister and my noble friend Lady Noakes for hosting this debate. I also thank the committee for the quite long inquiry it has done for us and for its report. The creation of the committee was an important outcome of the Financial Services and Markets Act, and this might be a moment to reflect on the importance of this committee in holding regulators to account, as well as its findings in this, its first report. It is particularly welcome that it uses its first report to look at the growth and competitiveness agenda because, if we remember, that was contentious during the passage of the Bill and, at the time, the regulators pushed back quite consistently. It is helpful for us to start with that aspect of the Act. Of course, things have changed because the Government themselves have made growth and competitiveness quite an important objective, so the Act fits with the Government’s own objective.
I greatly enjoyed reading the report, despite its enormous length. It attracted an exceptional cast of English characters—regulators, parliamentarians and civil servants—all of whom performed their role before the committee to perfection. In a way, the report reads like a play, each of these characters speaking their parts. We had the deputy governor of the Bank of England saying that the Bank would consult on MREL but that, on the whole, there should be only gradual change. The deputy governor for prudential regulation pointed out to the committee that it was unhelpful to compare the UK to other jurisdictions, that risk weightings did not affect credit into the economy and that the regulators’ overall risk position did not need to be changed but that there might be a need for a little— I had to check and it is at paragraph 338—“decluttering”. That is a lovely word from our central bank. That was the position of the regulators.
The committee heard from the former lord mayor, who said that we should look to Singapore. He reminded the committee that there were huge Asian markets. The former City Minister talked about the amount that regulation is preoccupied with net zero and diversity. The former Secretary to the Treasury talked about the FOS problem, which has not come up yet, but the City Minister at that time said that the FOS situation was going to be sorted out. It has not yet been sorted out, so we have a problem in car lending at the moment. So the regulators all said what might be expected and, from their feedback, you might expect no change.
The committee also heard from some quite senior bank executives. It heard a particularly good set of feedback from a retiring bank chairman, who had been a regulator himself. He said that the regulatory costs on banks were too high and that the cost of the ring-fence was too high. That was quite helpful feedback; he is retiring, so he says what he believes, and the ring-fence might be something that the committee will look at in the future.
The chief executive of the country’s largest building society pointed out that the leverage ratio restricts credit for him and for the amount of lending that it can do—no surprises there. The chairman of Aberdeen said that people should be investing more, perhaps with Aberdeen—perhaps there are no surprises there. The American insurance executive said, very helpfully, that the cost of regulation in the UK was higher than in any other of the hundred markets in which the company operated. That would obviously be disappointing for the regulators, but they had a friend because the executive from JP Morgan—a firm quite famous in London regulatory circles for the epic fiasco of the “London Whale” credit derivatives blow-up—said that the regulators were excellent and very professional. She had no problems with her regulators. More than that, in words surely her own, she said that the regulators could not be expected to look after the other 42,000 firms as well as they look after JP Morgan.
So we had very useful feedback and a good survey of where the regulation was a year ago. As we meet now, we might reflect on what has changed or what has happened since the publication of the report. To the credit of this committee, as well as the Government—but, for now, let us say that it is to the credit of this committee—quite a bit has changed. The MREL requirement was changed by September, in time for the letter from the Government to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, so there was change on MREL after all. The leverage ratio threshold—this is the amount of bank deposits when the threshold kicks in—moved from £50 billion to £70 billion in November. That directly addressed the question of the leverage ratio.
Then, as my noble friend Lady Noakes pointed out, the remarkable change is that the Bank cut the UK’s tier 1 capital ratio from 14% to 13%. This was the first cut since 2008 and it was an enormous change, because the Bank had not been very keen to do it and there was no hint that this was coming in any of the submissions that the committee heard. But the Bank’s tier 1 capital ratio was in fact changed.
As we meet now, it is remarkable to reflect that this committee, which was set up as required under the Financial Services Act to supervise the regulators, or rather to hold them to account, has raised issues on which there has been change. Some other issues have not been addressed yet; we mentioned the FOS, the car lending problem and the ring-fence problem, which, despite the Skeoch review, is still there and very expensive. Whether the ring-fence makes any difference is quite unknown; it is not even clear whether bail-inable capital in MREL makes any difference, but that is a discussion for another day.
Other issues are raised in the report, but the capital changes that the report has raised and then got changed mark an important moment and an achievement of this committee. That is to the credit of the committee and the Government. I thank the committee for its work, for the credit that extends into the UK economy following these changes, for looking into the cost of regulation and for holding powerful regulators to account.
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
My Lords, I should start by declaring an interest. By background, I am an investor, but I teach a course and run a centre at Cambridge that focuses on the purpose of finance, thinking about what are the aspects of the finance industry that allow it to perform its purpose well. Of course, regulation is one of them. I am particularly struck that this committee has not fallen into the trap of “either it is a market or it is regulation”. Regulations are there to try to make markets work well so that customers know what there are getting, suppliers know what they are committing to and the public are protected.
The interesting thing about the secondary legislation on the PRA and the FCA is that that is what it is trying to get to. It is trying to get to: “We want to measure the regulator by how well the finance industry is performing its function of being able to lend to and support the British economy”. That seems a step forward. Of course, it is tricky to do this because it is not just regulation and it is not just markets. There are also institutions, infrastructure, professionalism, good will, incentives, technology, information, branding and ethics. We do not all agree on that, as we saw in the debate between the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, about how all those things work. Regulation tends to be rather rigid, whereas all the other factors—technology, for example—are changing quite quickly. Professionalism is something that changes depending on the circumstances to which it is addressing itself.
We used to have lots of self-regulation, which, of course, Adam Smith was very much against, and that has now changed to more and more government regulation. I think it was Andy Haldane who noted that in 1980 there was one regulator for every 11,000 people in the finance industry and, by 2011, that had changed to one for every 300. By the way, that is for every regulator—there are however many people in compliance. I rather like Robin Ellison. He is a senior pensions lawyer at Pinsent Mason who said that there were 3,000 pages of pensions regulation in 1990 and that, last year, there were 180,000 pages, which is three to 180.
We have been playing a sort of regulatory whack-a-mole. Whenever anything goes wrong, we put in another regulation. We built this Jenga tower of regulation. Sometimes you can take a block out of the tower when you play the game of Jenga, but sometimes, if you take too many blocks out, the whole tower collapses. I also worry that, if there is too much regulation, you leave the professionalism of the industry behind because people will say that, if it is not in the regulations, they can do it, and that is not a good way of thinking about how you run a finance industry. I think it was Laozi, the Chinese philosopher, who said more rules and regulations, more thieves and robbers.
That is why the secondary objectives are interesting: they are trying to focus back on what is the purpose of this industry, and the purpose of this industry is to serve the outside economy. It seems to me that this is not in the gift of the regulator, nor, to be honest, do we really understand the relationship between the finance industry and the growth in an economy or the role of the regulator in creating a successful finance industry. It is a great idea to have as many international comparators as we possibly can, but when you lack that sort of information it is awfully difficult to know where you are going.
It would be great to have someone who would tell you the risk appetite. I think it was twice in October 2008 that the move on the New York Stock Exchange was something that, according to the risk models, would have happened only once in the history of the world. Indeed, I think in one case it was once in the history of the universe. Unfortunately, there we were in October 2008. So, I think we need to be a little bit careful. I even wonder whether we should be cutting the Government a bit of slack so that they do not give us quick answers now, but give us proper answers long- term on how we are going to make this work.
On the points that have been made about primary investment, for example—the Eatwell criterion—I hate to have the regulators asking more questions, but surely we need to know where this money that is protected is going.
We need some definitions. I think there are definitions of the things we want the finance industry to do. Here are some basic ones: we need someone to keep our money safe; we need someone to help us transact; we need to be able to share risks; and, critically, we need to be able to take money from point A, where it is, and invest it in point B, where it is needed. If we look at the academic studies of how much the finance industry has improved in taking money from point A, where it is, to point B, where it is needed, over the past 80 years and how much the cost of doing that has gone down, the answer is very little indeed.
If the finance industry depends on trust, we have a huge problem. Ten years ago, the Bank of England— I think it was—did a study of British people to find one word that described their feelings about the direction of the finance industry. They chose “corrupt”. If we want companies to invest, they need to be convinced that the finance industry will not do to them what happened after the global financial crisis, where, as we all know, small and medium-sized companies were extremely badly treated.
What we have got is regulation on regulation. Some 42% of the fines issued to companies were to people in the finance industry, which is 9% of GDP. Yet, if we could get this right, the prize would be huge. In 2023, NatWest was involved in the issuance of £83 billion of green bonds. That outscales anything that the Government are doing. However, it needs to be the whole system. I am concerned that all our banks are targeting a return on equity above 15%. That surely is restricting the amount of money that will be available to the real economy.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kestenbaum, said, none of this will work if we have a standoff in trust between the regulator and the people who are trying to provide these services. I have one simple example. It is really difficult to open a bank account in Britain. I do not know whether noble Lords have tried it. If you ask the bank why this is, it will say, “Oh, we have all these regulations about knowing your customer, and we have those because we’re trying to stop money laundering”. That sounds fine, but in Bangladesh, if you have 10 taka—10 pence—you can open a bank account. I was talking to the governor of the Bank of Bangladesh and asked him how they manage to stop money launderers opening accounts. He said, “David, I don’t know too many successful money launderers who have only 10 pence in their account. Obviously, if somebody puts £10,000 through, we will do something about it”.
I note that there are folk within the finance industry who are trying to respond to all this. For example, Scottish Financial Enterprise under Sandy Begbie says that it will offer basic financial services to all those who want such services, and that this will include financial education and financial literacy materials. I wonder whether there is a regulator who is saying thank you, and a regulator who is keeping tabs on whether that happens.
I will finish optimistically, if I may. I talked about fines in the UK. One bank in America has been fined four times more than the entire British finance industry during the same period. Frankly, the regulation of finance in America is now felt by many to be very erratic indeed. In the European Union, the regulation feels suffocating, particularly on information. Surely this is an opportunity for the UK to do something to have an industry that fulfils its purpose well and is competitive as a result.
Let us not try to rush at this. I see that the Government have said that they want to embed these new secondary obligations and base them on independent evidence of how the financial services industry best serves the economy. That seems like a good thing that we should be pushing, not just as a destination but as a journey. Laozi’s most famous quote is:
“A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step”.
We are already well along the journey, and the committee has done a wonderful job of taking us a few miles further. I look forward to this debate continuing, with reform appropriately administered by our regulators as we look to the future.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, I shall first declare my interests. I am on the board of a crypto data business and have investments in companies regulated by the FCA and the PRA. More usefully for this debate, I ran a regulated asset management firm for 15 years, a job that I enjoyed greatly at the beginning, when I was able to offer my investors from all over the world a fabulous and, for us, very profitable service, but, by the end of my time, I became dominated by compliance with absurd rules designed by people with limited to no knowledge of the financial services sector who have caused untold damage to the lives of our citizens, all under the guise of a misunderstood notion of risk reduction and consumer safety.
That is why the debate today is so important, and I congratulate the members of the committee for writing one of the best reports from the House of Lords that I have ever read. I am delighted that, as the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, suggested, some effect has been achieved, something has been done. The growth mandate, which is the main focus of the report, which I supported, by the way, as a Minister for Investment, was fought by everyone in the system who I met. I think even the noble Lord, Lord Hill, was cautious about the opportunity, sadly. It was felt that it would create untold risks, that it would distract the regulators from their task of ensuring that the consumer is treated properly and that it was not appropriate—that dreaded word. However, the people in charge should be focusing on the growth requirement every waking minute; that is their purpose. Finance is only about growth.
Of course, we need regulations and registrations for the market to function. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, gave some exceptionally good explanations around that. The rest is the hard bit, and it is the bit that the leadership of the FCA, the PRA, the Bank of England and, to some extent, the Government, are dodging, as the report clearly demonstrates.
Imagine an FCA that was judged by how many new firms came here from abroad to set up. The noble Baroness, Lady Moyo, gave examples of banks that have withdrawn from this market. I ask noble Lords to consider, if I may call on their imaginations, a regulator that acts as a service to business rather than a hindrance. When I set up my office in Singapore, how did the MAS, the Monetary Authority of Singapore, treat us? Did it ask for endless forms to be completed or say that it could not say how long our application would take to process but maybe six months, or a year? No. It sent two delightful people to our office in London. They helped us to navigate the documentation. They even suggested schools for the children of the staff moving out there and offered, unbelievably, some funds to manage from the Singapore Government. Can anyone here seriously think that the FCA or the PRA would do anything like that? It is a shame that they would not.
This report also shows something extremely worrying, which is that they have created a culture of fear. Firms, like some poor downtrodden citizen of a dictatorship, asked to be anonymous when discussing issues with the committee. They are frightened that if they criticise these people, they will be given some type of regulatory punishment beating. I cannot remember whether it was the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, who made that astonishing comment—today, in this country. In my view, this is unacceptable and shameful. From this House, I demand an answer to this awful culture that these people have created. I ask them to note that we are not frightened of them, and that they work for us.
Let me turn to some of the specifics of their failures. By the way, we in this House must share the blame, as should my own party, which presided over so much of this damaging nonsense. The idea that no one can die and no one can lose money is what destroys civilisations. My first point is MiFID, which was a UK, not a European, idea. We tried to blame the Europeans, but it came from this country; it came from the FCA or its predecessor. It was thought of by people with no knowledge of how research is generated or paid for or its vital importance to the market. They felt that companies were charging too much, as if that is something that a Government should question. We want companies to make money so long as the market is competitive, since the market sets the price. I know that it is a bizarre and outdated idea. Adam Smith’s 250-year anniversary seems to have been forgotten—but not, I am pleased to say, by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley; I am not sure that his dinner will be cooked by anyone at this rate. MiFID destroyed the small cap market. For those listening from the regulators—I bet no one is, by the way—that means that small companies cannot get coverage from brokers, so they cannot raise money. So we cannot grow our businesses, and they have to go abroad for capital. Does that sound familiar?
RDR is the next atrocity. This onerous regime governing advice that can be given to individuals is now so complicated and expensive that millions cannot afford to receive proper advice. The effect is that many people have no idea what to do, so either do not save or drift into non-regulated areas such as cryptocurrencies.
Not separating retail investors from institutional investors was covered well by the report. By our not properly separating these two regimes, specialist firms—which through their number and size reduce, not increase, risks to the system—cannot make their products easily available to other institutions and face the same burdens as a multinational bank.
The senior managers regime is a sclerotic absurdity designed to make us feel good about ourselves but merely discourages companies from managing their staff in a flexible and timely fashion. It thus increases risks for the system, because they cannot get the right people in the right places.
Banking regulation has been well covered in the debate. Through the fear of mis-lending, we have now prevented banks lending to businesses, especially domestic banks. This lack of capital has severely hurt our economy, stopped people getting mortgages and created a far larger unregulated credit market that could blow up at any time. I am sure that the officials who run the PRA and FCA say, like Captain Smith of the “Titanic”, “But no one ever thanked us for the icebergs we missed”, but they are creating an ever-bigger berg into which we will crash unless something is done. All Labour needs to do is tweak these requirements for capital, as we have heard, to make them sensible. It would create untold economic growth—that is my gift to the Minister, if he wishes to receive it.
Another terrible act, which I am afraid was probably thought of by some of my colleagues in the Conservative Party, is the concept of consumer duty. That too was well covered in the report, but I do not believe it has been discussed today. It is truly the worst of all—a tortuous process where a company has to work out how a user many parts down a chain may be advantaged or disadvantaged by a product or service. Every firm I know already has such a duty embedded in its mandate; it is how business works. But these days we love holding everyone to account so that blame can be apportioned if something goes wrong.
The problem is that things change—or, in another phrase, go wrong. Capital needs to be reallocated to the highest point of return for humans to progress—that is the beauty of life—and trying to prevent that is truly selfish and foolhardy. After all, that is what diversification is for: it is what risk and return are, which seems to elude the regulatory environment and the people creating these rules.
People, by the way—this is the kicker as I come to a conclusion—are also, and should be, responsible for making their own decisions. Things such as the consumer duty will remove further from the citizen good savings products and advice. The compliance costs will increase, reducing profitability for the sector and capital for growing companies. Documentation will increase in size and complexity, yet again befuddling us all, who now just click “yes” to everything. Dangerously, people will think they are protected from losing money or their house simply because of the size of the disclaimer that they have clicked, so they will act with less caution and rationality, spelling worse crises than before.
I am afraid to say that the fact is we have unsuitable people running these organisations. I have been specific in not naming anyone because I do not think that is fair. Ultimately they are civil servants—for whom I have the greatest respect. But they have no real experience —or any experience at all, actually—of running financial services firms, and their priorities are not growth but, in my mind, their own convenience and self-justification. We have seen examples of that in their responses to this report.
We in the UK are in an emergency. Unless the Government, we in this House and most especially the regulators take note of the importance of the growth mandate, we will drift further from being a middle power to becoming an emerging one, poor and defenceless. It is an unkind thing to do to us. So I ask the regulators responsible to wake up today. I am afraid I ask them to replace their leadership; I know that is a strong expectation and unlikely to happen, but it is essential that the responsibility borne by these individuals for the acts that they have committed is made clear. I ask them to correct their course of action and focus on growth and, importantly, how to serve the businesses in the same way the MAS serves the financial sector in Singapore. We forget the amazing people who work in these organisations. We need to regulate to make the financial services industry in the UK not contained, small or limited but the greatest in the world. That is why I commend this excellent report to the House.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I come from a different perspective from many of the people who have spoken today, because I am approaching this debate from the perspective of spending nearly two years on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards following the financial crash of 2008, which was due to credit and derivative manipulation, much of it either deliberate or, frankly, due to people casting a blind eye. That was at the same time as the Libor scandal, which probably took away from creditors across the world something in excess of a quadrillion dollars through 10 years of consistent lying to the setting of the benchmark, and, frankly, at a time when mis-selling to individuals was on an industrial scale.
I quote from the final report from that committee:
“Policy-makers in most areas of supervision and regulation need to work out what is best for the UK, not the lowest common denominator of what can most easily be agreed internationally. There is nothing inherently optimal about an international level playing field in regulation. There may be significant benefits to the UK as a financial centre from demonstrating that it can establish and adhere to standards significantly above the international minimum”.
In taking evidence from those involved in causing the crash and knowingly manipulating Libor, it was consistently apparent that outperforming international competitors and generating higher profits were the two core motives, and these motives look very much like the secondary international competitiveness and growth objective.
In that context, the work of the Financial Services Regulation Committee is crucial, especially as, post-Brexit, the Conservative Government chose to transfer virtually all meaningful control of the financial sectors to the regulators by embedding that control in regulation and guidance, neither of which can be amended by Parliament. I am a strong supporter of the FSRC but I want to make sure that it understands where and why all this began.
The report that we have received reflects ongoing tensions between financial stability and an industry and some politicians who want the leash off. I completely understand the frustration with undue complexity and uncertainty of regulation—that helps no one. I also understand the need to reflect the different characteristics of different entities in regulation, and some of the discussion around MREL has addressed that. I am convinced that parts of our regulators are often slow to respond. I want to make the point that regulation is not cast in stone, but improving and customising regulation should not be a shorthand for deregulation.
I read in evidence to the FSRC that deregulation is the industry agenda—and the tool for its attack is the secondary objective.
Let us look at the risk that has been reintroduced into the financial system under the secondary objective rubric. I will give a few examples, as did the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham: the PRA’s easing of bank capital requirements; the undermining of the ring-fencing regime—there is a consultation in place but undoubtedly this will be a consequence; removal of the bankers’ bonus cap; significant limiting of the senior managers and certification regime—I am especially exercised by the removal of individual accountability; the reduction in the risk margin for insurance companies and the expansion of matching adjustment eligibility to cover highly illiquid assets; and the Mansion House Accord to put 10% of the pensions of low-income people and workers into high-risk, illiquid assets without their consent. With these changes, we see the industry, and this includes the banks, release its animal spirits—exactly what everybody wanted—and they have galloped, at quite some speed, into the private equity markets, often with little understanding of the assets.
There have been numerous red flags. On 6 March, BlackRock finally limited redemption of private credit funds as outflows continued to swell. Today, JP Morgan is marking down the loan portfolios of private credit groups. Most of this happened before the Iran war. It will accelerate with the Iran war, and in a way, which is incredibly sad, one of the side effects—perhaps we ought to regard it as beneficial but I do not want a war to create this—is that it may burst a bubble before it gets even more out of control.
While I can see the return to a much-increased level of risk, I cannot see the return to growth in either the financial sector or the broader economy. That is what is supposed to follow—you deregulate, the growth comes —but I cannot find that growth. We gave away our utter dominance of the European financial sector with Brexit, not in one step but salami slice by salami slice. The effect is somewhat masked because people always compare us with individual financial centres across the EU, which is of course functioning as a network of multiple financial centres, so we do not see how our competitive position has diminished very significantly. I am truly anxious that in June 2028 the EU will reduce its recognition of UK central counterparties because by then it will have achieved much of its own clearing capacity, and so much high-level finance co-locates with CCPs. You cannot deregulate your way out of a fundamental issue like that.
Frankly, we cannot deal with our biggest problems through deregulation. Financing scale-ups will not happen because we have made some kind of regulatory change to financial institutions; the problem we are dealing with here is one of huge market failure. In a sense, this picks up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. There is no point kidding ourselves that we can fuss with regulation and deliver the money that is needed for scale-up.
Neither do any of the rule changes suggest that we can cure our other fundamental problem: our lack of a layer of community banks, which were once the Captain Mainwarings of this world—the backbone of finance for local, small businesses. I do not mean those which intend to be unicorns but those which want to grow just a little faster than organically, which are the backbone of our local communities and economy. Dealing with these market failures goes way beyond fiddling with the risk weightings of banks’ capital holdings. That is regulatory intervention already.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, mentioned that added to banking licences could be a requirement that banks fund some money for VCs. I have long argued—it has never got anywhere—that we ought to attach to banking licences a requirement that major banks fund people who can deliver that community banking profile. Exactly that happened in the United States under the Community Reinvestment Act, which has grown a community sector that, today, is the complete backbone of small businesses and the US economy. When I last looked at that sector, which was zero in 1970, it had something in excess of $300 billion in loan assets to small businesses. It is absolutely critical and it has been used by US Presidents to make sure that the US was able to survive two major economic crises.
The report asserts that
“regulators have made progress in advancing the secondary objective”.
I can see where they have advanced the objective of deregulation, but I cannot see the growth. We are pulling on a lever to create growth that does not really work. Professor Kern Alexander said to the FSRC:
“The gap we have is that, in many countries where they have been using secondary objectives for 25 or 30 years, there is no policy conclusion about whether they work, how they are applied or how the secondary objectives are defined”.
Of course it is right that Parliament and the FSRC scrutinise and question the regulators on their performance but, if we think that the answer to growth in the real economy is deregulation, we are looking in the wrong place. Its impact is marginal at best; when it is handled badly, it is a recipe for a cycle of crises. Regulation is a financial stability and anti-abuse tool. When we seek growth, as we should, we need to find other, real levers: investment, skills and productivity—to name but three.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Noakes for her typically clear and telling introduction as the new chair of the committee, my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean—now our distinguished Lord Speaker and the masterful previous chair—and other members and the staff of the Financial Services Regulation Committee for their work. The committee has done a great job; it tackled a very important question, which hangs over one of the great problems we face at the moment: the sluggishness of economic growth since the financial crisis, exacerbated by the present Government’s actions on employment, tax and energy.
How did we get here? We got here by a predictable overreaction to the financial crisis of 2008 and by the failure of many to recognise that regulation itself has a cost, particularly in compliance. The more of it there is, the greater the cost.
Moreover, the costs of regulatory failure, which the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, concentrated on, are more obvious than the costs of regulatory overreach. The former leads to people losing money in criminal or near-criminal enterprises, while the latter leads to lost opportunities and competitiveness, and is much less visible. The noble Baroness, Lady Moyo, gave a telling example from her experience of Barclays’ departure from its international businesses, and the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, described the shift of fintech finance to US venture capital.
The performance of the UK financial sector since the financial crisis suggests that excess caution may be even more costly over time. It is likely that the country has paid a high price over the last 15 years for overregulation of the financial sector, so let us hope that my noble friend Lord Hill of Oareford is right in saying that the secondary objective is improving things. It was introduced by the last Government, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Johnson for helping us to make it a reality. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, came from a different perspective, but there is quite a lot of common ground on things like complexity, uncertainty and the lack of parliamentary scrutiny, and the fact of absent growth.
That brings me on to the role of the FCA, the PRA and the Financial Ombudsman. The report makes uncomfortable reading for these organisations. The truth is that, while the first job of a regulator is to protect consumers, that is insufficient. If they act as a break on innovation and growth, as they appear to have done, their net contribution to national life is much reduced and could even be negative.
The problems identified in the report are numerous, and the committee has done well to cover so many, although perhaps it would have had even more impact with a shorter report. I commend the then Minister Emma Reynolds MP, now transported to higher things, for the five-point summary of objectives in her letter to my noble friend Lord Forsyth of 2 September. However, she missed out two essential objectives for UK growth: reducing regulation, bureaucracy and the attendant compliance costs, and improving and prioritising financial education.
Because of the length of the report, I shall limit myself to three areas. I begin with the regulatory culture. What emerges clearly from the report is the existence of a damaging “culture of risk aversion” within the UK financial regulators. I note that the findings of the Fingleton report on nuclear regulation were very similar. We have identified a pernicious trend.
The noble Lord, Lord Kestenbaum, provided some telling examples, showing the need for culture transformation and mentioning the concerning difference in candour between private and public hearings—a point also picked up by my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston.
In the years since the financial crisis, the regulatory framework has increasingly tilted towards the prevention of risk at almost any cost. While the intention behind this shift is understandable, the report suggests that it has had significant consequences for how regulation operates in practice. That culture of caution has shaped regulatory behaviours in ways that translate into tangible duties and processes for firms.
Firms describe being inundated with extensive information requests from regulators. Regulators themselves are said to adopt highly cautious approaches to approvals and supervisory decisions. Perhaps most concerningly, the report suggests that the environment has begun to erode trust between regulators and the firms that they supervise. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson, introduced a wonderful new concept of building a Jenga tower of regulation. He reminded us of the cost of regulatory whack-a-mole and the huge difficulty in opening a bank account in the UK; I have also had experience of this. All of this creates a relationship that is defensive rather than collaborative. Something needs to be done.
The second area that I will therefore address is complexity. The complexity of the regulatory system has developed as a result of the broader culture. It is telling that financial services represent such a large component of GDP—9%, or more if you add legal and other related services—but, as we have heard, their contribution to output and productivity growth has fallen behind the rest of the economy. This growth-sapping complexity has to change.
We have spoken about the “twin peaks” system covering the FCA and the PRA, but there are many other bodies, all with their own acronyms, forming the regulatory landscape that firms have to navigate. We have the Financial Ombudsman Service, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, the Competition and Markets Authority, the Payment Systems Regulator, the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Financial Reporting Council. All these organisations constantly try to prove the need for their existence, so the report’s finding that there is extensive regulatory overlap is not a surprise.
This is in stark contrast to the helpful concierge service operated in Singapore, which my noble friend Lord Lilley referenced and which my noble friend Lord Johnson has enjoyed. My noble friend Lord Lilley also told us how US banks were freer than UK banks to increase their lending to the real economy. We heard from my noble friend Lord Altrincham that the CEO of Marsh McLennan UK said that UK regulation is the “most expensive” in his wide experience—that was worrying. This has had a marked effect on firms already operating in the UK, which are required to direct capital away from productive investment into filling out forms, sifting through regulations, communicating to these organisations and so on. They are also worried about getting the blame for failure, as my noble friend Lord Lilley emphasised.
The other effect, which is harder to measure, is the chilling effect that this has had on international investment in the UK. Firms operating around the world take one look at the web of regulations and take their business elsewhere. The economy grew by just 0.1% in the final quarter of 2025, and across the whole of 2025 it expanded by 1.3%. The OBR has lowered its 2026 growth forecast to an anaemic 1.1%, as the noble Baroness, Lady Moyo, said. To say that this is growth in any meaningful sense is laughable. Growth must be an important priority for regulators, and the report provides the Government with some useful suggestions: reduce regulatory overlap, strive properly to understand the burden regulation imposes on business and perhaps help them, improve the spread of authorisation processes, and provide simpler rules for smaller domestic banks. My noble friend Lady Noakes was right to point out that the Basel rules applied across the UK are aimed at international banks, so small and medium-sized banks have a hard time here. I know this because I served as a director of Secure Trust Bank, and I therefore welcome the cut in tier 1 capital in December last year from 14% to 13%—that is a good development.
My third area is financial literacy and education. The committee expresses real concern about the chronically low levels of financial literacy and numeracy among adults in the UK. The consequences of this are far-reaching. Too many people lack confidence in financial markets. Many shy away from investing and, as a result, savings often remain concentrated in low-yield products. That means that neither they as savers nor our wider economy benefit from the sort of capital that could be unlocked if people were more confident in investing their money. Traditional advice is often too expensive, and guidance is not always available. Those who stand to gain the most from it are frequently the least able to obtain it and indeed are fearful of financial products—the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and I come together on this recommendation, albeit from different perspectives. If we are serious about building a stronger investment culture, financial education cannot begin when people first open a pension or savings account. It must begin in our primary schools. By embedding financial literacy in schools and universities, we can equip future generations with the confidence they need to invest wisely.
There seems to be a degree of agreement that the mandation powers in the Pension Schemes Bill, which could be used from 2030, will have a chilling effect. They could harm growth and deter investment, especially from overseas. As the Official Opposition, we believe that that should be abandoned when the Bill comes to Report next week.
I have a number of questions for the Minister, which go beyond the excellent questions from my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, although I am less sure about his idea of a new kind of mandation in respect of venture capital—or indeed about the version of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, which would be the mandation of a community element. That would mean new rules and new additions to the Jenga tower.
My questions to the Minister are the following. First, it is encouraging to note that the Government appear to acknowledge that regulation of the financial sector has gone too far. Will the Government continue to press for change in the direction advised by the committee? Secondly, will the PRA be asked to consider setting bank capital requirements for SME banks in a more proportionate way, rather than slavishly following Basel III? Thirdly, what concrete steps will the Government take to improve the competitiveness of the City of London, compared to centres such as New York, Milan and Singapore? Fourthly, will the Government think again about benchmarking—perhaps even a one-off benchmarking report—to look at our performance against our competitors overseas? The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, talked about that. It may be difficult, but it must be done, given that competitiveness is a key part of the secondary objective.
The UK faces a real and pressing challenge when it comes to economic growth. Growth, we are told, will be the central pillar of this Government’s economic strategy in the years ahead, and I have welcomed that on many occasions. Although their achievements so far have been disappointing, I encourage them not to give up but to try harder, especially in the financial services sector, which has contributed so much to growth historically. I very much hope that the Government will look carefully at the suggestions contained in this powerful report, and at the further suggestions made today, as they develop their fiscal and economic strategy.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for introducing this report and to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, the outgoing chair and now the Lord Speaker. Having been on the receiving end of some of his incisive questions in the Chamber, I can just imagine what he was like as the chair of the committee when it was taking evidence. I also thank all noble Lords for their comments and contributions, which were thorough, thoughtful, instructive and thoroughly knowledgeable.
I reiterate the strong alignment between this committee’s conclusions in the report and the Government’s perspective and actions. The Government are committed to ensuring that the secondary growth and competitiveness objectives are comprehensively embedded in both the PRA and the FCA, and we strongly welcome the thorough and incisive scrutiny of the committee, holding both the Government and the regulators to account.
As the Economic Secretary to the Treasury said in a letter to the committee of 2 September:
“There is strong alignment between your recommendations and the wide-ranging package of reforms announced by the Chancellor”.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson, is right that we are on a journey on this—this is not our final destination. Things are going to develop and evolve, and it will be great to continue this dialogue.
A considerable amount of ground has been covered today. I will try to address specific points raised by noble Lords in the time remaining. Before I do, I will speak about the financial services growth and competitiveness strategy and the actions that the Government are taking forward to facilitate the growth of the sector and to ensure that it is supporting growth in the wider economy. I will do my best to answer all the questions but, if I cannot or if there are some that I have not answered, I will write to noble Lords.
Since the launch of the strategy in July 2025, the Government have worked with the regulators to deliver key milestones, including: launching the Office for Investment: Financial Services, a dedicated concierge service for international financial services firms seeking to establish or grow their presence within the UK, which several noble Lords mentioned; launching the joint FCA and PRA scale-up unit, which will make it simpler for scaling firms to get timely responses and expert support; commissioning the Financial Services Skills Commission to produce a report on skills needs; and the FCA approving both the London Stock Exchange and JP Jenkins to operate PISCES platforms. I believe the first trading event will take place by the end of this month.
In addition, the Treasury and financial regulators are working hard to support delivery of the Government’s regulation action plan, where the Government have committed to cut the administrative burden of regulation by 25% by the end of this Parliament. The Treasury is continuing to hold the regulators to account, including through biannual ministerial reviews of the regulators’ performance.
Noble Lords have pressed the Government on the evidence linking growth in financial services to growth in the wider economy. The Government agree on the importance of having a substantial evidence base. That is why, in developing the financial services strategy, the Government took steps to build this evidence base, setting out their analysis and methodology in the strategy’s technical annex.
The Government remain committed to building this evidence base and continue to work with industry, academics and other public authorities to do so, including through regulator-led research projects and competitions. It remains a high priority for the Treasury’s Areas of Research Interest, its published list of the main research questions facing the department.
The committee has highlighted specialist lenders and their importance in providing lending to SMEs. The Government share the committee’s ambition regarding the role of the finance sector in funding the real economy. Specialist lending plays a role in supporting competition, resilience and choice. The Government have taken steps to ensure that the regulatory framework supports this, working closely with the Bank to explore further reforms to the ring-fencing regime to make lending to innovative SMEs more commercially viable. Through the Basel III.1 reforms, the Government have also worked closely with the PRA to ensure that overall capital requirements for SME lending do not increase so that the sector can continue to support UK SMEs and help them to grow and be successful.
The Government have a strong relationship with the financial service regulators, and they are working together closely so that the Government can hold them to account for delivering the shared growth mission. Remit letters and ongoing engagement at all levels allow the Government to ensure that the regulators have appropriate regard to the Government’s economic policy, particularly the growth mission. There is a very strong level of engagement and a shared ambition between the Government and the regulators to support growth, and we will continue to work closely together to deliver on this shared ambition.
The Government agree with the committee that it is important to have metrics to monitor the regulators’ impact on growth. The regulators have now published two years’ worth of data against the growth metrics. It is vital that the regulators are held to sufficiently challenging targets for determining authorisation applications while also maintaining robust processes. That is why the Government have proposed new authorisation deadlines and will legislate for them when parliamentary time allows. I am pleased to see that the regulators are already starting to report against these new deadlines, with the FCA doing so in February and the PRA doing so very soon. The UK regulators’ reporting framework is among the most comprehensive in the world. I assure the committee that the Government will continue to scrutinise their performance and how it is changing over time, and I invite Parliament and other stakeholders to do likewise.
I turn to some of the questions that were asked. I will do my best to cover them all, and if I do not, we will write to the relevant noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, raised the question of productivity and finance. The Government recognise the need to increase the amount of productive lending from the financial services sector to the real economy. Earlier, the noble Baroness cited the Bank of England’s December Financial Stability Report, in which the Financial Policy Committee of the Bank of England provides useful insights in this area. This also notes several actions the Government and regulators have taken to improve the supply of finance for productive purposes, including expansion of the British Business Bank’s financial capacity and reforms to the bank ring-fencing regime. However, I take the broader question around data in this area. I look forward to digesting the report by Positive Money and will write to the committee with further reflections subsequent to this debate.
On SME lending, the Government have increased the British Business Bank’s total financial capacity to £25.6 billion, a two-thirds uplift compared to previous years, and are reducing limitations on this funding, giving the bank more flexibility to address regional and sectoral gaps in SME finance. I think I have already mentioned the concierge service, which everybody in the committee today seems to welcome.
I move on to encouraging informed risk-taking. The UK will always uphold high standards, but a system has been created which at times has sought to eliminate risk-taking completely rather than managing it effectively, and this can hold back economic growth. We can grow only if we enable the UK’s financial services and markets to continue to serve a wide variety of people and firms. At Mansion House in 2024, the Chancellor set out that regulatory changes to eliminate risk after the financial crisis had gone too far and led to unintended consequences.
Metrics was another issue that was raised during the debate. The Government are committed to effective monitoring and evaluation of the strategy. In line with other sector plans that form part of the industrial strategy, the strategy sets out clear indicators focused on how growing the sector will support growth and investment across the UK, delivering security for working people and world-leading financial services to UK businesses and consumers. Because of the time lag in publishing data, the majority of metrics largely cover the period before the last election. However, since then, the Government have delivered a huge package of pensions reform to make sure that people have savings for their retirement and are investing in Britain, with the Pension Schemes Bill now making its way through Parliament.
The Government set out their vision for regulatory reform through their Regulation Action Plan, announced in March 2025. The RAP commits the Government to cutting the administrative burden of regulation by 25% by the end of the Parliament. The Department for Business and Trade has identified the administrative burden of regulation on businesses to be £22.4 billion each year, which means that the 25% target represents a £5.6 billion annual reduction in the administrative burden.
The relationship between the Government and the regulators was also raised. The Government and the regulators have a strong relationship and are working together to facilitate growth in line with the Government’s economic policy. The remit letters that I mentioned earlier are a key mechanism for the Government to issue strategic steers to the regulators to support the Government’s economic policy and promote competitiveness and growth. The Treasury makes recommendations to the regulators through the remit letters. The letters set out the Government’s economic policy, to which the FCA and the PRA must have regard. The letters must be sent by the Chancellor at least once a Parliament, and the regulators are required to respond to the Chancellor annually.
There was a question on pensions. I will do my best, but I know that we will be debating them on Monday. Why do the Government think that pension funds are so reluctant to invest in UK assets? It seems that the lack of focus on value in the pensions market means that schemes invest only in low-cost asset classes. Cost is an important factor but, ultimately, net returns matter most. Therefore, the Pension Schemes Bill is addressing this by enabling scale in the pension market and through the value-for-money framework, as bigger schemes are able to invest more productively, as we see in Australia and Canada, for example, focusing on asset classes with higher potential long-run returns to investment and growth, such as infrastructure and venture. The noble Lord will probably pick that up in the debate on Monday.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, asked what the Government think about fintech struggling to raise money. The UK has the third-largest VC ecosystem in the world, which raised £23.6 billion in 2025, according to HSBC. We are third behind the USA and China. Although the UK has deep capital pools for start-ups, underpinned by generous tax reliefs, we recognise that there is further to go to support UK companies, including fintechs, to raise domestic scale-up capital. That is why, at the spending review, we increased the total financial capacity of the British Business Bank to £25.6 billion.
As mentioned in the EST’s letter to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, in December, the FCA has undertaken several projects to improve the evidence base on how the financial sector regulations can support growth. In particular, it is consulting academics on how the financial sector hubs across the UK can support regional innovation.
There was a point raised about AI and inward investment. The Government are committed to realising the investment opportunities from AI. In January last year, the Government announced that investment in UK data centres infrastructure has reached £39 billion. Since then, the Government have designated five AI growth zones across Great Britain, including two in Wales and one in Scotland, generating £28.2 billion in investment. In 2025 alone, UK AI firms have raised £4.8 billion.
On the regulation of cryptocurrency, which was raised by my noble friend Lord Eatwell, the Government recognise the transformative potential of digital assets. In February, we introduced an SI underpinning the regime that we want to see; the consultation on the rules and requirements laid out in the SI is at an advanced stage. The SI defines which crypto assets will be part of regulation—the qualifying crypto assets—and the new regulated activities. It also creates a definition for qualifying stablecoin as a subcategory of qualifying crypto assets.
I have mentioned the regulatory metrics before, but there were other issues raised. Now that the regulators have published two years’ worth of data against their secondary objectives, the Government, industry and Parliament can begin to meaningfully scrutinise the regulators’ performance and how it is changing over time, as well as assess the appropriateness of the metrics themselves. As part of the 2025-30 strategy, the FCA is revising what growth metrics it will publish with more granular metrics, if appropriate. The PRA noted in its second report into the competitiveness and growth objective in 2025 that it would keep its metrics up to date and ensure that they remain “world leading”.
This leads us to international comparisons. The Government agree with the committee that there is a benefit to making international comparisons where possible. The Government’s aim is to ensure that the UK is a competitive jurisdiction for international financial services business. The regulatory environment plays an important part in that. We accept that there is more to do on this, and the Government remain committed to reducing the complexity and burden of regulation on business, including reducing the admin burden by 25%.
Another question from my noble friend Lord Eatwell was on what the Government think about the inadequacies of macroprudential regulations to address systemic crises. The Bank of England Financial Policy Committee is the UK’s dedicated macroprudential authority responsible for the health of the financial system as a whole. The International Monetary Fund has described the FPC as world class. It is equipped with an extensive set of macroprudential tools—for example, loan-to-income ratio controls in mortgage lending.
I agree with the points that have been raised on financial inclusion and education. The Government are putting more focus on helping young people to build strong financial skills and prepare for key money decisions in life. As part of the financial inclusion strategy, the Government committed to making financial education compulsory in primary schools in England through a new statutory requirement to teach citizenship. Alongside this, the Department for Education and the Treasury have committed to working closely together to improve the quality and reach of financial education in England. There will be a public consultation on the updated curriculum in 2026, with the changes in place for the first teaching in 2028.
The consumer duty was, I think, first mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Johnson. The FCA wrote to the Chancellor in September with the results of its review into the application of the consumer duty, and it is updating its approach. The Chancellor asked the FCA to report back to her on how it plans to address concerns about the application of the consumer duty for firms primarily engaged in wholesale activity. The FCA has already committed to taking a number of actions, including refreshing some of the supervisory expectations and consulting on changes to the rules that help firms to distinguish between retail and professional clients.
I may not have covered all the questions, but I will write to noble Lords if I have not. I conclude by saying, in the time I have left—about 20 seconds—that we need to be optimistic as well. We have to bear in mind, and it is worth repeating, that the UK remains a top global financial centre and our regulators have an excellent reputation. The UK is the largest global net exporter of financial services, totalling £102.2 billion in 2025, which represents half of the UK’s services export surplus. The Global Financial Centres Index of 2025 ranks London in second place in terms of financial centre competitiveness, with Edinburgh and Glasgow also inside the top 40. The Government are committed to building on those strengths.
To conclude, I express the Government’s and my appreciation for the committee’s ongoing engagement. The Government will provide a further update in the summer of 2026, and we are committed to continuing this dialogue.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I start with an apology to the Committee, because I failed to declare my interests at the outset of the debate. I declare shares in listed financial services companies, as on the register and in the report. I apologise for not declaring those interests earlier.
I will keep my remarks short, because the Minister is on his feet in the Chamber and we do not want to break and come back again to hear my conclusions. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this important debate and the Minister for his reply. I do not have time to draw out all noble Lords’ points, but I am particularly grateful to those who picked out some of the things that I did not cover in my summary of the report—in particular an important point that I had largely forgotten about the way in which some in the financial services sector are basically too frightened to say in public what they will happily and quite freely say to us in private. That is an indication of something that is not working well that is therefore not in the national interest.
Most people have agreed today that the competitiveness and growth secondary objectives could be an important stimulus to growth in the financial services sector. The problem is that while there are now lots of initiatives, actions and planned actions in play, at the moment we lack the evidence for whether we will get growth either in the financial services sector or in the economy overall. That is one of the things we have to keep a focus on in order to ensure that regulators are accountable for delivering to us on those objectives. I was pleased to hear the Minister confirm that we would be getting a report this summer. I am sure that my committee will look forward to examining that and possibly engaging with the Government on it.
As noble Lords have said, there has been a significant increase in regulation since the global financial crisis. This has weighed on financial services firms in very many ways, and can act as a deterrent to inward investment in financial services in the UK as well as within the financial services sector, reducing the capacity to lend into the productive economy.
One lesson is that regulation has a real-world impact. I hope that the regulators increasingly understand that what they do has real-world consequences, and that they are committed to modifying the behaviours that are leading to burdens on the industry. I hope that the Government will continue to accept their important role in getting better data, setting better metrics and continuing to apply pressure on the regulators to deliver.
Whether the regulators can change their risk-averse culture and become organisations that more creatively balance risks against opportunities in a proportionate way is an open question. I think we have to keep that in constant view. Both the regulators and the Government need to move away from the comfort blanket of operational efficiency. The real issues are much deeper than whether we process paperwork on authorisations in a certain number of days.
Because this is all so important to the UK’s economic success, the Government and Parliament have to keep the regulators in full view and ensure that their impact is kept under scrutiny. My committee is fully up to the task of playing its part in that; I am sure that we will return to that in due course.
House of Lords
UK Space Economy
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Stansgate
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support the UK space economy.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Lab)
My Lords, at the request of my noble friend Lord Stansgate, and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
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 space economy is a top priority for the Government, who have announced a £2.8 billion investment over the spending review for the UK Space Agency, including a £1.7 billion commitment at the last European Space Agency Ministerial Council. We are strategically investing to support sector growth through a new outcomes-based, targeted approach. Through a one-government philosophy, we will grow the space economy by focusing investment on enabling businesses to commercialise and scale.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. Given that, in the space inquiry we conducted, The Space Economy: Act Now or Lose Out, we identified that the space sector is worth £18.6 billion to the economy, employs 55,000 people and is growing a rate of about 6% a year, can she tell us more about the priorities across government, as space impinges on every aspect of our lives?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I share the enthusiasm of my noble friend, the committee and the report for the space economy. We responded in detail to the recommendations earlier this year. We are setting out our strategic priorities, which, as the committee and my noble friend highlighted, encompassed many aspects of our lives, including defence, economic growth and support for our farming communities. We will continue to focus our spend on the priorities of economic growth and national security outcomes.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, on the Government’s space plan, will they formally adopt a policy of space debris neutrality, requiring all satellites launched from the UK to have what is called a “designed to demise” commitment to prevent further orbital congestion? With an active debris removal procurement worth some £75 million, how are the Government ensuring that UK-based SMEs are not being edged out by larger international companies for these critical domestic contracts?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord raises the important issue of space debris, which creates risks to our critical national infrastructure. We are strengthening UK space surveillance and investing in debris mitigation technologies. We are seen as a leader in space sustainability, including with the international community and His Majesty the King. We are supporting important UK companies such as Astroscale to understand the risks and costs of active debris removal. In fact, there are further announcements today on this important issue of space debris removal.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Does the Minister agree that space still lacks an effective and enforceable legal framework, including liability for the space junk that has just been referred to, which is continuously being fly-tipped in space and is now blighting the few usable orbits around our planet? If so, what are HMG doing to ensure that UK expertise in law and in insurance play leading roles in making space a less lawless frontier?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The UK has a great deal of expertise on space, including on regulatory issues. We continue to collaborate internationally— for example, at the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space—to shape and uphold standards, regulations, norms and agreements on best practices to define the in-orbit regime across the globe.
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
The first vertical-launch spaceport to receive planning consent was at Sutherland, in the far north of Scotland. However, Orbex, the private entity in the equation, suspended construction of Sutherland’s spaceport in December 2024, with only six months to go until the infrastructure would have been completed. Given the announcement of £1.5 billion in funding for national space programmes, what progress has now been made towards supporting the completion of the spaceport, which has already attracted interest from a number of potential launch providers? At a time when sovereign launch capability is becoming increasingly important, this infrastructure is vital not only for job creation and regional regeneration but for strengthening the UK’s space and defence capabilities. Would the Minister be willing to meet with me and key stakeholders to discuss how this project might be taken forward and how the Government can support its timely delivery?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
As I set out in my speech last week, assured access to space is one of the four priorities of the Government’s space policy. As I also set out then, we are pursuing our ambition of assured access to space. Last week, I announced a further £20 million of investment over the spending review to accelerate launch from Scotland. I will be working with industry and international partners to ensure that the UK has assured launch options.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware of the space department at Northumbria University? If not, would she accept an invitation to visit it and see its extraordinary, cutting-edge research?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Absolutely. One of the great pleasures of covering civil space is the enormity of expertise in our universities and companies. Almost everybody you meet is doing something ground-breaking and impressive. I would be very happy to meet the people suggested by my noble friend.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, events in Ukraine and Iran are showing the growing military defence importance of satellite communication, navigation and earth observation systems. Given our strengths here in the UK in satellite manufacture and space data services, does the Minister agree that the UK space sector is particularly well suited to dual-use applications that support both economic growth and defensive capability? If so, is now the moment for the Government to look for further ways to promote investment in our satellite manufacturing sector?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Viscount makes an important point. The two priorities of our space policy are economic growth and national security; they are priorities for the whole of government and are central to our approach to space. I co-chair the Space Ministerial Forum with my colleague from the Ministry of Defence, bringing that whole-of-government approach to this important issue. In the speech I made last week on our four priorities, satellite communication was one of them; it is a real priority for the Government.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, following on from the previous question, there is a clear and urgent strategic demand for a robust, Europe-based polar satellite constellation. This is an area where the UK should be taking a lead, but at the moment it is not. This requires urgent action and sufficient investment. Will the Government undertake to give this area a real boost?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I very much agree with the noble and gallant Lord that the UK’s geography can provide particular advantages to the whole of Europe and to NATO. We are very committed to supporting the development of spaceports. Last week, I announced a further £20 million to support the development of spaceports in Scotland, so that is something we are pursuing with vigour.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support what my noble friend said about SaxaVord. I was very pleased to consent to the CAA’s regulatory approval when I was the Transport Secretary. I want to press the Minister a little more on the market size that will potentially be available to the UK with that vertical launch capability at SaxaVord. What specific steps will the Government take to ensure that we have that capability in the years to come?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord makes two important points. On the regulatory framework, the CAA has been doing some excellent work in supporting the development of a space regime that allows the UK to be a very attractive place for all sorts of space activity, including launch. The space indemnities Act is supportive of that, so I do agree with the noble Lord. As I mentioned, the £20 million that I announced last week was to accelerate the development of spaceports in Scotland for vertical launch.
Sustainable Farming Incentive: Small Farms
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Colgrain
To ask His Majesty’s Government what is their definition of a small farm in the context of the reformed Sustainable Farming Incentive.
Lord Colgrain (Con)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and refer to my farming interests in Kent, as set out in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the new sustainable farming incentive offer for 2026 builds on the 2024 scheme but is simpler and more streamlined. When applications open in June this year, priority will be given to small farms and those without an existing environmental land management revenue agreement. Small farms are defined as having at least three hectares and no more than 50 hectares of agricultural land.
Lord Colgrain (Con)
I thank the Minister for her reply. Given that farm units of the size that she has mentioned are generally viewed as uneconomic and unviable in purely agricultural terms, I ask, if I may, two questions. First, given that the Government used 140 hectares as the size of the average family farm when making calculations for the new inheritance taxes for farms and small businesses, why are they now penalising family farms by allowing only one-third of them by size to qualify for this funding tranche? Secondly, in the context of the Batters report, how does this small SFI tranche help with the two fundamentals that the report highlights—namely, to facilitate increased productivity and the need for greater security for domestic food production?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We believe that it is important to encourage smaller farms and those without existing agreements to come forward to access the grants that are available to make their farms more sustainable. It is a little sweeping to say that they are not economic. All farms are different, and it often depends on how they are managed. As the noble Lord said, there is a second window opening in September to which all farms will be able to apply. We are looking to support all farms in increasing food production. Food productivity is an important part of the Batters review. Much of what we are doing in the new offer and in the farming road map is in response to the Batters review’s recommendations.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, how will the Government ensure that the definition of a small farm within the SFI recognises the contribution of smaller, diversified family farms to nature recovery and local food production? How will the Government avoid favouring larger land holdings that may find it easier to access the 71 requirements—admittedly down from over 100—of the still complex scheme?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We have tried to reduce the complexity of the scheme. We want to make it more straightforward for more farms and different types of farms to access. There are opportunities for horticultural growers, which are often smaller farms as well. We are looking to better support tenant farmers and, importantly, are doing more to support people who farm on moorland and in upland areas. If we are to support sustainable farming, we need to encourage all farms to feel that they are part of what the Government are trying to achieve.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not about time that we means-tested farmers? We seem to be giving taxpayers’ money to billionaires. Is it not time that we stopped doing that?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
One of the recommendations in the Batters review is about active farming and ensuring that the payments that we make from government go to people who are farming and supporting the food production that our country so badly needs if we are to have food security. That is what we are trying to do.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my farming interests in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire. I very much welcome the announcement on SFI support for smaller farms, although I have many of the same reservations as the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain. However, does the Minister recognise that the proposed 62% rise in electricity standing charges in April, which already accounts for 60% of energy bills, will drive food inflation and dramatically affect the competitiveness of intensive farming and horticulture, which are already facing imports of products grown to lower standards overseas? Do these sectors remain a priority for the Secretary of State for Defra?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a really important point. There are a number of challenges for farming around things such as electricity prices, and oil is now being affected by the ongoing war. We are critically aware of that. It is not just farming; there are a number of industries where these kinds of pressures are going to be challenging. One thing that we are doing in Defra is trying to work these issues through. My colleague, Angela Eagle MP, who is the Farming Minister, is talking regularly to farmers about these issues. We have to look at how we can support and manage these kinds of challenges.
Lord Roborough (Con)
The new SFIs offer some reduced payment rates per acre and remove management payments—winter bird food falls by 24% and herbal leys by 41%. SFIs require substantial expenditure by the recipients in order to claim these payments, and reducing payment rates dramatically reduces the potential for profit and the incentive element of the SFIs. To the point from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, costs are going up for farmers. Could the Minister tell us what work has been done by the Government to ensure that these are adequate payment rates? Will they commit that, if take-up of these schemes falls below budget, the full farming budget will be used elsewhere to support the farming sector directly? I refer the House to my interest as a farmer in receipt of SFI payments.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The Farming Minister has spent a long time looking at the different options to try to target the types of farm and types of productivity that she wants to increase. The noble Lord is absolutely correct that the management payment has been removed. That was done to increase the amount of budget that would be available for new agreements. We want as many farmers as possible to be able to benefit from SFI funding this year, which is why that payment was taken out. A number of actions have come out but, in some areas, agreements have seen the payments increase for certain activities—for example, on moorlands. Some areas have gained and some have not, but it is about getting the balance towards where the Government want to see things changing.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
I keep hearing from farmers, particularly from small farms, about the impact of the fiasco of the changes in inheritance tax. Would the Minister give some reassurance that future policy changes will truly be rural-proofed? I declare an interest as this year’s president of the Royal Norfolk Show.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am beginning to wish I lived in Norfolk so that I could come—it is a long way from Cumbria. I reassure the right reverend Prelate that one of the things we have been working much harder on in Defra, as we develop policies and then manage and oversee them, is working with other departments where there is also an impact. It is really important to have that oversight. The noble Lord was just talking about energy prices, and we work with DESNZ on how best we can approach that. It will be the same for rural-proofing more broadly. It is certainly very much on our agenda.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
It is the turn of the Cross Benches.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that, in the first round of SFI26, the maximum per farm will be capped at £100,000? According to my mathematics, these aspirant billionaires with 50 hectares cannot possibly fit enough options in there to get to £100,000. Would it not be better to reduce the cap—make it, say, £30,000—and spread it far more widely over these small farms than will be possible now?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely correct that there is a cap of £100,000. The first tranche is open to small farms and those who do not have an agreement, and then there will be another tranche in September, which will be open to all. That is why the cap is important.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, the sustainable farming incentive is trying to put a sharper focus on water quality and biodiversity, which small family farms are often quite good at. I am concerned that their value is appreciated from a local economy point of view and because they are quite often very sustainable and organic. Does the Minister feel that they are going to be properly valued?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The short answer is yes, I very much hope that they will be. We are keen to support organic farming and to see more farms become more, shall we say, environmentally friendly.
EU Digital Services Act and Regulation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gill
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have held with the European Union in relation to (1) alignment with the EU Digital Services Act, and (2) greater co-operation on digital services regulation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
The Government regularly engage with the EU on digital policy, including direct discussions on the Digital Services Act, which like the UK’s Online Safety Act requires companies to take proportionate steps to protect users online. While the UK has taken its own regulatory approach, we co-operate with the EU where it supports UK citizens and businesses. The new EU-UK digital dialogue will deepen co-operation on shared challenges, including AI and online child safety.
Baroness Gill (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her response. There would be several economic, regulatory and strategic benefits if the UK were to be part of the EU’s Digital Services Act. Scale matters when it comes to dealing with the powerful global tech companies, and it is quite clear from the US’s AI action plan that it will not limit their powers. The DSA is likely to become a global standard, like GDPR, so can the Minister confirm that this Government will include it as a matter of urgency on the agenda of ongoing reset discussions with the EU, with a view to becoming a member?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
We have reset our relations with European partners, improving diplomatic, economic and security co-operation, and we are committed to playing a role in shaping an open, trusted digital future with the EU and other partners. We have the Online Safety Act here. We have announced consultations on future measures, including on children’s well-being, and the EU’s digital omnibus is looking at lots of other aspects of reform. Our new UK-EU digital dialogue, announced as part of the reset, will provide a structured forum for ongoing engagement on digital policy.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, the EU’s digital governance for online platforms relies on certain basic principles—they should operate transparently, responsibly and in alignment with legal standards. That is a formal basis on which we should operate too. Instead of having new laws that align with the EU, why do we not simply codify the laws that we currently have and make them applicable to these new areas, which are innovative and ever developing?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
We have the Online Safety Act, which is enforced by Ofcom and other regulators and, as the noble Lord will know, we announced a consultation just recently on areas that we may seek to expand or take further measures on to enhance children’s well-being.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that, as part of this dialogue, close co-operation on robust competition enforcement is essential to resist growing US pressure to weaken digital rules? As the EU actively enforces its Digital Markets Act, will the Government commit to aligning in practice with strong EU enforcement standards rather than allowing US corporate lobbying to dilute the UK’s digital markets competition regime?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The UK has taken decisive action to strengthen competition and fairness in digital markets. In January 2025, Parliament equipped the CMA with new powers to boost competition and innovation in digital markets. In May, the Government issued a clear steer to the CMA to prioritise this work and align action with international jurisdictions, including the EU. The UK and CMA engage regularly with EU counterparts as both regimes begin operation to help maintain close alignment on emerging issues.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, the EU already has AI legislation. Do the Government intend to bring forward their own legislation on AI and how to regulate it?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Our approach is to have regulators who are sector-specific and have the expertise to look at how AI is affecting the companies they regulate and its impact.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, many digital harms such as disinformation and illegal or fraudulent content operate across borders. In that light, can the Minister enlarge on the practical measures the Government are pursuing with the European Union to assure effective cross-border enforcement of our respective digital regulations, particularly with respect to Ofcom’s work with those responsible for enforcing the Digital Services Act?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Ofcom and the EU have an agreement and talk frequently about regulatory co-operation. Ofcom is also a member of a global network of regulators, so it can share best practice and welcome further co-operation.
Iranian State-sponsored Cyber Attacks: Mitigation and Preparation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harris of Haringey
To ask His Majesty’s Government what advice they are giving to (1) the general public, and (2) businesses, about what steps they should take to mitigate and prepare for the consequences of Iranian state-sponsored cyberattacks, sabotage or disruption arising from recent events in the Middle East.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interest, as recorded in the register, as chair of the National Preparedness Commission and beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, the National Cyber Security Centre is closely monitoring the situation in the Middle East and directly engaging with critical sectors, providing immediate and specific information and advice. It has issued an alert, urging all organisations, especially those with assets or supply chains in the region, to remain vigilant. While it is likely that the direct cyber threat from Iran to the UK has not changed, NCSC advises organisations to strengthen their cyber security posture due to the fast-evolving nature of the conflict. The National Protective Security Authority also issued updated guidance last year on countering the threat of sabotage, helping organisations to protect their sites from physical threats.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. I am also grateful for what the National Cyber Security Centre has been doing in terms of targeted advice. However, last week four people were arrested by the Metropolitan Police under the National Security Act for what has been reported as spying against Jewish organisations— so there is an issue about that in terms of the risk of Iranian sabotage. There has also been a series of incidents across Europe and in this country of Russian-inspired or Russian paid-for attacks on various businesses. What is the general advice given to the public, to small businesses and to larger businesses in terms of the precautions they ought increasingly to take under the current international situation?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend raises an important point; all of this comes down to our national resilience and making sure that we are prepared for such threats. Before I highlight what we are doing on the specifics of cyber, and on cyber more generally, let me highlight that ministerial colleagues, the Faith Minister and the security services, which have done so much in recent days to keep us safe, have met and spoken to a large range of Jewish and Muslim organisations to provide reassurance. They have also met with my noble friend Lord Mann and 20 councils to provide reassurance to those who are so worried about the current conflict.
In terms of specific guidance, the reality is that in this space we need a whole-society approach. Businesses have to take the lead—they know where their threats are and where their vulnerabilities may lie—but at this point we need to make sure that we are collectively working together. The Government will bring forward the cyber action plan by spring, and the cyber security and resilience Bill is currently in the other place.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, as the defence production need for entirely new kinds of warfare steps up, as it is now doing, are the Government satisfied that the needs of our strategy, which are rapidly growing, are closely enough aligned with the plans of British industry?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that we need to make sure that we are protecting British industry and working with key allies. Last year, cyber attacks cost the economy £15 billion, and it is a growing threat. We need to work with business, but also to be led by it because it knows what infrastructure is there. As some noble Lords will be aware, some of this is low tech as much as high technology, and people are seeking every vulnerability. We all need to be cognisant of that and make sure there is a genuinely whole-society approach.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, if we are going to have a whole-society response, we had better make sure that the whole society is informed about the nature of the threat. Nearly a year ago, the strategic defence review talked about the need for
“a national conversation led by the Government”—
political leadership by the Government—to inform and educate the wider public about the nature of these new cyber and other hybrid threats from a number of different countries: Iran, Russia, China and others. When are the Government going to provide that political leadership through the national conversation which was proposed?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I am disappointed that not everybody looks at the NCSC’s website in the same way that I do to ensure that they are updated. The noble Lord is right that we need to make sure that people are aware. It was one of the reasons why it was so important in the run-up to the national alerts we had on all our phones last year that materials were made available about what else could be done in terms of resilience and what other things needed to be done. I urge all noble Lords to make sure they are also protected. I hate to do this, but there is a cyber offer available to every Member of your Lordships’ House, and I believe only 10 of us have accessed it. It would be very good if all Members of your Lordships’ House took up the security offering provided to protect us while we talk about others too.
Lord Peach (CB)
My Lords, sticking with the theme, Iran is a sophisticated actor and works closely with Russia. We know the threats that Russia can generate, which are more than cyber. It is not just time for a national conversation; it is time to strengthen our national security narrative for the whole country.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I think it is fair to say that of course I agree with the noble and gallant Lord. It is also about making sure the foundations we have in place are right too. We go from national security to national defence within this space, as well as our wider resilience programme. It is one of the reasons why the Rycroft review into funding of political parties is so important and why the Representation of the People Bill, which is in the other place, is key. It is also why we are investing £170 million in Sovereign encrypted technology so that we can protect ourselves. The noble Lord is absolutely right that the challenges from Iran are not one-dimensional; they are multi-dimensional and we all need to be prepared.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, when Russia invaded Ukraine, we were very quick to sanction individuals and freeze assets. Can the noble Baroness tell me what assets we have frozen of the late ayatollah? His office, I believe, is still open in Kilburn. Apparently, there are flats and so on near Israel’s embassy in Kensington. What are we doing to sanction the assets?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have taken significant action so far. We have sanctioned the IRGC in its entirety, as well as 550 Iranian individuals and entities. We have also placed the whole of the Iranian state, including Iran’s intelligence services, on the enhanced tier of the new foreign influence registration scheme, to better reveal any Iranian influence on the UK. We are also training front-line police officers on what state threats are and are not. In terms of the specifics, I will have to write to the noble Lord.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, we have talked a lot about cyber defence, and of course that is extremely important, but you do not win a war purely through defence and, be in no doubt, we are at war in cyber space. I do not expect the Minister to give us any details, but could she reassure the House that we are taking all the action necessary to go on the offensive in this area as well as defend?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble and gallant Lord knows much more than I do about how to fight a war. He is absolutely right that we need to be prepared on all fronts, and I want to reassure him that we are making sure that we are.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, the National Audit Office recently examined the cyber threat facing the UK Government and reached some deeply concerning conclusions. It found that 58 critical government IT systems have significant gaps in their cyber resilience and that the Government do not even know how vulnerable at least 228 legacy systems are to cyber attack. It also highlighted a number of underlying weaknesses, shortage of cyber security skills within government and insufficient co-ordination across departments. In the face of what the NAO has described as a “severe and advancing” threat, with tensions in the Middle East further heightening the risk environment, can the noble Baroness set out what steps the Government are taking to address these shortcomings and strengthen the resilience of critical government systems?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness will be aware that the cyber security and resilience Bill is in the other place, which is a starting point. I am aware of what she has highlighted and we are working across Government to fix it. There is also the cyber action plan, which will be published this spring.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, may I bring my noble friend back to the question of a national conversation and ask her a rather more prosaic question about what efforts the Government are making to counter the kind of information that gives rise to very unhelpful behaviours: for example, the hoarding of certain kinds of foodstuffs, petrol and other things? Is she aware, or are the Government aware, of any particular rise in that kind of behaviour at this moment?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for the question, which is interesting. I have not been made aware that any of those behaviours have yet happened. Anyone who watches the news is aware of quite how volatile and uncertain the world is. You can understand why that is. What I would say, both to members of your Lordships’ House and to the general public, is that there is a responsibility on those of us who can look after ourselves at a point of crisis to make sure that we have minimum levels of food and water at home so that the state can look after the most vulnerable and deal with the emergency at hand. All of that guidance is available on GOV.UK.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the source of much of this activity is the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Why have our Government not proscribed it to try and prevent this activity at source? Secondly, the growth of the rampant misinformation and disinformation, which is causing Islamophobia and antisemitism—some, indeed, from far-right evangelical groups in the United States—is now becoming pervasive. What work are the Government doing with Ofcom to prevent that at source?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord will be aware of my own voting record on the IRGC’s proscription—
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Yes, in opposition. But let me be clear: proscription powers are designed for non-state terror organisations, not state organisations. We have committed to taking forward plans recommended by Jonathan Hall KC for a proscription-like power for states and state-linked bodies to tackle hostile state activity. That will come forward as soon as parliamentary time allows.
With regard to the other point, some of this action is happening in terms of media literacy training, changes to the curriculum and how all of us interrogate data and what we see online. The reality, I say as someone who has lived and breathed some of the misinformation that is put out about people in this space, is that we need to be aware that what happens online really does have an effect offline. That is increasingly the reality that we have to manage, which is why my final word is to say once again how thankful I am to the security services.
Pension Schemes: Ministerial Powers
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Altmann
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the need for Ministers to possess powers (1) to direct specific investment allocations for private sector workers’ pension funds or (2) to make investment in Government directed assets a condition of approval for automatic enrolment pension schemes.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, I declare my interests as set out in the register.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Pension Schemes Bill contains a reserve power on asset allocation, designed as a backstop to the voluntary commitments made by the pensions industry under the Mansion House Accord. The Government do not currently expect to use this power. Were this power ever exercised, schemes that cannot meet the requirements without causing material financial detriment to their members would be able to apply for an exemption under the savers’ interest test. The power is time-limited and subject to consultation, parliamentary approval and robust safeguards.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but I am afraid that if the Government’s main argument for including these powers is that they do not expect to need to use them, and will use them only if pension schemes themselves decide that they do not believe it is wise to achieve the allocations that the Government want them to, I have even greater concerns about those powers. I urge the Government to think again about overriding trustees’ decisions about what assets to invest in.
In particular, the Government are trying to take unlimited powers in the Bill to prescribe a percentage, but we do not know what that percentage might be, and to invest in assets, but we do not know which assets they will be. Even those who brokered the Mansion House Accord, such as Pensions UK and the ABI, are saying that they wish this to be reconsidered. Do the Government really believe that they know better than the investment industry how pension schemes should invest? Do they not consider that this is an example of the problems that the Government might have in excluding from the Bill some of the ideal vehicles which could be used to invest in the very assets that the Government say they want to support?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
As the noble Baroness well knows, we have been discussing this matter for some weeks now in Committee and will be discussing it again on Monday, when we come to the matter on Report. Let me give her a brief answer to the points she has made. I know that she agrees with the Government’s objectives, because she herself has advocated previously—indeed, in Committee—that we make pension tax relief contingent on 25% of new investment being allocated to UK assets. I know she wants the same thing that we do.
To be really clear, the power is being taken as a reserve power to back the voluntary, industry-led Mansion House Accord, which said that by 2030, 17 of the largest pension schemes in the private pensions sector would be investing 10% of their relevant default funds into private investment, with half of that in the UK. The expectation is that having done that, the industry will do it. The reason for taking a reserve power is, as the noble Baroness knows very well, that the challenge in the UK is too often schemes compete on cost and not on value. There is always a risk that for some small competitive advantage, somebody may want to try to separate off from that, so the reserve power is signalling clearly to the industry: this is the direction of travel, so let us stay with it. All we are doing is backstopping that.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, the Government say that this power is merely a backstop to the Mansion House Accord but that is a gross misrepresentation. The Pension Schemes Bill goes far beyond that and gives Ministers sweeping authority to mandate pension investments to whatever level they choose. The state should not be directing the allocation of private pension assets. Those decisions must be taken by trustees in the best interests of their members, not by Labour Ministers pursuing political objectives. This policy risks undermining confidence in the entire auto-enrolment system, which was built on the promise that people’s savings would be invested in their interests, not the Government’s. I ask the Minister a simple question: will the Government remove this dangerous and unjustified power from the Bill?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
There is a short and a long answer. The short answer is no. The long answer is that the Government have made it abundantly clear, because I have done it myself many times in Committee, what the purpose of the reserve power is: to backstop the Mansion House and trust commitments. My honourable friend the Pensions Minister and I have made it clear—he said it again this morning at a pensions conference—that we would make absolutely sure that the Government’s intention simply to backstop those agreements was there in the Bill. That is what the legislation is for, but I need to correct something in particular. This power does not direct schemes into specific assets or projects. What it does is set a broad framework aligned with the industry’s own voluntary commitments under the Mansion House Accord. Trustees retain full discretion over individual investment selection and the balance between asset classes. The role of a pension trustee has always been to exercise judgment, subject to constraints, and nothing in these provisions changes that.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister perhaps tell us why she thinks pension funds are not currently investing, or have not been investing, in the types of assets that she would like them to? I ask that question because surely the better way forward is to understand what is stopping them doing so and fixing that problem, rather than telling them to do something they do not wish to do.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I have said this many times in Committee, as the noble Lord knows, but I am delighted to explain again for the benefit of the whole House. I have just explained what the Government believe the challenge is. By international standards, we are really very low in aiming for 10%. Canadian schemes invest 11% in infrastructure alone. The evidence is clear that investing a small proportion of funds in the context of a diversified portfolio brings better returns for savers over the long run. The aim is to get better returns for savers. There is too much short-termism in our markets at the moment, and the view of the Government—as well as the evidence that seems to be out there—is that this is because we are seen as competing on cost, rather than on return or value. It is much easier to pitch to an employer on that basis. If we make it clear that the whole industry is going in this direction, then we believe that that will be the case. The choices will still be there, the safeguards are still in place, and we believe that this will be in the interests of savers across the long term.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, what timeline are the Government following, given that the Mansion House Accord target is 2030? When will the Government commence consultation, as there has not been any yet, and what analysis has been done about the difficulties now reported daily of private credit funds, and others, not being able to make redemptions or exits? Would the effect be that the Government would be forcing workers’ pensions to be buyers of last resort, and is that fair when private sector workers do not have any guaranteed benefits?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have not set out a timeline for using the power precisely because we have made it clear that we do not wish to use it, and do not expect to use it. The timeline for Mansion House is clear: the power expires if it is not used, and if any requirements are in place, they are capped at that level and cannot be raised thereafter. This will happen only if it becomes clear that the Mansion House Accord is not able to be delivered on. At that point the Government would consult, they would produce draft regulations, and the process would then happen. As I have made clear, since the only aim is to backstop the Mansion House Accord, the evidence should come from what companies are doing in that accord.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, like my noble friend I am looking forward to discussing these issues at length on Report of the Pension Schemes Bill. Does the Minister agree with me that the real trick is not so much directing the investment as finding the suitable opportunities in which to invest? Her honourable friend the Pensions Minister has talked extensively about the failure of investment in reservoirs over the last 20 or 30 years. There is a failure there that has to be addressed.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My noble friend is quite right; we have had many opportunities. It has been a joy to discuss the Pension Schemes Bill over many weeks, and that joy is set to extend for some weeks to come. My noble friend raises an important point: if the Government want to make sure that people are investing in good projects, they need to make sure that there are good projects to invest in. We also need to make sure that there are vehicles for doing that. The Government have done a great deal already, with the British Business Bank, looking at what has happened with Sterling 20 and at making sure that we work with industry to create the opportunities. But there is clearly money to be made here: if international pension funds are coming to our country and buying up chunks of our infrastructure and our private equity, we should be making sure that these are open to our own pension funds to make money on them. Nobody is making them do it; they are doing it because it is the right thing to do. We need to make sure, therefore, that we enable and encourage it, and the industry has taken the first steps itself. We are simply making sure that the backstop is there to make clear that this is the direction of travel.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of the Scottish American Investment Company. I understand why the Government would want to take a reserve power, given the persistent failure of the City of London—one of the biggest global financial centres—to provide equity finance to British industry over 150 years. Equally, successive Governments’ record of direct investment, or indeed direct intervention, is, to put it charitably, poor. Does the Minister acknowledge that government intervention carries a price in terms of market confidence, and will the Government take that into account before exercising any reserve power?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for an excellent question; with his background I would expect no less. The simple answer is yes. To be clear, the power does not direct schemes into any specific assets or projects. What it does is set a broad framework. It talks about private investment as a whole, not about specific assets. Crucially, the safeguards are really clear. If the power ever comes to be used, a number of things have to happen. First, there has to be a report commissioned and published before the power is used, so as to make sure that the conditions are right, and to show the impact on savers’ interest and on growth. Secondly, there is a savers’ interest test. If the trustees believe that it would not be in the interests of their beneficiaries to follow the direction, not only can they, but one would expect their fiduciary duties to guide them to, make an application for an exemption under the savers’ interest test; that is there to do that job for them. There is also parliamentary scrutiny of any regulations. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
As the Minister herself has just said, the signatories to the Mansion House Accord signed up to a voluntary agreement to invest in UK assets. Does she agree that they were not aware that the reserve power, the so-called mandation element, was going to be in the Bill? Does she therefore agree with me, with many of the signatories themselves, and with those in the pensions industry that mandation goes well beyond the Mansion House Accord?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, to be clear, the Government designed this power specifically to backstop the Mansion House Accord, and that is our intention. I am always open to suggestions of ways to make that clearer than we have tried to do so far. I had a great opportunity to talk to many Members of the House about this and many other issues, and I am happy to carry on doing that. There is a very simple way for any of the Mansion House signatories to make sure that this power is never used: to keep to the voluntary commitments that they have already made. If that happens, there will be no need for the power ever to be used and the Government will not bring it in, so everybody will be happy. That is the simple way forward.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, under the Mansion House Accord, and the mandation that now sits behind it, people on the lowest incomes will find 10% of their pensions put into high-risk illiquid assets. Given that that pool of assets is currently in very serious trouble thanks to illiquidity—this was prior to the Iran war, which is going to burst the bubble—will the Minister say that, if she forces this through, the Government will backstop the losses that will happen for those people on the lowest incomes, so that their pensions are not wrecked when they reach retirement?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, first, as I have said before, the Government are very clear—and the Bill makes clear—that were the power ever to be used, the Government must commission a report that will look at the state of the market and the impact on savers’ interests, as well as wider impacts, before using the power. If what the noble Baroness is describing were to be the case, that would become evident, and it would of course affect the Government’s decision.
Secondly, and, again, just to be clear, it is because we want to look after the interests of savers that we want to tackle the fact that, by international standards, UK pension funds invest tiny amounts of money in private finance, and therefore, as a result of not investing in private assets, it is savers—those savers whom the noble Baroness specifically describes—who are losing out because they are not getting the returns that they need. These are the default funds, so savers who know lots about this, and who will want to make judgments on making sure that their assets are in the right place, are already doing that. It is not serving their interests if these default funds are being put simply into passive investing or things that will not bring the long-term returns.
Finally, this goes back to the fact that the trustees are not being directed to invest in any specific asset or particular project. If the power was ever to be brought in and they were asked to do this, and if they believed that it was not in their interests, then we would expect them to apply for an exemption to protect the interests of their members. If there was something about their members—in the way that the noble Baroness describes—that was relevant, they would simply have to provide that evidence. That is what the savers’ interest test is for.
Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 19 and 26 January be approved.
Relevant document: 50th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 9 March.
Goods Vehicles (Testing, Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 26 January be approved.
Relevant document: 51st Report from the Secondary Legislation Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 9 March.
Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2026
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That the draft Order laid before the House on 2 February be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 9 March.
Electricity and Gas (Energy Company Obligation) (Amendment) (Specified Period) Order 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the draft Order laid before the House on 26 January be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 9 March.
Employment Rights Act 2025 (Investigatory Powers) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 27 January be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 9 March.
Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 29 January be approved.
Relevant document: 51st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 9 March.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:30 - Division on Amendment 387A - Ayes: 215 / Noes: 180 - Amendment 387A agreed.
17:44 - Division on Amendment 387B - Ayes: 227 / Noes: 221 - Amendment 387B agreed.
19:16 - Division on Amendment 391 - Ayes: 163 / Noes: 153 - Amendment 391 agreed.
“Police charges for escorting vehicles or trailers carrying a load of exceptional dimensions(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must, by regulations, establish a framework to regulate the fees charged to hauliers by police forces for escorting a vehicle or trailer carrying a load of exceptional dimensions. (2) The framework under subsection (1) must—(a) include criteria to specify when a police escort is required for vehicles or trailers carrying a load of exceptional dimensions, as opposed to a private self-escort, and(b) set out the fees police forces may charge for escorting vehicles or trailers carrying a load of exceptional dimensions.(3) Police forces may submit applications in writing to the Secretary of State to disapply the fees set by the regulatory framework in extenuating circumstances.(4) The Secretary of State must make a determination within ten days of receiving an application submitted under subsection (3).(5) In this section “vehicle or trailer carrying a load of exceptional dimensions” means a vehicle or trailer the use of which is authorised by an order made under section 44(1)(d) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (authorisation of use on roads of special vehicles not complying with regulations under section 41).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require the Secretary of State to establish a regulatory framework to manage the fees charged to hauliers by police forces for escorting a vehicle or trailer carrying a load of exceptional dimensions.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I fear I am a wholly inadequate substitute for my noble friend Lord Attlee, who has now retired from your Lordships’ House after 35 years of dedicated service. During that time, he raised many important issues relating to haulage, including in Committee on this Bill. While my noble friend was proud to be the only Member of either House of Parliament with an HGV licence, I should admit, with a little shame, that I do not have a driving licence at all. There is perhaps a lesson in that, now that we have passed a Bill to expel our hereditary colleagues, with all their varied areas of expertise, leaving behind former apparatchiks such as me.
I was very glad to support my noble friend’s amendment in Committee and to take up the cudgels now, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, because it is an issue which has a profound impact on many organisations across the cultural, tourism and heritage sectors, not least our heritage railways, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, set out very strongly in Committee. This weekend, he and I had the pleasure of being in Llandudno, in our capacities as president and chairman of the Heritage Railway Association, for the HRA annual awards. These celebrated the extraordinary achievements of charities, small businesses and volunteers of all ages, from every corner of the UK, in keeping this much-loved part of our national heritage thriving in the face of considerable challenges, such as rising costs, employment taxes and more.
I was especially pleased to see such strong representation there from the north-east of England as we celebrated those responsible for marking the 200th anniversary of the first passenger rail journey from Stockton to Darlington in such style, and I was delighted to see the Tanfield Railway, which charts its history back 100 years even further, to the age of horse-driven wagon-ways, become Railway of the Year. That means that a small corner of County Durham now boasts the Museum of the Year, in Beamish, and the Railway of the Year just a few minutes away.
However, one of the things which makes the work of brilliant organisations like these harder is the way that certain police forces manage the movement of abnormal loads on our road network. The movement of most heritage rolling stock between railways is undertaken by road on low loaders. These movements are vital for the galas at which historic locomotives and vintage carriages bring such joy to people of all generations—not to mention inward investment to towns, cities and rural communities—as well as for essential maintenance and repairs. These road movements are undertaken by specialist haulage contractors and sometimes have to be accompanied by a police escort vehicle. The cost of these police escorts is typically between £2,500 and £5,000 per trip, but they can be higher and, in some cases, even exceed the haulier’s charges, with some heritage railways reporting charges that they have seen in excess of £7,000. For many of our heritage railways, which are registered charities or small businesses operating on very tight margins, these costs can be entirely prohibitive.
Moreover, there is widespread inconsistency in the application of these charges, with some police forces charging and others not. Most determine whether a police escort is required based on the weight of the load, but some determine it on the length. In some cases, an escort is required only for a few miles through a particular police force area, with the rest of the journey going unescorted, but a full fee is still applied. To avoid these charges, some hauliers are now making large and unnecessary detours, which add mileage and costs, and increase the environmental impact. In Committee, my noble friend Lord Attlee and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, explained that a particular culprit in this regard is West Midlands Police, which many hauliers have been trying to avoid because of the unhelpful attitudes that it has displayed, but of course that is not very easy given its central location in England.
Following the debates in Committee and the tireless efforts of my noble friend Lord Attlee, the Policing Minister Sarah Jones had a helpful exchange of correspondence with the acting chief constable of West Midlands, underlining the importance of adhering to the guidance issued by the National Police Chiefs’ Council on this matter. We are very grateful to the Minister for writing in the way that she did, and we all hope that her letter and the change of leadership at that force will bring some improvements. However, West Midlands is far from the only force causing dismay with an inconsistent approach or excessive charges. Heritage railways moving loads through Staffordshire, West Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire and parts of Scotland have all reported similar issues to those confronted in the West Midlands.
This is a problem that afflicts many businesses and organisations in every sector. I have heard from the Holiday and Residential Parks Association, which represents the owners and operators of approximately 3,000 holiday, touring and residential parks across the United Kingdom. Its members also have experienced excessive cost increases when transporting static caravans to and from holiday parks, as well as significant delays from an inconsistent application of embargoes by various police forces. Most troublingly, the Holiday and Residential Parks Association says that, despite the publication of revised guidance by the NPCC last summer, it and its members continue to see very little improvement in practice. Given the need for clarity and consistency, this is not a matter which should have rely on the whims of individual police forces or the good offices of the Policing Minister, whoever he or she happens to be at the time.
It is particularly damaging for rural and coastal areas where tourism is one of the major sources of employment. If the Government want to support economic growth across our country, here is a clear area in which they could act to help the growth creators. The Minister has been very helpful in discussing this matter with the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and me. First, can he say what weight the guidance prepared by the National Police Chiefs’ Council carries? What penalties or remedies apply if an individual force do not adhere to it? Secondly, can the Minister set out some of the actions that the West Midlands Police has promised, following the exchange of correspondence between it and the Policing Minister? Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Katz, said in Committee that:
“Introducing a standardised regulatory framework … would also risk undermining the ability of forces to respond flexibly and proportionately to local needs”.—[Official Report, 15/1/26; col. 1953.]
Does he really think it fair that heritage railways or holiday parks in some parts of the country should be treated differently to others, and does he think it right to risk creating the sort of postcode lottery that we have already begun to see?
Amendment 384, which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and I are proud to bring forward on behalf of our noble friend Lord Attlee, and building on his work, does not ask Ministers to intervene in operational matters. It simply requires the Secretary of State to establish a regulatory framework to manage more clearly and consistently the fees that are charged to hauliers when escorting what may be dryly termed in the industry as “abnormal loads”, but which ordinary people across this country would think of as inspiring locomotives, much-loved holiday homes and more besides. I beg to move.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 384, which is similar to the one tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and debated in Committee on 15 January. Police charges for abnormal loads are a cause he very much made his own, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, and I am sorry that his retirement from your Lordships’ House came just a couple of weeks too early for him to be here to move the amendment today.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I am an unworthy substitute for the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, but I am afraid it is one of those occasions when real life catches up with your Lordships’ House; it has stopped her being here today. She supports the amendment. When you start to think about it, it comes under the heading of a no-brainer: there should be a consistent approach. If you are taking on an economic activity to transport something across the country, you should have a rough idea about a consistent approach to transporting it. If you have not, there should be a very good reason. There does not seem to be one, other than it having been decided that they will be charged at this rate.
Heritage railways are a nice cause, but there are more widespread and universal economic impacts from this if you transport goods on our main transport system without incurring extra, sometimes prohibitive costs. It would be comparatively easy for the Government to at least bring them into line and give them some steer as to a realistic level of charge to be placed on them. At the very least, admin considerations around this can be cut down. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that it is all in hand and that the Government have a timetable for making sure anybody involved in this knows what is happening, so that everybody can say “thank you very much” and move on to the next issue.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I too support the amendment. I suggest that if, as I hope, the Minister agrees that regulations are needed, they should not just deal with consistency but impose a substantive limit on the fees to be charged. It seems that in this context, as in many others, the maximum that should be charged is the cost incurred to police forces.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, although the movement of abnormal loads may seem like a niche and marginal activity, my noble friend Lord Attlee, who recently retired from your Lordships’ House, laid out a compelling argument in Committee for why that is not the case. The heavy haulage industry is a vital component of our national infrastructure and construction sectors, yet the framework governing when police escorts are required and how much may be charged for them is inconsistent.
It is wonderful that my noble friend Lord Parkinson has now taken up the mantle on this matter. He began his contribution by outlining his concerns about the use of heavy haulage by the heritage railway industry, an issue also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. The issues are wider than that. In Committee, Earl Attlee spoke with considerable authority on this matter and set out the difficulties that parts of the industry have experienced. In particular, he highlighted the sharp increase in charges in certain areas and the absence of any national framework governing those fees. In some cases, police forces have charged for a full shift of officers, even where the escort itself may take a very short period of time. Industry representatives have raised understandable concerns that such practices can result in costs that far exceed the cost of the haulage operation itself.
The overwhelming majority of police forces apply the relevant legislation in good faith and without difficulty. The problem appears to arise in only a minority of forces, where the absence of national guidance has led to practices that the industry considers disproportionate. The result is uncertainty for hauliers, increased costs for major infrastructure projects and, ultimately, inefficiency within a system that should be operating smoothly.
Therefore, the amendment seeks to ensure that there is a clear national framework. It sets out when police escorts are truly necessary, as opposed to private self-escorts, and would establish a transparent schedule of fees. It also sensibly seeks to allow police forces to apply to the Secretary of State for flexibility in genuinely exceptional circumstances. Put simply, the amendment balances the need for consistency with the operational realities that police forces face. For those reasons, I am grateful both for the tireless campaigning of Earl Attlee and to my noble friend Lord Parkinson for continuing to push the Government on this matter.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I join all the speakers in the debate on this small but important issue in praising the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who, after almost 34 years of service in this House, retired just a few days ago. It would be remiss of me not to join in paying tribute to him, his work and the tenacity with which he pursued this issue, including recruiting the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester to take up the cudgels on his behalf. He was a true champion of the heavy haulage industry. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, said, it is important that we focus on this not just because of the impact on the Heritage Railway Association—as dear as it is to many hearts in your Lordships’ House—but because of the importance it has to our economy, including all the construction and infrastructure that we wish to provide.
Earl Attlee took great pride in being the only Member of your Lordships’ House to hold an HGV licence. I hope that, in his absence, he is pleased to know that that knowledge gap has been bridged in some part by my newly introduced noble friend Lord Roe of West Wickham. By virtue of being a firefighter, he holds—or at least held—an HGV licence for the purpose of driving fire engines. I think that Earl Attlee would have appreciated that.
Moving to the matters before us in the amendments, as noble Lords have explained, the amendment relates to setting criteria specifying when a police escort is required and charges levied by the police for escorting abnormal loads and would require the Secretary of State to establish a framework to regulate such fees. While I recognise that the aim of the amendment is to improve consistency and predictability for operators moving such loads, we do not believe that a new statutory framework is necessary.
Changes have already been made to support greater consistency. In May last year, the National Police Chiefs’ Council published new guidance outlining when police escorts should be provided for abnormal loads. This was developed in collaboration with policing, industry and national highways. The NPCC Abnormal Load Guidance 2025 is the national framework used by all UK police forces to determine whether an escort is required and, if so, whether that escort must be provided by the police or can be undertaken as a self-escort. Furthermore, a national framework setting out charges for escorting these loads already exists. Section 25 of the Police Act 1996 contains a power for the police to recharge the cost of policing in specific circumstances. Fee levels are set out in the guidance on special police services by the NPCC, and this is updated annually.
Introducing a standardised regulatory framework—as I said in Committee, and I will repeat it here—undermines the ability of forces to respond flexibly and proportionately to local needs. We cannot escape this fact. The operational demands placed on police forces by abnormal load movements can differ across the country and are influenced by a range of local factors, including geography, road infrastructure, traffic additions and the availability of police resources.
To be clear, the Government take this issue seriously. As we have heard, following a meeting with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, my colleague, Policing Minister Jones, wrote to West Midlands Police to pass on her concerns. I am grateful for the commendation from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and my noble friend Lord Faulkner, of that correspondence. As a result, I understand that West Midlands Police is undertaking an independent, expert evaluation to assess the force’s compliance systems and processes against the NPCC guidance.
It is important to allow time for the recent guidance to have effect before considering further action. Furthermore, to ensure that it remains fit for purpose, the NPCC has committed to formally review its abnormal loads guidance 12 months after publication; that is, in May of this year—a couple of months’ time.
I understand noble Lords’ concerns around the adherence of police forces to this guidance. Therefore, I can confirm that the Government will write to the NPCC following Royal Assent of the Bill to remind forces of the need to follow the guidance I have mentioned.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and, in the same spirit, my noble friend Lord Faulkner asked what weight could be given to the guidance issued by the NPCC and what actions might be pursued by West Midlands Police as a consequence. As I have already said, West Midlands Police is undertaking a review. This is NPCC guidance, which it is itself reviewing to make sure that it remains current and responsive to issues that emerge over time.
There is always a balance between having inflexible statutory guidance, inflexible statutory regulation and guidance that is operated locally. We are currently on the side of the latter. Within that, this is national guidance. Police forces will pay great attention to that. They will pay even greater attention to the idea that, to quote my noble friend Lord Faulkner, the Policing Minister is “on the case” with this. With respect, I think that is an appropriate level of intervention. The Government are aware that it is an important issue. We will always keep our eyes on it and make sure that we can have a level of scrutiny to ensure that police forces behave respectfully toward hauliers while maintaining their local operational independence.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I am very grateful to the Minister. Will the letter that the Minister mentioned make the point that it is unacceptable in principle for police forces to seek to make a profit via the imposition of these fees?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I would need to go back and check on the correspondence for the noble Lord, but this is about making sure that this is covering costs, rather than anything else.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Pannick, the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, in her absence, as well as to my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for their support on the amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, for the engagement that we had in recent days and for the meetings he had before that with my noble friend Lord Attlee. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, this ought to be a no-brainer. We need consistency from police forces, and we have not seen that. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, rightly added that it is important that industry and all the sectors affected see that, where charges are applied, it is merely to cover legitimate costs and not a useful revenue stream for police forces, as many suspect it has become.
“Wearing a face covering while cycling(1) A constable may stop any person to whom subsection (2) applies.(2) This subsection applies to a person who wears a face covering while cycling or riding a scooter in such a way as to conceal their identity.(3) Where a constable has exercised the power under subsection (1), the constable may also require the person to remove the face covering.(4) A person who fails to stop when required to do so by a constable in the exercise of their powers under this section commits an offence.(5) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale (or both).”
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, the amendment was tabled by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and I have attached my name to it. Before I move on to it, I want briefly to indicate my support for the excellent amendment in this group tabled by my noble friend Lady Buscombe, Amendment 387A, which would give regulatory authorities greater powers to tackle illegal activity that is afflicting many villages, towns and cities in our country and, in particular, is impacting the amenity and quality of life in residential and commercial areas. I very much hope that the House is predisposed to support that amendment.
Amendment 385 seeks to get around the problem of cyclists hiding themselves from the public by covering their faces when breaking the law. It would give police officers the power to stop individuals while wearing a face covering. Following an intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, in Committee, my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe also provided that a constable may require the person to remove the face covering.
I think it is fair to say that many of us have been disappointed by the Government’s response so far to all the amendments on cycling, e-bikes and e-scooters, and to our efforts to use the Bill to destroy the business model that makes mobile phone thefts so profitable and attractive to criminals. I do not seek to relitigate our debate last week on mobile phone theft, but I hope that your Lordships’ House can understand the context in which I am moving the amendment in my noble friend’s name.
My noble friend Lord Davies of Gower said from our Front Bench in Committee:
“I task any Member of the Committee to watch footage of these phone thefts and deny that there is a problem with face coverings and bikes. Face coverings mean that they are not detected by CCTV, while electric bikes, often modified, mean that the victim has no chance of chasing and retrieving the stolen property”.—[Official Report, 20/1/26; col. 163.]
Our city streets now teem with men—they are usually men—on fast cycles, electric bikes and scooters, whose faces are, even in summer, hidden by balaclavas or ski masks. This feels hostile even if it is not, especially if it is accompanied by loud music or shouts of, “Get out of the way”. Often, the intentions of such concealment are malign; at best, they are hurrying to make fast-food deliveries and endangering people like me who are using the pavement for its proper purpose.
I must stress that we are not talking about this being a London-only issue. For example, newspaper reports show that, in Darlington, there were hundreds of complaints last year about youths on bikes wearing balaclavas and riding recklessly in groups around pedestrians, which is appalling—especially for the elderly or infirm. We need to put a stop to all of this. We need a new power, and we need it now, rather than waiting while the problem grows.
I should make it clear that I am not against cycling or the wearing of masks, scarves or helmets. This is not a prohibition. I merely want the police to have the powers they need to take action where they suspect that a crime is being committed. The powers in the Public Order Act to remove face coverings in designated areas or for local authorities to make public space protection orders—these were mentioned by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Katz, in winding up—are inadequate. They may be useful for hotspots such as Oxford Circus— I strongly support such use—but they ignore the fact that cycle crime is widespread and undermining faith in both the police and the Government.
The Minister of State, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, later argued in our debate on Report on 4 March that mobile phone theft is coming down a bit: it is down by 12% under this Government. I concede that—it is good news—but it is still at an appalling level, making life miserable for tens of thousands of victims. I made the point that, in 2023, there were 4,985 cases of robbery and theft of a mobile phone in London alone, using a motorcycle or an e-bike, and that a face covering was worn in more than 1,000 of those incidents.
We have also heard that the Department for Transport is planning legislation on what it likes to call “micro-mobility”. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, suggested, such legislation could in practice take another two years; in fact, it could take longer to secure a legislative slot. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe made the point that, when the Food Safety Act was passed, during which time she was a civil servant, it had been waiting for a slot for nearly 10 years; that was until Edwina Currie created a crisis and it became a political priority. In short, we cannot wait.
Moreover, this Bill is the right vehicle for this amendment on face coverings because it concerns the enforcement of criminal law by the police, rather than controls on cyclists, cycles and e-bikes per se. Countries such as Switzerland, France and Denmark are reported to have proscribed facial coverings in public spaces. I am not seeking to go that far.
To summarise, this amendment would allow a police officer—but not other enforcement officers, it should be noted—to stop a person cycling or riding a scooter who is wearing a face covering in such a way as to conceal their identity, and to require them to remove it. It would not ban such face coverings. The penalty would be a level-3 fine of up to £1,000 or imprisonment not exceeding one month.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe tackled this matter gently in Committee, hoping that the Minister would take the opportunity to bring forward a government amendment on Report. In the absence of a more positive response, I would normally have been minded to test the opinion of the House, but, in the interests of the expeditious transaction of House business, I will not do so. I beg to move.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 386 seeks to enable police officers, after a lawful stop, to ask a member of the public to exit the vehicle. I support the work of the Police Federation of England and Wales, and I have tabled this amendment for four obvious reasons.
First, the amendment seeks to close a clear operational gap. In a world of keyless and electric vehicles, removing the key no longer guarantees that the vehicle is disabled. Officers need a law to reflect this reality. Secondly, the amendment would create a modest and practical power, not a sweeping new stop power. It would apply only after a lawful stop has taken place and would allow officers to control the scene more safely. Thirdly, it is about the safety of officers, passengers and the wider public. Requiring occupants to exit a live vehicle can reduce the risk of sudden flight, injury, interference with evidence and escalation at the roadside. Fourthly, the amendment contains proper safeguards. The tests of reasonableness and proportionality are built in, and the Secretary of State may issue guidance linked to the PACE codes.
This is a sensible, limited and necessary amendment that I hope the House will support. We are now living in an era when many police officers and members of the public are being harmed, because people can simply drive away as police officers do not have the right to make the situation safe by asking them to step out of the car. I have been through the reasons why this is a proportionate and useful amendment that fills a gap that needs to be filled. I commend it to the House.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 387A. Let me begin by explaining the reason and intent behind this simple amendment. On 20 January, further to an Urgent Question regarding business rates in the hospitality sector, I asked,
“are any of the many thousands of Turkish barbers, as they are so called, vape shops and nail bars—which are all cash only and which have infected our villages, towns and cities—paying any business rates? … We know that most of them are about money laundering, organised crime and county lines drugs”.
In his response, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, stated:
“I agree with a great deal of what the noble Baroness says. HMRC has announced substantial measures to crack down on some of the businesses she mentioned, and I think she will have seen several of them closing in recent months. She is quite right that more needs to be done”. ”.—[Official Report, 20/1/26; col. 139.]
The Labour MP Joe Powell stated recently:
“The crackdown on dodgy shops across the country is something the public cares deeply about. Our high streets are being hollowed out by illegitimate businesses that often don’t pay the tax they owe, sell illicit goods and have links to serious organised crime. That has real consequences for those that play by the rules, and for communities fed up with seeing illegal activity in plain sight”.
In response to an Oral Question on 5 March in your Lordships’ House regarding growth in cash-only businesses, the Labour Peer, the noble Lord, Lord Watts —to whom I have given notice that I will be referencing him in this debate—stated that the businesses
“are not there for the customers’ benefit but, in some cases, for the business to avoid tax and other things”.
The noble Lord, Lord Livermore, in response, stated that
“the Government are very aware ... HMRC has recently engaged in increased enforcement activity around those exact points”. —[Official Report, 5/3/26; col. 1415.]
There is clearly cross-party support for the intention behind this amendment. In addition, I have been informed that the Chartered Trading Standards Institute very much supports this amendment, stating that it would be extremely helpful to the trading standards profession and other enforcement agencies. If ever there was a case for sharing intelligence across Whitehall and HMRC together with the Home Office, the National Crime Agency and trading standards, this is it.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 385, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and Amendment 386 from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey. On Amendment 385, masks on cyclists are a difficult area. We all know that cyclists wear masks for reasons of keeping their mouth warm when it is cold. Not everybody who covers their face is a criminal. However, it is clear that some groups of criminals are wearing masks to avoid detection, which the amendment intends to address.
The point I raised in Committee is that, obviously, an officer already has the power to stop any vehicle, so they can stop any cycle without the cyclist having to wear a mask, or for any other reason. My only point is that, if you intend to give this power, there is not much point in having the power if you do not have the power to ask them to remove their mask. So there are difficulties with it, but that is where my support is.
The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, makes a good point. For as long as I was a police officer, when you stopped vehicles, you always asked them to take the ignition key out to make sure that you did not get run over and they did not run off. But now, if they do not have the key in, the car still goes. Just as importantly, you are always wary of what they are sitting on—a gun, knife or whatever else it might be—so getting them out of the car can be helpful. But I have to say that have been times when they were so big I kept them in the car. There are times when you use discretion.
All that said, I think it is a good amendment when we consider the changes in vehicle design, and it is worth the Government thinking seriously about it.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I have real reservations about Amendment 385, which I am afraid I cannot support. I am glad that my noble friend is not thinking of testing the opinion of the House.
I speak as a cyclist and I fear, for the reason touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, that what is proposed in Amendment 385 is likely to damage relations between the police and innocent cyclists. The truth is that, when bicycling, we all wear a variety of things that are capable of disguising our identity. I did this morning. One always wears a helmet, very frequently one wears goggles or spectacles, either as sunglasses or to keep the rain out, and when it is cold one wears a ski mask or scarf around the bottom of one’s mouth. All these things are capable of concealing one’s identity. I saw several people doing this today when I was bicycling in from King’s Cross. This will damage relations between the police and innocent cyclists.
I ask, rhetorically, what kind of person is the police officer likely to stop? Most probably, I suspect, it will be a person from an ethnic minority, who may be young too. Anybody who has been in Parliament as long as I have knows the trouble that you have from stop and search. That is proportionate, because the carrying of weapons is a serious risk. I acknowledge that it is perfectly correct that cyclists on occasion conceal themselves in order to seize bags and mobiles—that is true—but the remedy is disproportionate.
Furthermore, the amendment gives rise to an interesting question of principle. If it is right to impose this restriction in respect of cyclists, what about motorcyclists? They come into exactly the same category and are perfectly capable of snatching a bag or mobile, and most of them now have visors over their helmets. So, what are you going to do about that?
My own view is that, yes, there is a problem, but this is a disproportionate remedy. It will impact on innocent cyclists, as I venture to describe myself, and it will damage relationships between the police and the cycling community. I was very glad to hear that my noble friend indicated he will not test the opinion of the House because, had he done so, I would have voted against him.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I hear the concerns of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, about Amendment 385. It would confer a power on a constable to stop a cyclist without any basis, reasonable or otherwise, to suspect that they are committing an offence or are about to commit an offence, when they may have, as the noble Viscount said, a perfectly good reason to be wearing a face mask. They may have influenza, which they do not wish to share with others, or they may be concerned to avoid diesel or petrol fumes on the road. Moreover, the amendment would confer an unrestricted power on the constable to require the person concerned to remove the face covering, with the sanction of a fine or imprisonment, without any requirement on the constable to consider whether that individual has a proper reason for wearing a face mask and without any defence of reasonable excuse. I too could not support such an amendment.
In Amendment 387A, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, made a powerful case about the mischief which afflicts local communities. My only concern is whether her proposed new clause would do much, if anything, to address this real mischief. The remedy would still depend on enforcement action by local authorities or the police, and would still depend on evidence which is difficult to obtain. I appreciate that police forces are independent, but the Government need to do all they can to encourage them to take action to deal with these problems. If that requires further resources then they should have further resources, but it should be a priority for effective policing.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Buscombe in the thrust of what she is seeking to achieve with her Amendment 387A. I do not think I heard my noble friend say that this would be a panacea or the answer to this complex situation, which clearly needs a multi-agency response. There seems to be a widespread agreement or understanding that there has recently been a substantial proliferation of essentially cash-only businesses on our high streets for nefarious purposes.
Many businesses may well be totally legitimate and carrying on as they have done for many years, but, as one example, in a town not very far away from where I live in the West Country, I recently counted 10 barbers or nail bars in a relatively short street. There are not enough nails or hair within that area, when, only a couple of years ago, approximately two would have sufficed. Either there has been a massive demand by the locals for these services or there are other motives. It seems clear that the police, trading standards and the Government know what is going on.
It is incumbent on the Minister, when he replies to the debate, to acknowledge the scale of what is happening and to give the House an indication of how a truly multi-agency and tough, robust approach will be taken to this issue to nip it in the bud. Where the public see acceptance of widespread law-breaking, there needs to be action for the law to continue to be respected.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I have some sympathy with the noble Lord Jackson, especially around people stealing mobile phones. However, when I read proposed new subsection (2), about people covering their face to stop identification, I thought that the problem about that was the same as my noble friend Lord Pannick mentioned. I used to cycle a great deal and I always wore a scarf, partly because of fumes, as he said, but because I seemed to be ingesting a vast number of insects and found this really rather objectionable, whether I had had lunch or not. For that reason, I am rather worried about this amendment.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 385 is the face covering amendment, in which I note that motorcyclists strangely are not covered but scooter riders are. I am not sure I see the need for a new general stand-alone police power to require someone to stop, and I see real dangers in requiring someone to remove a face covering.
The police already have, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, referred to, a discretionary power under Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to require any motorist or anybody propelling a mechanical vehicle or a cycle to stop—and a mechanical vehicle would include motor scooters and motorcycles. That power is very wide. It is generally considered to be directed to enable the police to conduct traffic checks. That is perceived as part of the compact between Governments and road users: if you use the roads, the corollary is that police officers can require you to stop as part of performing their function of regulating the traffic. An extra power to stop is entirely unnecessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has rightly drawn attention to the specific case of mobile phone theft, reckless riding, riding on the pavements and so forth, but his amendment does not refer to the need for a reasonable suspicion that anyone required to remove a face covering is committing a crime. It seems to me that that was the point alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and ought to be an essential part of any new offence. As has been pointed out inventively, lots of people wear face coverings on cycles or scooters. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, referred to the need to keep warm, and others referred to the need to avoid fumes.
In terms of wearing helmets which conceal identity, there is the safety aspect. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, considered the avoidance of germs, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, had additional and inventive reasons for wearing face coverings, including the avoidance of ingesting insects. However, the serious point is that there can be dangers and there can be fear caused by people nefariously covering their faces. If there is a reasonable suspicion of crime, then that may be a reason for taking action. Without that, this amendment is hopeless. For my part, I am not happy when delivery drivers call at people’s homes completely covered up, because you never know whether their purposes are honest or not. At least a home owner can refuse ingress, but I would not support a general power to prevent people from wearing face coverings or a power to stop that was specifically directed at that.
On Amendment 386, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, it may have surprised some of us that police officers do not have a power to ensure that keys are taken out of ignitions, and that this amendment was directed at keyless or driverless cars. I should have thought, along with the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, that it was sensible for police officers to ask people to get out of cars if they think that the cars that they have already stopped under Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act ought to be vacated in the interests of public safety and the avoidance of crime. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, that sometimes it is sensible not to get them to get out of the car if they look particularly big or threatening; nevertheless, I see the reason for this amendment, but I would have thought it goes wider than driverless or keyless cars.
As to Amendment 387A from the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, I suspect that the whole House has a great deal of sympathy with her speech about organised criminal networks and driving unacceptable businesses from our streets, villages and towns—she even covered the quiet lanes in our villages—but her amendment, on which I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is not directed to anything that would necessarily achieve a great deal in respect of driving that kind of illegitimate or non-tax-paying business from our streets. The amendment is limited to extending the existing periods of closure notices and closure orders. For my part, before that amendment could be approved, I would want to see serious evidence that it would have some impact on these offences. I would also like to hear the Government’s view. At the moment, there is very little evidence as to why the existing periods for closure notices and closure orders are insufficient.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, and also addressing the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I am concerned that the noble Lords feel, “What’s the point?” That is one of the reasons we are where we are in this country, which is in a terrible place. What I am suggesting is a small amendment that would make it a bit more of a deterrent to these guys; to start making life more difficult for them; to extend these closure orders so that we are being a little more efficient about use of police time and our courts. We are hearing that we are going to lose our juries because of lack of court time. This is an example where, if we had longer periods of closure, it would allow our enforcement agencies to actually start doing something other than just the few attacks that Machinize has carried out so far. We need to find as many opportunities as possible within the criminal justice system to start taking this on. What message will it send to the public if we do not bother to do some of the easy bits to get this going?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I will just say that was quite a long intervention, particularly for Report stage.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I will answer very briefly, and perhaps on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, as well, because I suspect that what we are saying is roughly the same. I am entirely with the noble Baroness on the question of juries, and on the question of needing to do something to reduce the kind of crime, particularly by organised criminal gangs, happening in our villages, towns and streets. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about the need for more resources for policing. But the problem with the noble Baroness’s amendment is that there is no evidence that I can see, or that has been shown to us, that extending these periods would do anything significant to reduce crime.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, Lord Bailey of Paddington and Lady Buscombe for their amendments.
Amendment 385 in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoken to by my noble friend Lord Jackson today, would, as we have heard, grant the police powers to stop a person riding a bike and wearing a face covering, and then require them to remove that. The context of this is the epidemic of phone theft. The United Kingdom now accounts for almost 40% of Europe’s phone thefts despite being only 10% of the market. In London, there is one mobile phone theft every seven and a half minutes. It is to that issue that my noble friend Lord Jackson is directing his amendment. He has pinpointed what I think we all accept is a very serious issue: the actions of intimidating masked cyclists stealing mobile phones. He set out ably the rationale for his amendment, although when doing so he indicated that he did not intend to test the opinion of the House.
Amendment 387A from my noble friend Lady Buscombe seeks to amend powers relating to closure notices and closure orders. As other noble Lords have recognised, the character of our high streets has changed dramatically over the past decade. Alongside the pressures of online retail and the economic challenges facing traditional business, we have seen the proliferation of premises that appear at best dubious and at worst directly connected to organised criminal activity. The scale of the problem should concern us all. We all know the types of shops at issue here; they appear almost overnight in our cities and towns’ prime retail locations, often with few customers but somehow able to sustain some of the highest rents in the country. Investigations by local authorities have uncovered counterfeit goods, illegal tobacco, unregulated vapes and sometimes sweets containing additives banned under UK food standards.
The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Buscombe proposes to alter the powers contained in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 by extending the duration of closure notices from 48 hours to seven days, and the maximum period for closure orders from three months to 12 months. As my noble friend said so powerfully this afternoon, there are many institutions in support of this, notably the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, which has been calling out for greater powers to tackle rogue retailers.
The present legal framework provides tools to deal with such premises, but in practice the existing time limits are often insufficient. A closure notice lasting only 48 hours may simply delay the problem rather than solve it. Criminals can wait out short closure periods, reopen under an altered business name and transfer activities elsewhere before enforcement agencies have time to complete the necessary investigations. Similarly, a closure order lasting a maximum of three months may be inadequate where organised criminal networks are involved. By the time the order expires, the underlying criminal structure remains intact, ready to resume operations.
I fully recognise that the current periods were set out by the previous Conservative Government in 2014, but the passage of time—12 years since then—has demonstrated that more needs to be done to restore our high streets and communities, and to end the scourge of criminality blighting them both. Surely the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Buscombe is a step in the right direction and if she wishes to divide the House, she will have our full support.
As we have heard, my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington’s Amendment 386 addresses a practical and important issue. It has arisen from the evolution of modern vehicle technology and the difficulties police officers face on the front line. As he said, modern vehicles can remain powered even when drivers exit. The absence of a physical key means that officers cannot rely on the traditional safeguards that once existed. My noble friend’s amendment would provide officers with a clear statutory basis to direct drivers to exit the vehicle and remain outside while the stop is dealt with. It would also allow the Secretary of State to issue guidance or codes of practice to ensure that power is exercised consistently and appropriately.
For these reasons, I hope that the Minister gives careful consideration to that amendment and to all amendments in this group. I look forward to his response.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords for tabling these amendments. I will speak to each in turn.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, moved Amendment 385 on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I remind noble Lords about the Government’s winter of action that took place over the Christmas period, between the beginning of December and the end of January. That complemented a summer campaign that focused particularly on the issues that the noble Lord mentioned, namely anti-social behaviour and mobile phone theft. As the noble Lord mentioned in his introductory comments, the actions that we took over that 12-month period resulted in a 12% fall in mobile phone theft in London. That is still not good enough; it needs to fall further. It is a horrendous crime that is damaging to tourism and to the individual, but there has been a fall in the first year of this Government due to the hotspot action that we took. The winter and summer action campaigns took place in 650 town centres across the country, and were supported by additional resources from local police forces to deal with this issue. We know that we will see more analyst data in the coming months as to the impact of that action.
My point echoes some of the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames. The Government’s road safety strategy was published on 7 January and sets out commitments to increase robust enforcement of road traffic laws to protect road users. It is under the auspices of the Department for Transport and indicates an important role for the police to play in taking action against the type of behaviour that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is concerned about.
As I stated in Committee, the police have a suite of powers under existent legislation to tackle street crime facilitated by bicycles and scooters and, as the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and Lord Pannick, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, have mentioned, to address the use of face coverings intended to conceal identity. I encourage the police to make full use of those powers, especially in the crime hotspots that we have identified. Section 60AA of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, for example, permits the police to require individuals to remove face coverings in designated areas, so the police could designate a particular areas, such as a high street, where they believe crime is likely to take place. In those areas, the police have the powers under that legislation to remove face coverings.
There is a range of reasons for wearing a face covering that I am not going to pray in aid. Those were made very strongly by the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Pannick, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. They focused on weather, ill health, fumes, and the added protein of insects going into the mouth of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton. These are all valid reasons. They are not ones I pray in aid strongly today, because the legislation is there.
This includes Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, referred to. It provides for anybody driving a motor vehicle or riding a bicycle to stop if directed to do so by a constable. Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 permits police to seize motor vehicles that are being used in an anti-social manner. Furthermore, Section 165A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 permits police to seize motor vehicles. That includes, in this case, e-scooters being driven without an appropriate licence or insurance. I encourage the police to use those powers. Public space protection orders can also be used. Therefore, there are reasonable powers on the statute book that can be used to meet the objectives of the noble Lord’s amendment.
I turn to Amendment 386, from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington. I said in Committee that I have a lot of sympathy with this amendment, and it is supported by the Police Federation. I want to see police officers doing their vital job. As I mentioned, we recently published the road safety strategy. The consultation on that strategy includes proposed changes to penalties for motoring offences and specific proposals on the existing offence of failing to stop and report following a collision. It also seeks views on related measures around compliance when drivers are stopped by the police—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. The Department for Transport is considering the results of that consultation and aims to respond when it closes on 11 May. I encourage noble Lords to refer this debate to that consultation.
I have great sympathy with the amendment. I want to ensure that police officers have the necessary tools to enforce our road traffic laws and make our roads safe, but I ask the noble Lord to wait for the outcome of the consultation. Following the consultation, there will be areas that we could potentially take forward at some point when legislative time allows.
I turn next to Amendment 387A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. I say straightaway that she raises an important point. Not all the businesses that she mentioned are criminal outlets, but there are a number of businesses that are potentially involved in criminality. The new high streets task force is looking at whether the current data sharing between agencies supporting enforcement teams is appropriate as we want to maximise our response.
In the summer, the Government will publish a new anti-money laundering and asset recovery strategy that will set out further ambitious measures to strengthen our fight against money laundering, including better sharing and exploitation of financial information. Further, the Home Office has a cross-government high streets illegality task force that is developing strategic long-term policy to respond to money laundering and associated illegality in UK high streets, including forms of economic crime that the noble Baroness mentioned, as well as tax evasion, illegal working, systematic vulnerabilities that criminals exploit, and issues to do with HMRC and trading standards.
In the summer of last year, I had the great honour of attending a raid in Birkenhead, in Merseyside. HMRC, the National Crime Agency, Merseyside Police and trading standards raided a premises that was allegedly—I use that word because I am not sure whether the matter has come to court yet—defrauding HMRC, selling illegal goods and purporting to be a legitimate business when it was not. That raid was perfectly reasonable, so action is currently being taken.
I say to the noble Baroness, and to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, who supported a similar level of action, that the Government are trying to design a number of actions to drive out illegal businesses in a range of ways. As the noble Baroness said, they undercut legitimate businesses, reduce government tax revenue and illegally employ people. That is not good or acceptable, and we need to take action. The question is whether the noble Baroness’s amendment to increase the duration of closure notices from 48 hours to seven days, and closure orders from three months to 12 months, would assist in that process.
In Clause 3, we are, as the noble Baroness knows, increasing the duration of closure notices from 48 to 72 hours. That gives the police and others time to investigate initially. If her proposal was taken, does she think that having more empty premises on the high street or in a village for 12 or six months is good for the high street as a whole? I am not sure that it is. We do need to drive out illegality, and I accept that there is illegality going on, but I hope I have pointed out the challenges we have. The increase to 72 hours in the Bill will help address operational challenges and give agencies more time to progress an application for a closure order and to protect any victims and the community in the interim while a closure order is sought.
The closure power itself, as the noble Baroness will accept, is a very powerful tool and routinely used in a housing context to protect the most vulnerable. I argue that the extension to 72 hours in Clause 3 is sufficient to provide respite to victims and to the community from anti-social behaviour. Closure orders are intended to provide short-term relief, which is why we are increasing their duration only by a further 24 hours. I say to the noble Baroness that, while a closure notice cannot prohibit access to anyone who habitually lives on the premises, a closure order can. Closure orders are intended as temporary, targeted measures, not long-term sanctions, but I accept that there is a real issue that needs to be addressed and I hope it can be with the measures I have outlined. What the Government are doing now, on a cross-government basis with HMRC, the Home Office, the police, the National Crime Agency and trading standards locally, is trying to root out where that illegality takes place, and further action will be taken in due course.
I hope that, with those reassurances, despite the support of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, the noble Baroness will not press her amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for his indication that he is not going to press his and I hope that the assurances I have given and the favourable view I have of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, will allow us to complete a proper consultation on that point and that he will not press his amendment, either.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this very interesting debate, and thank in particular my noble friend Lord Goschen and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, with his interesting intervention in the debate. I reassure my noble friend Lord Hailsham that these are permissive, discretionary powers, not blanket ban powers, and they are targeted at a particular subset of criminals. There is clearly a quantum difference between people passing through a locale who are dressed to cycle on the public highway and those who are flooding the zone on e-bikes, dressed in black, with helmets and face coverings, with a rucksack, who may wish to rob a shop or assault someone by snatching their mobile telephone. With all due respect to my noble friend, I think his concern is misplaced, but I fully respect the arguments he made.
I also thank the Minister. We have had a lot of debate on this issue, and I am partially reassured by the measures that the Government have brought forward that are currently in train. I hope that we can return to this issue, not least the breaking of the mobile phone theft model that organised crime is engaged in. In the meantime, as I indicated, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Bailey of Paddington
“Direction to exit vehicle following a lawful stop(1) Where a constable in uniform, or a traffic officer, has required a vehicle to stop under section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (power of police to stop vehicles), the constable may direct the driver and any passenger to— (a) exit the vehicle, and(b) remain outside the vehicle for so long as is reasonably necessary for the exercise of the constable’s functions.(2) A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, that person fails to comply with a direction given under subsection (1).(3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.(4) A constable may use reasonable force, where necessary and proportionate, to secure compliance with a direction given under subsection (1) for the purposes of officer safety, public safety, or prevention of escape or interference with evidence.(5) The Secretary of State may issue codes of practice or guidance relating to the exercise of powers under this section and such codes may be incorporated into Codes of Practice issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.(6) In this section “vehicle” has the same meaning as in section 185 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment closes an operational safety gap created by keyless and electric vehicles, where removing a key no longer disables a car. It provides a modest, post-stop direction power so officers can safely manage encounters outside a live vehicle. Safeguards are built in through reasonableness, proportionality and PACE-linked guidance.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
I thank the Minister for his answer. I am partially sated by what he said about the consultation that is coming along, but we all know that consultations can take for ever, and we may not get the outcome that I am seeking. I want to make the point that we have already had officers in London and in Essex injured by people deciding to drive away. In most other jurisdictions across the western world, this law has been put in place because they have already had deaths. I think it is just a matter of time before an officer is seriously hurt if we do not address this issue. But, as I said, the Minister was very generous in his answer and has given a way forward. I accept that way forward, so I shall not move my amendment.
Baroness Buscombe
“Duration of closure notices and orders: extension(1) The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 is amended as follows.(2) In section 77 (duration of closure notices)—(a) in subsection (2), for “48 hours” substitute “7 days”, and(b) in subsection (3), for “48 hours” substitute “7 days”.(3) In section 80(6) (power of court to make closure order), for “3” substitute “12”.(4) In section 82 (extension of closure orders)—(a) in subsection (7), for “3” substitute “12”, and(b) for subsection (8) substitute— “(8) The period of a closure order may be extended for another 12 months after the original extended 12 month period has elapsed, and there is no maximum duration of the closure order.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would extend the period in which the police and the magistrates’ courts may make closure notices and closure orders, to 7 days and 12 months respectively.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief. I heard what the Minister said and I support everything that the Government are trying to do to attack the scourge on our society, and all our villages and towns. I am sorry to say that the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Pannick, seem rather defeatist. If this is not a panacea—which it is not—it is a nudge to keep us finding different ways to intimidate these people and say to them, “Stop doing this and destroying our villages, towns and cities”. I thank my noble friend Lord Goschen and my noble friend on the Front Bench for their support and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Young of Acton
“Abolition of non-crime hate incidents (No.2)(1) Non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs) must not be recognised as a category of incident by any police authority in the United Kingdom.(2) No police authority or police officer may record, retain or otherwise process any personal data relating to a NCHI.(3) Subsection (2) does not mean a police authority or police officer cannot record, retain or otherwise process an incident that is relevant for the prevention or detection of a crime, or for another policing purpose, provided it complies with incident recording guidance issued by the College of Policing or the Secretary of State.(4) Guidance in relation to incident recording must have due regard to the right to freedom of expression.(5) Any historic records of NCHIs which do not meet the incident recording threshold as set out in guidance issued by the College of Policing or the Secretary of State, must —(a) not be disclosed in a Disclosure and Barring Service check;(b) be deleted upon discovery.(6) For the purposes of this section—“non-crime hate incident” means any incident or alleged incident which does not constitute a criminal offence, but is perceived, by any person, to have been motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility or prejudice towards a person or group on the grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, sex or transgender identity;“police authority” means a body specified in section 174(1);“police officer” means any person acting under the authority of a police authority.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would end the investigation and recording of non-crime hate incidents and ensure that any future incident recording guidance has due regard to the right to freedom of expression.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Strasburger, for co-sponsoring this amendment. I was disappointed to learn that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has apparently changed his mind. In Committee, he said:
“I support this amendment as a necessary check on the expansion of the surveillance state”.—[Official Report, 20/1/26; col. 177.]
I urge your Lordships to support this amendment because placing a statutory limit on what non-crimes the police can investigate you for and record against your name is in the interests not just of my noble friends on this side of the House, some of whom have had non-crime hate incidents recorded against them, but of noble Lords opposite and the Liberal Democrats. We must remember that the political wind can change. It is in your Lordships’ interests to place a statutory limit on what the police can investigate and record as non-crimes. It is in all our interests, and it really should be put on a statutory footing. For that reason, I intend to divide the House.
Baroness D'Souza
“Amendment to the Sentencing Act 2020 to introduce public interest compensation orders(1) The Sentencing Act 2020 is amended as follows.(2) After section 133(b) (compensation orders), insert“, or(c) to make a payment to one or more relevant organisations for public interest or social purposes (“public interest compensation order”).(2) In this Chapter, “relevant organisation” means an organisation listed in Schedule 5A (relevant organisations for public interest compensation orders).”(3) After section 135 (making a compensation order), insert—“135A Public interest compensation orders(1) When convicting a person of a relevant offence, the court shall consider whether to issue a public interest compensation order, and what the terms of that order should be.(2) In this section “relevant offence” means an offence listed in Schedule 5B (relevant offences for public interest compensation orders).(3) The Secretary of State may by order amend the relevant offences listed in Schedule 5B.(4) In determining whether to make a public interest compensation order against an offender, the amount to be paid under such an order, or to which relevant organisations the payments should be made, the court must, in addition to the factor in section 135(3), have regard to—(a) the rights of victims of human rights violations (inside or outside the United Kingdom) to receive effective reparation and remedy,(b) the fact that individuals who are not proven to be direct victims of the offender’s offence may nevertheless be victims of human rights violations to which the offender’s offence is related,(c) the broader impact of the offender’s offence on victims of human rights violations in the United Kingdom or in other countries, (d) where there is a large number of victims of human rights violations to which the offender’s offence is related, the urgency of victims’ needs (which may vary depending on the harms that they have suffered),(e) where the relevant offence is an offence under regulations imposed under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, the purposes of the relevant regulations and any human rights violations arising in connection with conduct that these regulations seek to discourage, and(f) whether it would be appropriate to make another type of compensation order and, if so, whether the offender has sufficient means to pay both orders, as well as the need to prioritise compensation to direct victims of the offender’s offence.(5) If the court considers issuing a public interest compensation order, the court may (but is not required to) ask the Secretary of State to recommend the relevant organisations to which the funds subject to the order should be paid and if the court makes such a request—(a) the Secretary of State shall, within 90 days (the “relevant period”), recommend to the court in writing one or more organisations to which the funds subject to the order should be paid (the “recommendation”) and in doing so, the Secretary of State must have regard to the same factors as under subsection (4) above;(b) the court may issue a public interest compensation order after the earlier of—(i) the court having received a recommendation, and(ii) the relevant period having expired;(c) if a recommendation has been made within the relevant period, the court may take it into account in issuing a public interest compensation order but shall not be bound by it.(6) The court may direct that confiscated funds be paid to a relevant organisation subject to such conditions as it considers appropriate.(7) The Secretary of State may by order amend the organisations listed in Schedule 5A and the Secretary of State shall review the organisations listed in Schedule 5A at least annually.(8) If, under subsection (5) above, the Secretary of State recommends one or more organisations that are not listed in Schedule 5B, the organisations recommended by the Secretary of State shall be considered relevant organisations for the purposes of the public interest compensation order at issue.(9) For the purposes of this section, a court may issue a public interest compensation order regardless of whether there is a direct connection between the offender’s conduct and the harm suffered by the ultimate recipients or beneficiaries of the public interest compensation order.”(4) After Schedule 5 (Breach, revocation and amendment of reparation order), insert the following new Schedule—“Schedule 5ARelevant organisations for public interest compensation ordersThe following organisations—The Trust Fund for Victims, created by the Assembly of States Parties in accordance with article 79 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.The Register of Damage Caused by the Aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, established within the framework of the Council of Europe by Resolution CM/Res(2023)3, or any successor body or attached fund. The United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, established by the United Nations General Assembly through resolution 36/151 of 16 December 1981.”(5) After Schedule 5A (Relevant organisations for public interest compensation orders), insert the following new Schedule—“Schedule 5BRelevant offences for public interest compensation ordersThe following offences to the extent that they are offences under the law of England and Wales—Offences arising under regulations imposed under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to amend the Sentencing Act 2020. It would allow the courts to award compensation orders not only to individuals but also for public interest or social purposes, thereby enabling the proceeds of confiscated criminal assets to be more readily used to compensate victims of offences under the UK’s sanctions legislation.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Banner, I shall move the amendment, although my defence of it will be less than perfect, given that I have only just seen it. However, I must first thank the Minister for having kindly organised a meeting between the noble Lord and officials at the Home Office in order to discuss the Bill. That was extremely useful and important.
I support the Bill and am trying to find quickly the reason why I support these amendments. They would enable the courts to award compensation to public interest companies instead of simply to victims. The current mechanism is that, in the case of sanctions in particular, the moneys recovered from sanctions, which can often be substantial, go straight to the Government. Admittedly, it is important that the Government have resources in order to strengthen enforcement mechanisms, but it seems to me somewhat unfair that the victims do not get a look in in terms of compensation when, after all, the sanctions have been devised in order to protect victims and, indeed, reward them. Although we recognise that compensation is not always monetary, it is important that there is official acknowledgement of the wrongs that have been done to them.
The fact that the courts cannot enable the money derived to go to public interest compensation is an anomaly that I think needs to be corrected. One of the reasons for that that the Minister gave in the meeting, which, as I mentioned, he kindly set up, is that it would be difficult to determine who was a victim and what sort of compensation was necessary or just, simply because the number of victims of aggression, particularly in the context of conflict, is huge, wide and difficult to determine. The Government are concerned that the right money goes to the right victims. That is acknowledged, and it is a very important point.
However, Redress, which has drafted many of the amendments on this aspect of the Bill, has pointed out that there already exist relevant organisations that can receive funds for victims, including the Trust Fund for Victims, which was created by the Assembly of States Parties, in accordance with Article 79 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. There is also the Register of Damage, for damage caused by the aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, established within the framework of the Council of Europe by resolution or any successor body or attached fund. There is also the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, which was established by the United Nations General Assembly through its resolution of 16 December 1981. It is also worth pointing out the relative ease that Ministers and the Government would have in keeping a register of those organisations that receive compensation funds and monitoring them.
In essence, it seems just and fair that the victims of aggression, particularly in the area of conflict, and those it is eventually agreed should receive compensation, should in fact receive that money; it goes to the Government—the Treasury and other sources within government—in order, as I have said, to strengthen the enforcement mechanisms. I entirely agree with that, but I am not sure that all the money should go there; some of it should be set aside for the victims. Again, I stress that the reason for this is that, although sanctions are set up to retrieve funds meant for the victims, the fact is that the victims do not always get this money. I beg to move.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and the noble Lord, Lord Banner. I thank the Minister and his officials for all they have done on this clause. Might the Minister look at this again before Third Reading or at some other point to see whether it is possible to do what we have requested? I am grateful for all the meetings and the help we have had from everybody; let us hope that we can do something.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, we support in principle Amendments 387C and 387D, the first of which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Banner.
These amendments address a moral and legal imperative, ensuring that assets confiscated from those who violate our laws, particularly our sanctions regime, are used to provide redress to the victims of those very same violations. My own amendment in Committee focused on a ministerial power to create a fund via regulations but Amendments 387C and 387D would place this power where I believe it properly belongs: with the judiciary. By amending the Sentencing Act 2020 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, these amendments would grant the Crown Court the discretion to award compensation for public interest or social purposes. This would ensure that, when a court deprives a defendant of the benefits of their crime, it can simultaneously direct those funds towards the restoration of the communities or individuals harmed.
As the organisation Redress has highlighted with great clarity, the UK is currently an outlier. Both the United States and the European Union have already established mechanisms to repurpose seized assets. In 2023, the US successfully transferred over $4 million seized from a Russian oligarch to support war veterans in Ukraine. Here in the UK, we have frozen assets on an unprecedented scale following the invasion of Ukraine, yet we operate in a regulatory lacuna where we can freeze and eventually confiscate but we cannot compensate effectively. Without these amendments, we are, in effect, telling the victims of state-sponsored aggression and human rights abuses that, although we will punish the perpetrator, we will do nothing for the survivor.
This is not about the convenience of the state; it is about clarity of justice. We must move away from a system that treats the proceeds of sanctions violations as a windfall for the Treasury and instead treat them as a resource for reparations. I urge the Minister to recognise that there is cross-party unanimity on this issue. Sympathy at the Dispatch Box in Committee was a start, but sympathy does not stop crime—and it certainly does not provide reparations.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Banner for tabling these amendments, which, as we have heard, raise questions around how the proceeds of crime may be used to benefit victims. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for stepping into the breach today to speak to these amendments in my noble friend’s absence.
My noble friend Lord Banner has tenaciously pursued this matter for many months. The intention behind his amendments is clear: to ensure that, where criminal assets are confiscated, the courts have flexibility to direct those funds towards compensation for victims or towards wider public interest purposes linked to the harm caused. In Committee, I spoke sympathetically on these amendments. I shall not seek to repeat the points I made then but other noble Lords explored how these proposals would interact with the existing confiscation and forfeiture regimes under the Sentencing Act 2020 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Those are complex frameworks, and any changes to them must be carefully considered, but these amendments make an important point about ensuring that justice is not only punitive but restorative. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am especially grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for moving this amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Banner. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Goudie for speaking in support of the noble Baroness.
As the noble Baroness and my noble friend know, I arranged a meeting for the noble Lord, Lord Banner, to discuss these matters with Redress. Both attended, as did other Peers, including the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. I set out then, as I did in Committee, the rationale for the Government’s position in relation to these amendments. I should say to my noble friend Lady Goudie that, although today I will restate the Government’s position, which is not to accept the amendments, we always keep these matters under review and will continue to do so.
The compensation of victims is an extremely serious issue and something that we take seriously. Last time out, in Committee, I laid out the UK’s various mechanisms for victim compensation; I will not repeat those now, in the interests of time. In his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Banner, raises this issue in the context of Russia’s war with Ukraine. I appreciate the continued support of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for the approach that has been tabled today, but, if I may, I shall speak to this amendment in the context of where the noble Lord, Lord Banner, was, I think, coming from. I acknowledge the support for the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel.
The noble Lord, Lord Banner, has spoken to me on many occasions about the need for wider community compensation, rather than just for individuals, in the context of the war in Ukraine. I affirm this Government’s support for Ukraine. Indeed, the UK is already one of Ukraine’s largest supporters and donors, providing significant financial aid alongside working with international partners to support Ukraine as much as possible. The UK has already committed £21.8 billion, of which £13 billion is for military support, £5.3 billion is for non-military support and £3.5 billion is for UKEF cover; there is also an ongoing commitment to provide £3 billion annually either for as long as it takes or until 2030-31. We are also supporting, along with the G7, loans backing profits belonging to Russian sovereign assets in the EU, as well as the interest on those assets being put towards Ukrainian interests.
Therefore, there are a number of issues on which we are fully supportive and where we are using resources to meet the objectives of the noble Lord, Lord Banner. However, I say to him and to those who have spoken in favour of the amendment today that, given the limited number of cases to which these amendments would apply, they would create only a minimal impact on the people of Ukraine. I suggest that it would be better for us, in the initial stages, to focus our efforts on the larger international mechanisms for compensation, in line with our international partners, which provide far greater funds. I have pointed in particular not just to the UK’s direct taxation commitment but to the G7’s $50 billion ERA loan, which is backed by interest generated from Russian sovereign assets in the EU and the UK.
I understand the noble Baroness’s support on this issue. I particularly understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Banner, around this matter, as well as his desire to help and support our friends in Ukraine; I completely share that desire. However, following the rationale that I have laid out, I suggest that this would be best done through the current mechanisms of government, not through these amendments. I will keep all matters under review but I feel that these amendments would distract the UK—and, indeed, our partners—from the core principle of supporting Ukraine, particularly in this time of great need. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, to withdraw Amendment 387C.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister as always for his response and for the support that the Government are providing, particularly in Ukraine after the Russian aggression. I still feel, however, that the definitions within the Bill of “victim” and “loss” are too narrow and indirect victims are clearly not eligible. We all know that there are many tragic indirect victims of war crimes. It is very likely that there will be more sanctions to come and that there will be further need for victim compensation. At present, there are 2,500 Russia-targeted sanctions. The Government still retain most of the proceeds of these.
Nevertheless, I hear what the Minister has said about keeping this under review. Given the fact that I do not think these amendments have been properly addressed by me—although they have by the Member opposite and by the Opposition Front Bench—I will not press them. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 387C.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“51A In section 161E(5) (making an income reduction order) (as inserted by section 3 of the Sentencing Act 2026), for paragraph (b) substitute—“(b) section 15A (where court sentences before confiscation proceedings).””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds, to the list of amendments that are consequential on the confiscation order provisions in the Bill, an amendment of a provision inserted by the Sentencing Act 2026 into the Sentencing Code.
Lord Katz
“Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations require child cruelty offenders to notify specified matters to the police.(2) “Child cruelty offender” means a person who, in England and Wales—(a) is convicted of a child cruelty offence,(b) is found not guilty of a child cruelty offence by reason of insanity,(c) is found to be under a disability and to have done the act charged against the person in respect of a child cruelty offence, or(d) is cautioned in respect of a child cruelty offence after the person has admitted the offence,on or after the day on which the regulations come into force.(3) A “child cruelty offence” means an offence listed in Schedule (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: child cruelty offences).(4) The regulations may in particular make provision—(a) about the period for which a child cruelty offender is subject to notification requirements (which may be an indefinite period);(b) about the occasions on which, or intervals at which, a child cruelty offender is required to give notifications;(c) about the time limits for giving a notification;(d) about how notifications are to be given to the police (which may include provision for notifications to be given to persons authorised by the police in accordance with the regulations);(e) requiring a child cruelty offender to allow photographs and fingerprints to be taken for the purposes of verifying the offender’s identity; (f) requiring or authorising a person with parental responsibility for a child cruelty offender to give notifications, where the offender is under 18;(g) for specified notification requirements to apply to a child cruelty offender only if the offender has been given notice by a police officer, in accordance with the regulations, that those requirements apply;(h) for reviews of whether a child cruelty offender should remain subject to notification requirements, or to specified notification requirements;(i) for a child cruelty offender to cease to be subject to notification requirements, or to specified notification requirements, following a review.(5) If the regulations make provision for a child cruelty offender to be subject to notification requirements for an indefinite period, they must make provision under which the child cruelty offender may cease to be subject to the notification requirements following a review.(6) The matters which may be specified in the regulations as matters which must be notified include, in particular, any matter a relevant offender is required to notify to the police by or under Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (as it has effect in England and Wales).(7) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must consult—(a) the National Police Chiefs’ Council, and(b) any other persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(8) In this section—“notification requirements” means requirements imposed by the regulations;“specified” means specified in the regulations.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations imposing notification requirements on persons who commit child cruelty offences.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to move the government amendments in this group, which will establish the powers needed to introduce a clear and robust regime for managing those who have committed appalling child cruelty offences. Before turning to the detail, I pay tribute to the extraordinary dedication of campaigners, including Tony and Paula Hudgell. Their tireless advocacy, grounded in personal tragedy and driven by a determination to protect other children from harm, has been instrumental in bringing this issue to the forefront of public debate and legislative action. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and Helen Grant MP, for their constructive engagement in helping us to deliver this important step forward.
We continue scrutiny of this Bill at a pivotal moment for the management of dangerous offenders. The police system underpinning the sex offenders register is transitioning from the legacy ViSOR database to the new multi-agency public protection arrangements, which will deliver modern, integrated risk-management capabilities. At the same time, as part of the Government’s commitment to halve violence against women and girls over the next decade, we are examining how best to strengthen community-based offender management across the system. In that context, and in recognition of the complexity of this area, we have taken the decision to provide for the framework of a new scheme in the Bill, while setting out the operational detail in regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.
The Government’s amendments therefore create the power to establish a set of familiar tools for police to apply in managing such offenders: notification requirements; clear rules about what must be notified, when and how; and the powers necessary for the police and partner agencies to assess and respond to risk consistently and proportionately. Important safeguards and parameters are built into the structure of these powers to ensure that the scheme adheres strictly to the framework approved by Parliament. The qualifying offences and thresholds in the new schedule introduced by Amendment 395A ensure that the regime is squarely focused on serious harm to children arising from their own caregivers, including offences such as child cruelty, causing or allowing a child to die or suffer serious physical harm, and female genital mutilation. This is a coherent and tightly drawn list which will close the safeguarding gap identified by campaigners.
The regime provides for maximum penalties which are consistent with those faced by registered sex offenders and proportionate to the gravity of deliberately evading such monitoring. It ensures that any entry or search must be authorised by a justice of the peace and used solely for the purposes of risk assessment. Regulations establishing the scheme will be developed in consultation with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure. We believe that this approach strikes the right balance between parliamentary oversight and the operational flexibility that is required to respond swiftly to the evolving landscape and potential changes to patterns of offending or evasion.
For these reasons, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, not to press his Amendment 389 and to join the House in supporting the Government’s approach. I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, the government amendments are welcomed from these Benches. In their scope and depth, they ensure that offenders who have committed the heinous crime of child cruelty will now be required to notify, and will be monitored carefully to ensure that their access to children is supervised to protect children from such offenders. As we debated in Committee, these offences need to be brought into the safe scope of high-level offender management.
I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Katz, about Tony Hudgell and his family. They are doughty campaigners who have shone a spotlight on an area that most of society has ignored over the years.
I read Amendment 389 with interest. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and the Minister, whether proposed new subsection 6, identifying relevant offences, would be covered in government Amendment 388C.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, this is an important group of amendments, concerning the creation of a child cruelty register. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the development of this proposal over the course of the Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House and the other place.
I remind all noble Lords that the reforms before us today, as we have heard, are the result of determined campaigning over a long period. I place on record the sincere thanks of the Opposition Benches to Helen Grant MP and her constituent, Paula Hudgell, whose tireless advocacy has brought this issue to national attention. I am incredibly pleased that Parliament has responded to this campaign and I welcome very much the Government’s decision to accept our proposals and bring forward their own amendments to establish a notification regime for child cruelty offenders. I put on record my sincere thanks to the Minister for his engagement on this matter.
As noble Lords will appreciate, there remain differences of view about the precise scope of the register and the offences that should fall within it. From these Benches we have consistently argued that the register should cover a broader range of offences to ensure that the system captures a full spectrum of conduct that poses a continuing risk to children. While the Government’s proposals do not go as far as we might have wished in that regard, they nevertheless represent real progress and a clear acknowledgement that the existing gap in the law must be closed.
We welcome the Government’s willingness to move in this direction and hope that, as the policy is implemented, there will remain scope to review and strengthen the regime where necessary. I have one question for the Minister. Because it is vital that the register is established as soon as possible, can he give from the Dispatch Box an indication of possible timelines for when that might happen?
Once again, I thank Paula Hudgell and Helen Grant MP, who have performed a tremendous service in bringing this issue to the attention of Parliament and the wider public. I hope that all noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House will join me in recognising their efforts. For the avoidance of doubt, I will not be moving Amendment 389 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the consensual approach taken by the Liberal Democrat and the Opposition Front Benches. I will answer the questions in the order that they were given.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about the offences listed in proposed new subsection 6 to be inserted by the Opposition’s Amendment 389. The offences that are covered are listed in government Amendment 395A and largely overlap with those in the opposition amendment.
On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, we will set up the register as soon as practicable when the new MAPPS system is up and running. I cannot commit to a more solid timeline than that, but I hope he will take the way that the Government have responded to the campaign and the amendments as a promissory note, shall I say, that we are taking this matter very seriously and will act with as much speed as we can practically muster. With that, I beg to move.
“Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: enforcement(1) Regulations under section (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders) may provide for a person to commit an offence if, without reasonable excuse, they—(a) fail to comply with a specified notification requirement, or(b) in purported compliance with a specified notification requirement, notify information that they know to be false.(2) The maximum penalty specified for an offence must not exceed (but may be less than)—(a) on summary conviction, imprisonment for a term of the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);(b) on conviction on indictment, imprisonment for a term of 5 years or a fine (or both).(3) Regulations under section (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders) may confer on a constable power to enter and search relevant premises.(4) The regulations must provide for the power to be exercisable only—(a) under the authority of a warrant issued by a justice of the peace (which may authorise the use of reasonable force),(b) where it is necessary for a constable to enter and search the premises for the purpose of assessing the risks posed by a child cruelty offender who is subject to notification requirements, and(c) where a constable has sought, and been unable to obtain, entry to the premises for that purpose on at least two occasions.(5) Premises are “relevant premises” if there are reasonable grounds to believe (because of a notification given under the regulations or otherwise) that the child cruelty offender resides, or may regularly be found, at the premises.(6) In this section—“notification requirements” means requirements imposed by regulations under section (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders);“specified” means specified in the regulations.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause allows regulations under my previous new clause to create offences, and to confer powers of entry on constables.
“Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: power to amend Schedule (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: child cruelty offences)(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend—(a) Schedule (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: child cruelty offences) (child cruelty offences);(b) section (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: interpretation) for the purposes of that Schedule.(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may add an offence to Schedule (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: child cruelty offences) only if—(a) the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to do so, having regard to the nature and seriousness of the harm that may be caused to persons under 18 by conduct constituting the offence, and(b) the offence is not listed in Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (offences to which Part 2 of that Act applies) (disregarding for this purpose any condition subject to which an offence is listed in that Schedule). (3) Where an offence is capable of being committed against a person aged 18 or over, an amendment adding it to Schedule (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: child cruelty offences) must include a condition that the victim was under 18.(4) An amendment of Schedule (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: child cruelty offences) or section (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: interpretation) within subsection (5) does not apply to convictions, findings and cautions before the amendment takes effect.(5) An amendment is within this subsection if it—(a) adds an offence,(b) removes a condition relating to an offence, or(c) changes a condition in such a way as to cause an offence committed by or against a person of a particular age in certain circumstances, or resulting in a particular disposal, to be within the Schedule when it would not otherwise be.(6) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must consult—(a) the National Police Chiefs’ Council, and(b) any other persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause confers powers to amend the list of child cruelty offences in my new Schedule inserted before Schedule 21.
“Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: interpretation(1) In section (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders)(2), a reference to a conviction includes a reference to a finding of a magistrates’ court, where the court makes an order under section 37(3) of the Mental Health Act 1983, that the accused did the act charged.(2) The following provisions do not apply for the purposes of section (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders)(2)—(a) section 82(2) of the Sentencing Code, and(b) section 187(1) of the Armed Forces Act 2006,(conviction with absolute or conditional discharge deemed not to be a conviction).(3) A reference in Schedule (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: child cruelty offences) to an offence (“offence A”) includes—(a) an attempt or conspiracy to commit offence A;(b) an offence under Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (encouraging or assisting crime) in relation to which offence A is the offence (or one of the offences) which the person believed would be committed;(c) aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of offence A.(4) References in Schedule (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: child cruelty offences) to a person’s age are to the person’s age at the time of the offence.(5) References in Schedule (Notification requirements for child cruelty offenders: child cruelty offences) to imprisonment include—(a) a period of detention which a person is liable to serve under a detention and training order;(b) a sentence of detention in a young offender institution;(c) a sentence of detention under section 250 of the Sentencing Code or section 209 of the Armed Forces Act 2006; (d) a sentence of custody for life under section 272 of the Sentencing Code (including one passed as a result of section 210A of the Armed Forces Act 2006); (e) an extended sentence under section 254 of the Sentencing Code (including one passed as a result of section 221A of the Armed Forces Act 2006).”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause makes provision about the interpretation of my new clauses and new Schedule about notification requirements for child cruelty offenders.
Baroness Sater
“Review of the criminal records disclosure regime(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, undertake a review of the operation of the criminal records disclosure regime in England and Wales.(2) The report must, in particular, consider—(a) the impact of criminal record disclosure and DBS checks on individuals’ access to education, training and employment,(b) the criteria and processes for filtering and disclosure on basic, standard and enhanced checks, and(c) whether legislative, procedural or regulatory changes may be necessary to ensure that the regime appropriately balances public protection with rehabilitation.(3) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consult relevant bodies, including employers, the Disclosure and Barring Service, criminal justice agencies and representative organisations for people with convictions.(4) A report of the review must be laid before both Houses of Parliament within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to review and report to Parliament within 12 months on the operation of the criminal records disclosure regime, including the impact of DBS checks on access to education, training and employment and whether any legislative, procedural or regulatory changes are needed.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, the amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament within 12 months of the Act coming into force a report reviewing the criminal records disclosure regime. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who unfortunately cannot be here today, for supporting it.
The purpose of the amendment is straightforward: to ensure that a thorough review of the criminal records disclosure regime is undertaken within 12 months. We know that having a criminal record can have profound consequences for individuals’ ability to rehabilitate and move forward with their lives. It is therefore important that we understand whether the current regime is operating proportionately and whether changes might be required to ensure that it strikes the right balance between public protection and rehabilitation. Many noble Lords have in the past raised concerns about aspects of the criminal records disclosure regime. I believe that this is a timely moment to bring this amendment forward, so that we can look at this in the round.
Your Lordships will know that I have previously spoken in this House on, and put forward amendments where I have highlighted, the postcode lottery that can arise when an offence is committed before the age of 18 but the individual is not brought before a court until after their 18th birthday. In these circumstances, for example, a young person who might otherwise have received a youth disposal such as a referral order may instead be sentenced as an adult, simply because their case reaches court after they have turned 18. That difference can have significant long-term consequences, including for what later appears on a Disclosure and Barring Service check and therefore for access to employment, education and training, and indeed their rehabilitation prospects.
I thank the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt —for engaging constructively with me on this matter. Her willingness to meet me shows that there is genuine openness within government to look at this anomaly more closely. The Justice Secretary has recently indicated that the Government are considering opportunities to simplify the criminal records regime, particularly in relation to childhood offences, with the aim of ensuring that the system is clear and proportionate and does not unduly harm future job prospects. That signals recognition that reform is needed.
If the amendment were to be accepted, it would be helpful for the review also to consider the anomaly and to begin to address the issues I have concerns about, which I believe are deeply unfair. In preparing the report, the Secretary of State would be asked to consult widely, including with employers, the Disclosure and Barring Service, criminal justice agencies and organisations representing people with convictions, to ensure that the review reflected the experience of those most affected. Accepting this modest amendment would be a good and constructive step forward: simply a request for a review that could help inform future policy.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I very much support this amendment. In Committee, I tabled an amendment, which was debated—the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, was acting Minister at the time—and would have prevented a criminal record being kept for children who are prosecuted by private rail companies under Section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 and criminal records being created as a result, because there seemed to be a practice in certain magistrates’ courts for prosecuting such children for what were inadvertent, youthful transgressions, which were wrong but certainly did not merit a criminal record which, as I understand it, could be searched by potential employers for between eight and 11 years. I would like a commitment that this review, if it takes place, will cover that sort of case. It is all part of that bigger picture of children having criminal records created against them.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I want to give enthusiastic support to this amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sater. I think that a criminal record disclosure regime is very important—we all understand that we do not want the worst of the worst working with children and so on —but the impact on rehabilitation is quite serious.
On Monday evening, it was therefore a great relief when the Minister said to those of us who were worried that non-crime hate incidents might be stored on a criminal database that could be used to prevent future employment or volunteering opportunities that that was a misplaced concern—although having the word “hate” by your name on a police database might not be what one would want.
In this instance, we are talking about people who have criminal convictions, have been in prison or have been serving their time. In working with former prisoners, I have known former drug addicts and gang members who have been invaluable as volunteers or in working with young people or youth services, but many of them are simply kept out of being able to help because of the barring scheme. A group of ex-prisoners that I had some dealing with wanted to do some work with care homes—we desperately need people to work in care homes. They were fully rehabilitated but were basically going to be barred from doing so. That seemed to me to be unfair and counterproductive. There was also a teenage victim of a grooming gang—a victim—who was convicted for soliciting prostitution at the age of 16. She should get a pardon, of course, but the main thing is that she is barred even from going on her own child’s school trips. She desperately wants to help out in the school, but she cannot.
These things should be looked at quite straight- forwardly. It is tricky, because I am aware that we do not want threatening people to work with, for example, children, but we should not be risk averse. I commend the noble Baroness on the wording, which is an appropriate balance between public protection and rehabilitation. There is no point putting people in prison and telling them that they will be different people and be given a second chance if they rehabilitate but then denying them that second chance when they leave prison. They might as well just carry on being criminals. I think this amendment is, as they say, a no-brainer, and I hope the Government will accept it.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 390A from the noble Baroness, Lady Sater. I just want to give a practical look at this. As many noble Lords know, I have been a youth and community worker for well over 35 years now, and one of my biggest projects was to run a job club. Many of the young men in particular in my job club were very disappointed when they could not get work. Invariably, they had had some brush with the law that meant prison time, had done the work on themselves to be productive members of society, and came out, but then the barring code, DBS and all kinds of things got in the way. What do you believe they returned to then? They returned to the only skill they had, which was criminal activity. Most of the most serious criminals I dealt with—the repeat criminals, the ones that you really needed to cross the road for—were so because, at that moment when we could have assessed them slightly differently, when their youthful transgressions could have been looked at in a different light, we did not, and they then became a really serious, long-term problem to us all.
When I spoke to a group of young men very recently, and I keep saying men because I have been doing work with gang-involved young men, one of them finished our conversation by saying to me, “You”—by that, he meant us—“are doing it to yourselves”. He said that if we continue to view him as a criminal, he will continue to behave as a criminal.
We are all certain of two things: we do not want people who have committed crimes of the worst kind to go unpunished and get away with them, and we want to protect public safety. But since these rules first came in, some time ago now, our protection awareness and the rules have greatly advanced. As a trustee of a charity that does youth work, my job was to look at people’s criminal records and help to assess whether we could help them to work safely with our young people. Usually, we could do that, and for those for whom we could not we had to ask them to leave.
The idea that the Government should have a review is long overdue. If you really want to rehabilitate people, you have to show them that there is some chance that they can re-enter society and make up for what they may have done incorrectly. We understand that it is a balance but, again, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, pointed out, the wording of the amendment contains that balance. I commend it to the House.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, for the meeting that she had with my noble friend Lord Marks and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I gather that the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, had a different meeting. We entirely support the amendment and were very pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, talked about the principles of agreeing with the review. We think that is very important.
We absolutely agree with the principle, as set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, that children should not be adversely affected by backlogs, which they have absolutely no control over at all. There is a broader principle: the age at which an offence or caution took place should absolutely be the age at which the offender is dealt with. With regard to the review, we believe that youth cautions and conditional cautions should not remain on the young person’s record once they have become an adult. We hope that that will be taken into account in the review as well.
I echo the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on the very careful wording by the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, in proposed new subsection (2)(c) about ensuring that
“the regime appropriately balances public protection with rehabilitation”.
That seems to be common sense. We endorse that and hope that the Government will use it as the basis for their review.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Sater for tabling this amendment on a hugely important issue. I can be relatively brief because she gave ample reasons for the amendment. When criminal records are disclosed, they should be done so regularly and proportionately across all cases. She gave many compelling reasons for the amendment and, as she said, it is modest. It does not ask much of the Secretary of State. I agree absolutely with my noble friend that this system would simply benefit from an updated review. For all those reasons, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, for her amendment, which is supported by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby. Perhaps I should explain why I am responding to it instead of my noble friend Lady Levitt, who has had considerable engagement with the noble Baroness and other Members of the House on this matter. The amendment relates to the Disclosure and Barring Service, which is the responsibility of the Home Office, so I am responding to it. In principle, there are a number of areas where there is crossover between the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office. I noted the support from the noble Lords, Lord Carter of Haslemere and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox of Buckley and Lady Brinton, for the general principles of the amendment.
The criminal records disclosure regime is designed to strike a balance between supporting ex-offenders to put their past behind them and ensuring that we keep people safe. The regime plays a crucial role in helping employers to make informed recruitment decisions, particularly, as was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for roles in health, social care and education. It also aims to avoid the disclosure of old and trivial offending so that people can make fresh starts and get on with their lives. We all know that employment and a fresh start are critical to preventing reoffending. The significance of employment—along with housing, family support and optimism for the future —for reducing reoffending should never be underestimated.
We keep the regime regularly under review as a matter of course, so that it remains fit for purpose and responds to concerns as they arise. I recognise the value of stepping back and carrying out a more strategic assessment, which the amendment would do.
I know that noble Lords know this, but the Deputy Prime Minister, who is also the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, gave a commitment on 2 December, in response to the Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part I, that the Government will consider opportunities to simplify the criminal records regime to ensure that it is clear and proportionate, particularly—given the discussions we have had and reflecting what my noble friend Lady Levitt had said—in relation to childhood offences. My department—the Home Office—and the Ministry of Justice are working together to look at the next steps.
We intend to publish a consultation that is, in a sense, the review that the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, asks for, setting out proposals for specific reforms on disclosure of childhood criminal records. Currently, the plan is to have that consultation published by the end of the year. If we can do it earlier, we will. There is a lot of work to do but I want to get it done as quickly as possible and I know that my noble friend Lady Levitt will want to do the same. I can certainly give the assurance that we will have that consultation out by the end of the year, and that will, I think, provide the strategic review that the noble Baroness’s amendment seeks.
I believe that it is right to prioritise consideration of how the regime affects those who offend as children. On behalf of my noble friend Lady Levitt and the work that has been done on engagement to date, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, for the external pressure she has put on us on these matters but, in the light of those reassurances, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Sater (Con)
I thank the Minister and am very grateful to all noble Lords who contributed: the noble Lord, Lord Carter, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and my noble friend Lord Bailey all spoke very positively and passionately about the amendment. I thank the Minister for his extremely positive response and look forward to hearing more about the consultation at the end of the year. Speed is of the essence and we would like to see it as soon as possible. We have heard, from me and others, about lots of anomalies in other situations involving criminal records that we think we should deal with, but I thank the Minister again and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower
“Misconduct investigations where officer acquitted(1) The Police Reform Act 2002 is amended as follows.(2) In section 13B –(a) in subsection (1), at end insert “but this is subject to the exception in section 13BA.”, and(b) in subsection (2), at the beginning, leave out “The” and insert “Unless the exception in section 13BA applies, the”.(3) After section 13B, insert—“13BA No re-investigation on acquittal for the same conduct(1) Where this section applies, the Director-General may not make a determination under section 13B(2) to re-investigate the complaint, recordable conduct matter or DSI matter.(2) This section applies where—(a) the Director-General, appropriate authority or relevant review body (as the case may be) has made a determination under paragraphs 23(2)(c), 24(2)(b) or 25(4G) of Schedule 3,(b) as a result of the determination mentioned in paragraph (a), the Director of Public Prosecutions has brought criminal proceedings against the relevant person, and(c) the relevant person has been acquitted in those criminal proceedings.(3) The exception in subsection (1) does not apply only if—(a) the relevant authority has come into possession of substantial new evidence relating to the conduct that was the subject of the investigation, and(b) the relevant authority is of the reasonable opinion that the new evidence would, if considered, be significantly likely to lead to a finding of misconduct or gross misconduct.(4) In this section—(a) “relevant person” means the person to whose conduct the investigation related; (b) “relevant authority” means the Director-General, appropriate authority, local policing body or relevant review body (as the case may be).”(4) After paragraph 24C of Schedule 3, insert—“Investigation where person acquitted in criminal proceedings
24D (1) This paragraph applies where—(a) an investigation of a complaint, conduct matter or DSI matter (“the index investigation”) has concluded and the final report has been submitted to the relevant authority,(b) the relevant authority has made a determination under paragraphs 23(2)(c), 24(2)(b) or 25(4F),(c) as a result of the determination mentioned in sub-paragraph (b), the Director of Public Prosecutions has brought criminal proceedings against the relevant person, and(d) the relevant person has been acquitted in those criminal proceedings.(2) In this paragraph—(a) “relevant person” means the person to whose conduct the index investigation related;(b) “relevant authority” means the Director-General, appropriate authority, local policing body or relevant review body (as the case may be).(3) Where this paragraph applies, the relevant authority may not initiate a new investigation, re-open an investigation or order a re-investigation against the relevant person in relation to the same complaint, conduct matter or DSI matter that was the subject of the index investigation.(4) Sub-paragraph (3) does not apply only if—(a) the relevant authority has come into possession of substantial new evidence relating to the conduct that was the subject of the index investigation, and(b) the relevant authority is of the reasonable opinion that the new evidence would, if considered, be significantly likely to lead to a finding of misconduct or gross misconduct.”(6) In paragraph 25 of that Schedule—(a) after sub-paragraph (4D) insert—“(4DA) The Director-General may not direct that the complaint be re-investigated under sub-paragraph (4C)(b) if paragraph 24D applies in relation to that investigation.”, and(b) after sub-paragraph (4E) insert—“(4EA) The local policing body may not make a recommendation to the appropriate authority that the complaint be re-investigated under sub-paragraph (4E)(a) if paragraph 24D applies in relation to the conduct to which the investigation related.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent the Independent Office for Police Conduct from investigating an officer where that officer has already been investigated and acquitted in court for the same conduct matter.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 391 stands in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. In Committee, speaking to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, I raised the case of the police officer, Martyn Blake, whose case served as the perfect example of the difficulties of serving as a police firearms officer.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct, as is the norm, investigated Martyn Blake following a police firearms operation in London that resulted in the fatal shooting of Chris Kaba, and he was subsequently charged with murder. The case proceeded through the full criminal justice process and the evidence was examined in open court before jury under the rigorous standards of criminal law. After hearing the evidence, the jury acquitted him.
For most people, an acquittal, after an initial investigation and then a full criminal trial, would represent the end of the matter, but in this case, despite the acquittal, the IOPC indicated that the circumstances of the case would still be examined further in the context of police misconduct proceedings. The IOPC then reopened those proceedings, constituting its second investigation and the third investigation overall.
Whatever one’s view of the original incident, the situation raises the question of how many times an officer should be required to defend themselves for the same conduct. We have had restrictions and double jeopardy since the 12th century, but this appears to be triple jeopardy. Police officers can be investigated by the IOPC, referred to the CPS, dragged through the courts, acquitted and then reinvestigated. My amendment would amend the Police Reform Act 2002 to ensure that where a police officer has been investigated for a complaint or a conduct or DSI matter, prosecuted in a criminal court and acquitted, the same conduct cannot simply be reinvestigated by the Independent Office for Police Conduct unless there is substantial new evidence. That last point is important.
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 reformed the law of double jeopardy by permitting retrial where there was new and compelling evidence. I completely understand that if new evidence comes to light, the IOPC may need to reopen an investigation. There is a safeguard in the amendment to ensure the fairness of the police complaints system. I do not dispute the importance of police accountability; public confidence in policing depends on robust oversight, and the Independent Office for Police Conduct plays a vital role in that framework, but accountability must also be balanced with basic principles of justice. When the criminal courts have examined a case and reached a verdict, there must be a strong presumption that the matter is settled.
I know only too well that police officers make difficult and sometimes life and death decisions in circumstances that are fast-moving, dangerous and highly uncertain. They do so in order to protect the public. When something goes wrong, it is entirely right that their actions are scrutinised carefully and independently, but it is equally important that the process is fair, proportionate and finite.
I hope that the Minister will realise the harrowing mental burdens placed on the police and accept the amendment. All I am asking is for him to meet me half way and bring something at Third Reading or perhaps commit to bringing forward a proposal along these lines in the upcoming Bill on police reform. If he does not accept my amendment today and cannot give me an assurance about police reform, I will seek to divide the House.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
In family cases of sexual or physical abuse, someone can be tried and acquitted but then dealt with in the family court on very much the same evidence. That is partly because there is a difference in the standard of proof, which, in a criminal case, is much greater than in civil and family proceedings. Having said that, I am entirely sympathetic to this amendment.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I cannot support this amendment, for two reasons. First, it imposes a regime which is wholly different from the regulatory practices in every other regulatory authority. For the last 15 years, I have practised exclusively as a legal adviser to regulatory panels, including for doctors, nurses, midwives, healthcare practitioners and social workers. In each and every case, a practitioner, a registrant, who has been acquitted by a criminal court can be brought before the regulatory panel to face misconduct proceedings. That is because the standard of proof is different: the criminal acquittal means that they failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the regulatory panel is entitled to find, on the balance of probabilities, that misconduct has been made out.
That takes me to the second point. Not only is it contrary to all the practices that we as a Parliament have imposed on other regulatory authorities, which I have identified, it is contrary to the merits. It may very well be that an officer who has properly been acquitted is none the less, on the balance of probabilities—the test within the regulatory authority—guilty of misconduct. I believe that that option should remain. I am very close to the position of the noble and learned Baroness, who draws from her experiences in the family courts. My experience is in regulatory proceedings, and what is proposed in this amendment is profoundly different from what we have imposed on the regulatory authorities.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment, which the noble Lord, Lord Davies, set out the case for very well. It is linked particularly to the Chris Kaba case.
I will try to address the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. He made a fair point. There are times when, even if someone has been acquitted of a criminal offence—in this case, a charge of murder—disciplinary issues might be discovered which are not directly related to the death but a professional body may want to address, such as ammunition not being signed out properly or something else that was important but not relevant to a criminal charge. The concern in this case, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, explained, is that it appears from the press release, which is all we have to go on, that the IOPC basically laid its charge based on the criminal case—the charge of murder. That might seem very difficult to understand.
The amount of time this takes—I am sure that this can happen in medical cases—is substantial. In the Chris Kaba case, from event to criminal case took about three years. The officer will probably wait another two years. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, addressed the double jeopardy point—it is probably nearer to triple or more jeopardy. There are two or three bites of the cherry as far as the officer is concerned, although we must look at it beyond the officer’s understanding.
There is first an assessment of whether there is a criminal charge. Should that be negative, there is then a misconduct charge. Should both be negative, if there is a death involved, which we are particularly concerned about with respect to police firearms officers, a coroner’s court will be convened, after waiting for the two previous decisions. At the end there can be a verdict of unlawful killing, at which point the whole thing starts again. All this accounts for the very long processes. Why can these decisions not be considered in parallel rather than sequentially? I have still not really heard a proper explanation for that.
If the IOPC considered in the police case that there was gross misconduct or a conduct issue, why did it not lay a charge at the beginning? Why did it wait for the outcome of the criminal case, unless, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has suggested, more evidence had been discovered in the criminal case that might have made a difference? No one has said that.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
The noble Lord was suggesting, I think, that it is wrong to hold a subsequent disciplinary proceeding on precisely the same facts that gave rise to the acquittal. But in the regulatory proceedings of which I have been speaking, that is precisely the case. Very often a practitioner or registrant who has been acquitted before a criminal court then comes before a regulatory panel facing misconduct proceedings on precisely the same facts. My point is that the amendment is seeking to put in place a regime wholly different from that which operates in every other profession, and deprives people of the option of finding an officer guilty of misconduct when, on the balance of probabilities, the officer is guilty of misconduct.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
I am not going to try to argue the case; I am making my argument, and the noble Viscount is making his. The other regulatory bodies do not have something called the IOPC, a body that is charged with investigating this type of thing. That is fine, but it imposes a further burden and further process. Two groups are badly affected: the family of the person who has died and the officer in the case. Of course, I make the case for the officer, but both matter in that both are badly damaged. For me, this is a subset of the later discussion we will have about police firearms officers, but it is just one indication of some of the aggravation of their position, when, in every case, when charged, they have been found not guilty. In the Kaba case, following a three-year process, it took three hours for a criminal court to find that there was no case to answer and the officer was found not guilty.
It is very hard to understand why the IOPC, after all that time, having not charged in the first place at the time of the event, suddenly instigated the case at a later stage. For all those reasons that I have tried to identify, police firearms officers, who take incredible risks on our behalf, are an important group that we have to consider and, unless we find some comfort for them in law, the danger is they will turn around and stop doing it on our behalf. I think this is a help. I accept the fundamental point from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that it may be inconsistent, but I would argue that we are in a pretty inconsistent place now so far as the law and the process is set up.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, can I add a further point to the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, with which I agree? The purpose of the criminal proceedings is distinct from the purpose of the disciplinary regulatory proceedings. The purpose of the criminal proceedings, of course, is to decide whether this individual should face a serious sanction of many years in prison for what is alleged. The purpose of the disciplinary proceedings is entirely different. It is to protect the public and decide whether a person who serves as a police officer is an appropriate person in all the circumstances to continue to do so.
It is uncomfortable, but it may well be the case that the director-general, on reviewing all the evidence, takes the view that this particular officer should not continue to be in the police force, should not continue to hold the responsibilities that he or she does, and should not continue to have the powers that he or she does. If this amendment is passed, we will be putting the director-general in an impossible position. It will mean that he or she has to take no action to seek to impose disciplinary proceedings on an officer against whom there may be very considerable evidence that they are simply unsuitable to remain in the police service.
That is very similar, I would suggest, to the situation the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, drew attention to, because the purpose of the family law proceedings is entirely different to the purpose of the criminal proceedings. The purpose of the family law proceedings is to decide whether the child needs to be protected and therefore those proceedings can quite properly continue in relation to the same allegations that were rejected by the criminal court.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, can I add my two-penn’orth to this? I declare my interest as the co-chair of the national police ethics committee, but I am speaking more as a serving Bishop. I have to hear disciplinary complaints against clergy. Sometimes those clergy have committed something which is being investigated first by the police. To answer the point from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, often the police tell us, “We don’t want you interfering until we have finished”. If the result of the criminal proceeding is that the person is convicted, I can then do quite a summary process in terms of applying a penalty or perhaps depriving that member of the clergy from serving in their parish, perhaps banning them from ministry for a time or for life. But all of that is very much on that balance of probabilities, on the civil standard. It is very different from the criminal standard.
There are many cases where the police investigation may not lead to a trial or may lead to a trial and acquittal but there are still major issues around the suitability of that person to be a minister of religion, such as their safeguarding ability. I need to be able to reassure my people in my diocese by following a proper disciplinary process on exactly the same facts as the criminal case was dealing with, but to that very different standard of proof.
Again, as chair of police ethics, I think the ability of the police to be respected by the public, for me, demands that there are occasions when somebody who has been acquitted at the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt should still then face the disciplinary matter at that civil standard of the balance of probabilities, so I could not support this current amendment.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 392 in my name is about fairness, discipline and humanity.
First, misconduct investigations that drift on for months and years are damaging to everyone involved—the officer, the family, the complainant and public confidence in the system. Secondly, where these cases run on endlessly, the consequences can be severe. Long investigations place huge strain on mental health and, in the worst cases, such prolonged uncertainty has been linked to suicide. That alone should make this House pause and ask whether the current system is working as it should. Thirdly, I want to stress that this amendment does not block proper investigation and does not touch criminal matters. It simply says that, after 12 months, there should be independent scrutiny by a legally qualified person so that cases can move on properly and an officer can either be brought back into service or removed from the service without delay. Finally, swift justice is a matter for all involved. It matters for the innocent officer who should not be left in limbo. It matters for the complainants who deserve prompt and credible outcomes. Justice delayed helps no one; this amendment would bring greater urgency, greater accountability and a greater sense of fairness to the police disciplinary system.
Morale in the police force, particularly in the Met, is very low and one of the things that officers continually point to is the length of investigations when an officer is accused of something. This is not to say whether the officer is innocent or not—that is a whole other affair—it is the length of the investigation. If you speak to any of your local bobbies, particularly if they are an officer, they are likely to tell you they are considering leaving. When you probe a bit deeper, this question of investigations always comes up. One of the major roles of this Government now has to be to improve police morale by doing the right thing and making the whole system fairer.
I come from the Black community, the community arguably most over and under policed simultaneously in this country. If we are to have a police force that can actually care for the people who have the most interaction with the police, we need to raise their morale. I commend this amendment to the House. It could be a very good step in the right direction to make these investigations fair and to raise police morale.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 393A in my name seeks to codify the Supreme Court decision in W(80) which relates to police disciplinary proceedings involving the use of force. The amendment relates to the test used to determine whether an officer misconducted themselves when he or she used force in self-defence. The amendment would place in statute the current legal position that an officer must hold an honest belief that they or others faced an immediate danger and, crucially, that where that belief is mistaken, the mistake must also be an objectively reasonable one.
I have retabled this amendment to encourage further consideration by the Government of their decision to depart from this test following Sir Adrian Fulford’s rapid review. Under their proposal, an officer would be able to rely on an honestly held but mistaken belief, even if the mistake was unreasonable. This is a significant shift, and one intended to be made by statutory instrument and without public consultation.
Since this is Report, I will not repeat the arguments made in Committee; however, I continue to believe firmly that the current civil law test is the right one in the context of misconduct proceedings. Of course, as many have rightly emphasised, it is essential that officers required to make split-second decisions in life-threatening situations are treated fairly, but fairness to officers must be balanced with the equally important obligations of learning, improvement and accountability of officers. The current test already achieves that balance. On the previous references to delays in the misconduct proceedings arena, I would say that these matters should be addressed by review, rather than removing the possibility of misconduct proceedings.
It is important to be clear that this amendment does not concern the criminal law. It does not touch on criminal prosecutions, as was suggested during Committee. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, with respect, the reason that disciplinary proceedings await the outcome of criminal proceedings is that this is what the police ask. I chair the safeguarding service in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Westminster and in many cases the police will say to us, “Please stop: do nothing”, and the policy is that we stop and do nothing until the police say we can do something. That is an important reservation.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
May I address that simple point? To be clear, in these cases, the IOPC is the investigating body. It is in full possession of the information it has gained—interviews, evidence from the scene, et cetera—so it is in a good position to query criminal charge or, at that stage, query misconduct charge, but it waits until the end of the whole process to instigate the misconduct charge that it could have instigated at the beginning, indicating the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that it may be an employment issue. I find it confusing that it waits until the outcome of a criminal case, where it will have had no reasoned explanation for the jury’s decision—it would in a civil case, but not in a jury case, because no reason is offered. That is my point. It can be different in other professions, I understand, because they did not have the benefit of the investigators deciding what to put forward to the CPS.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
As police ombudsman, I was faced with exactly this problem, and I knew that our criminal proceedings had to be dealt with first.
To continue, what we are talking about here is the standard to be applied in misconduct proceedings. These proceedings exist in large part not just to ensure accountability but to enable forces to reflect and learn. They also enable the police to demonstrate that they take seriously situations involving the use of force, even when that force has been held not to be criminal. Despite that, the use of force must be necessary and proportionate.
This has broader implications. A disciplinary system that cannot scrutinise unreasonable mistakes risks undermining public confidence in policing. Retaining the civil law test supports public confidence by ensuring that unreasonable errors of judgment are open to scrutiny. Removing that scrutiny would weaken the learning function of misconduct proceedings, pose risks to public safety and give the impression that unreasonable policing errors lie beyond the review of accountability. That would have an impact, inevitably, by diminishing trust in policing.
For these reasons, I would be very grateful if the Minister could indicate what steps the Government are willing to take to address the serious concerns raised about moving to the criminal standard for self-defence in misconduct proceedings, particularly in the absence of wider public consultation or engagement with the communities most affected by police use of force. I am grateful to Justice, Inquest, the National Black Police Association and StopWatch for their help and support in this amendment.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, these amendments all address the same question: how we protect the public from unlawful force while treating officers fairly when they carry out dangerous duties on our behalf. From these Benches, we start from two simple principles: there must be clear, consistent standards of accountability; and we must not drift into a two-tier justice system that treats police officers differently from everyone else.
On Amendment 391, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, we have particular concerns. It would, in effect, close off the possibility of independent scrutiny by the IOPC once a criminal court had acquitted an officer. That might sound attractive in the interests of family, but it risks confusing two distinct questions: whether conduct meets the high criminal threshold for conviction and whether it meets the professional standards we rightly expect from those who wield state power.
We are more sympathetic to Amendment 392 from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey. Misconduct cases that drift for years are bad for families seeking answers, for complainants whose evidence fades, for taxpayers funding prolonged suspensions and, not least, for officers left in limbo. The broad thrust of the amendment—that investigations need clear expectations and real grip—is one we support, while recognising that complex cases sometimes need longer and that rigid timelines can carry risks.
Amendment 393A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, seeks to put beyond doubt the test that should apply in police disciplinary proceedings involving the use of force. We support the aim of aligning those proceedings with the approach of the Supreme Court in W80 as a modest but important safeguard for bereaved families and communities who need to see that internal standards reflect the law as articulated by the highest court. If the Government are now moving in that direction through secondary legislation, so much the better, but Parliament is entitled to a clear, on-the-record explanation of the test, not simply an assurance that it will be sorted out behind the scenes.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
Before the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, sits down, I wish to say that this is not a rigid timeline for anything other than a review to look at the timeline. I accept that a complicated case may need to run, but even in a complicated case, somebody should say, “Okay, this is complicated—we need more time”. In many instances, 12 months would be the point where somebody said, “We need to wrap up and move on”.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for initiating his Amendment 391. I know that it is motivated by the desire to support police officers in the difficult role they perform. He and I share that motivation. I say to him, however, that the amendment as drafted would have the effect of curtailing existing powers that the Independent Office for Police Conduct can use to reinvestigate or reopen a case that it has previously closed. The amendment also seeks, more generally, to prevent the reopening of investigations into complaints against the police from the public, again if such complaints have resulted in criminal proceedings which have not resulted in a conviction.
I take very straightforwardly the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who made the point that I was going to make: we know of no recent cases where the Independent Office for Police Conduct has reopened a closed case. However, it is in the public interest that cases of alleged police misconduct can, if need be, be reopened in the light of substantive new evidence or evidence that the original investigation was flawed. As has been said by the three noble Members who have spoken, not all criminal proceedings against serving police officers involve line-of-duty incidents. Some may involve serious corruption or sexual violence by police perpetrators, and there may be compelling public interest arguments for reopening such cases.
The powers of the Independent Office for Police Conduct to reinvestigate a case are already limited by existing law, which requires the IOPC to have compelling reasons to reopen a case. This is a legal threshold and is already a high bar. Disciplinary proceedings involve different evidential tests, as was mentioned by those who contributed, and the lower threshold for finding misconduct or gross misconduct is the balance of probabilities. They also serve a different purpose from a criminal trial. We rightly expect the highest standards from our police officers, so a blanket presumption that no police officer who has been acquitted in the criminal courts should face disciplinary proceedings would, in the Government’s view, be quite wrong—I think that reflects the points of view put by the noble Viscount, the noble Lord and the noble and learned Baroness. That is a compelling argument which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, will reflect on if he seeks to push the amendment, which I hope, in due course, he will not.
Amendment 392, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, seeks to improve the timeliness of police complaints and misconduct investigations by creating a new system of legal adjudicators with the power to overrule both chief constables and the Independent Office for Police Conduct by closing down investigations where they determine that there is no good or sufficient reason for any delay. As we have previously debated, unnecessary delays in these investigations are not in anyone’s best interests. I know the impact they will have on public confidence and on the welfare of the police officers involved. However, while it is right to strive for improvements in timeliness, this amendment risks adding another layer of bureaucracy, thereby adding cost and delay and not removing it.
The Government are committed to supporting chief constables to remove those who are not fit for purpose, but the amendment has the potential not only to overrule the responsibilities of chief constables and the Independent Office for Police Conduct, but to create some perverse outcomes. The Government’s recent police reform White Paper already confirms our commitment to an independent, end-to-end review of the police conduct system, which I know the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, would support. It will include looking at timeliness and how this can be improved. Again, further process will be brought back following the police White Paper proposals.
Amendment 393A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, would require that, where a police officer uses force based on an honestly held but mistaken belief, that belief can justify the use of force only if the mistake was objectively reasonable. In effect, as she knows, it seeks to codify the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of police officer W80, which found that the civil standard applied to this test. As the House will know, police officers carry out important and demanding roles. The Government are determined to ensure that both the public and the police are able to feel confident in the police accountability system. That is why we commissioned a review—again, the noble Baroness referred to this—from Timothy Godwin, a former senior police officer, and Sir Adrian Fulford. They carried out a rapid, independent review into police accountability.
The findings of that review were published in October 2025—again, the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, referred to this—and it recommended that the Government change the legal test for the use of force in police misconduct cases from the civil to the criminal law test. The Government, again, have accepted this recommendation and we are in the process of making the necessary changes via secondary legislation. Our intention is that these changes will come into force later this year, in the spring of 2026.
While I understand the noble Baroness’s concept, I cannot support it, because we have put in place the independent commissioners to examine the matter thoroughly and they heard evidence from a wide range of stakeholders. Their recommendation was clear: the current approach has created confusion, inconsistency and, I accept, a very bad effect on police morale, particularly among firearms officers. I hope the changes we are making will bring clarity to the system. I reassure the House that it will still be the case that any force used must be proportionate, reasonable and necessary. I hope that satisfies the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, after her comments—it may not—and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey.
Finally in this group, I will speak briefly to government Amendments 395 and 397. These are technical amendments to ensure that specialist police force barred and advisory lists are consistently applied across police forces. The provisions in Clauses 173 to 181 and Schedule 21 are part of a broader effort to raise standards and conduct within law enforcement. They also include the closure of a legislative loophole. These technical amendments have been tabled to ensure that we have alignment in the treatment of civilian employees within the police service.
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I hope I have satisfied the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington. I hope not just that I have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, but that on reflection he is able to listen to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and therefore not push his amendment to a vote. But, as ever, that is entirely a matter for him.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I am grateful to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for his valid points and for injecting his valuable experience into this debate. I say to my noble friend Lord Hailsham that it is wrong to draw a comparison between policing and the medical profession. Policing is uniquely different.
This has been a thoughtful discussion about how we maintain robust police accountability while ensuring fairness to the officers who serve the public. The case of Martyn Blake has brought this issue into the public consciousness. Whatever view one takes of the circumstances of that tragic incident, the fact remains that the case was heard in open court before a jury and the officer was acquitted, yet the prospect of further investigation has remained. For many officers watching that case unfold, the concern is not about accountability; it is about whether there is ever a point at which a matter can truly be regarded as concluded.
As my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington pointed out, there is much current discussion about police morale and those young-in-service officers leaving the police service. The proposal in my amendment is fair to officers. It is clear for the system and maintains the integrity of the oversight framework. It is highly unfortunate and extremely disappointing that the Minister has not been able to at least meet me half way and make the commitment that I sought. On that basis, I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Bailey of Paddington
“Scrutiny of investigation timeliness(1) The Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2020 (S.I.2020/2) are amended as follows.(2) After Regulation 13 (timeliness of investigations), insert—“Scrutiny of investigation timeliness(1) A legally qualified person must be appointed to scrutinise any investigations of misconduct or gross misconduct which have not been completed within 12 months.(2) The legally qualified person must determine whether there is good and sufficient reason for the time already taken, and how much time is anticipated to be needed for completion of the investigation.(3) In determining whether there is good and sufficient reason, the legally qualified person may have regard to any relevant matter, and must have particular regard to—(a) whether the investigation has been efficient and effective;(b) whether there has been unnecessary or unreasonable delay, having regard to the complexity and seriousness of the case;(c) the impact upon the officer and others;(d) any anticipated further delay;(e) the public interest and effect on confidence in the police disciplinary system;(f) representations made on behalf of any person entitled to receive a copy of the information provided.(4) If the legally qualified person determines that there is good and sufficient reason to continue the investigation, then the legally qualified person must set a date for the conclusion of all proceedings.(5) Nothing in this provision shall have any effect in relation to any criminal investigation.”(3) The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 (S.I.2020/4) are amended as follows.(4) After Regulation 19 (timeliness of investigation), insert—“Scrutiny of investigation timeliness(1) A legally qualified person must be appointed to scrutinise any investigations of misconduct or gross misconduct which have not been completed within 12 months.(2) The legally qualified person must determine whether there is good and sufficient reason for the time already taken, and how much time is anticipated to be needed for completion of the investigation. (3) In determining whether there is good and sufficient reason, the legally qualified person may have regard to any relevant matter, and must have particular regard to—(a) whether the investigation has been efficient and effective;(b) whether there has been unnecessary or unreasonable delay, having regard to the complexity and seriousness of the case;(c) the impact upon the officer and others;(d) any anticipated further delay;(e) the public interest and effect on confidence in the police disciplinary system;(f) representations made on behalf of any person entitled to receive a copy of the information provided.(4) If the legally qualified person determines that there is good and sufficient reason to continue the investigation, then the legally qualified person must set a date for the conclusion of all proceedings.(5) Nothing in this provision shall have any effect in relation to any criminal investigation.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment proposes a 12-month limit, unless extraordinary circumstances reviewed by a legally qualified person dictate otherwise, which would encourage forces and external bodies to complete misconduct and gross misconduct processes quicker, allowing officers to resume duties and limiting the negative impact on their health and wellbeing.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
I thank the Minister for his answer. Before we voted, he said to me that he hoped I was satisfied. I will say that I am partially satisfied with his answer, and that is good enough; I will not test the opinion of the House. I would like to say, however, that he talked about the work that the Government are doing to look at how we can shorten these investigations; he mentioned that the Government were going to give this more consideration. I implore him to look at how we shorten these investigations. They are unnecessarily wrong and they are causing huge damage on both sides of the equation. I would like to support the Government in that work, and if I can be of any help, I hope they will let me know. However, I will not test the will of the House.
Middle East: Defence
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the briefing on the current conflict that he made available to my noble friend Lord Minto. I also thank all our Armed Forces personnel who are currently deployed and protecting this country and all our interests in the region, whether British citizens, bases or military assets. We admire their courage, professionalism and unstinting commitment to serve in an environment that is unpredictable and frightening. We are in their debt, and we never take their contribution for granted. We are particularly mindful of that as we remember the United States service personnel who have lost their lives in the conflict. Sadly, conflict delivers inevitable death and injury, so we think of all those impacted by recent events.
I am not going to engage in hindsight. I want to focus on three things: what the Government knew, when they knew it and what they did with that knowledge. Unlike His Majesty’s Opposition, the Government have access to high-quality defence, security and military intelligence, so answering these three questions is important. Candour in answering them may help to inform what to do the next time a threat manifests itself.
To focus the Minister’s mind, I will share what I knew, when I knew it and what I would have done with that limited knowledge. First, we have always known the toxic threat presented by Iran. It is a malign and evil regime, with a hatred of western culture, that is intent on developing nuclear weapons. By the beginning of this year, it was clear that President Trump was heading for decisive action.
Secondly, by February, President Trump had adopted a bellicose approach, making it more, rather than less, likely that the US would trigger a conflict. On 11 February, 16 days before the first American missiles hit Iran, the United States formally requested the use of British bases to facilitate that attack. His Majesty’s Government therefore knew, two weeks in advance, that there was an overwhelming likelihood of an Iranian response that would threaten our citizens, Armed Forces personnel, military bases and sovereign territory.
Thirdly, given that knowledge, I would have asked the Chief of the Defence Staff to move heaven and earth to muster whatever assets he could lay his hands on and get them out to the region. Unfortunately, it appears that that was not the Government’s response. We had no warship in the Gulf, we know that no Type 45 destroyer was deployed in those intervening two weeks, HMS “Anson” remained in Australia, and no Type 23 was sent to the region either. Removing our one warship from the region, with no replacement at such a critical time, is extraordinary. A Type 45 destroyer dispatched to the region would have provided invaluable protection against air attack on our Cyprus base.
The public assessment of how the Government responded is unflattering. I shall leave the Minister to counter that negative view but, to do so, he needs to provide specific answers to the three points that I have raised.
The crux of the matter appears to be this: we have been attacked, our bases and sovereign territory are under threat, and UK citizens in the region have faced attack. Whether we were involved in the initial strikes is immaterial; Iran does not discriminate. The United Kingdom is in this war now, whether we like it or not. Given that simple fact, distinctions between offence and defence are semantics; they are simply not relevant. If someone fires a missile at you, you have to do everything within your power to stop it and then stop them firing another.
I shall await the Minister’s response, but if part of the Government’s dilemma was uncertainty about what assets could be mustered then that is extremely serious and, in such dangerous times, unacceptable. I therefore ask the Minister: will the Government immediately audit the availability of naval assets and urgently improve sea readiness? As this conflict underlines the imperative of the defence industry plan being finalised, can it be published immediately? Adhering to the agreed build timescales for the Type 26 and Type 31 frigates is now critical. These ships are needed by the UK, so will the Minister confirm that no export order will be permitted to dislocate that delivery schedule? What lessons does the Minister consider that we need to learn from the UK’s pace of response to this conflict? Finally, disquiet has been expressed publicly that the new contract that the Government entered into with Serco ended round-the-clock staffing at the naval base. Can the Minister confirm whether that was one of the reasons for the extraordinary delay in getting HMS “Dragon” ready to leave port?
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, as is so frequently the case on defence matters, I stand as the second opposition spokesperson to raise questions for the Minister, but I find myself very much in agreement with the Opposition Front Bench. Having heard statements from the other place, I had thought that today might be somewhat different and that there might be some differences of opinion between us, but the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, raised many questions that need to be answered. This is not a question of the rights or wrongs of action. We are in a situation that we may not have chosen to be in, but we are there now and we need to work out what His Majesty’s Government are able and planning to do—without giving away any operational secrets, obviously. We need at least to be thinking about the assets that we have available and a little bit more about how we interact with our allies.
I will not repeat what the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said, with one exception: I put on the record the thanks of the Liberal Democrats to His Majesty’s Armed Forces for, as always, stepping up and going beyond the call of duty. That is essential and their role is so crucial.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said, the UK’s response to defend our assets, including the sovereign base in Cyprus, seemed glacially slow. If the Government’s view is that all action should be defensive then we on these Benches would support that and we would have been less sure about engaging in offensive action in the initial mission, but we are now in a situation where there will likely be more attacks against the United Kingdom because of the current situation in the Middle East. We therefore need to understand the extent to which His Majesty’s Government and the MoD are able to up our presence in the region. Are HMS “Dragon” and Royal Fleet Auxiliary “Lyme Bay” the only naval vessels that we are able to send? Are we planning other movements? Are we doing everything possible?
There is a question that remains somewhat elusive. The Statement given in the other place talked about defensive action and ensuring legality—that the United Kingdom would act only where there is a clear legal base. However, as my honourable friend in the other place, Richard Foord, asked, how do His Majesty’s Government distinguish between offensive and defensive action in the current circumstances? If we have military embedded with the United States, does that not raise questions about how we deliver what we say we are doing?
Finally, although the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, asked about the defence industrial strategy, she did not make the following plea, which somebody needs to make: when are we going to increase defence expenditure? Talking about the end of this Parliament or the next one is not good enough. This is a regional war that is becoming a global war, and we cannot wait five years. Iran certainly will not.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Smith, for their important tributes to our Armed Forces. There is no division between any of us in our admiration for our Armed Forces, their families, the communities, and all those who work in our defence industry. I join with both noble Baronesses on that. Also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, did—I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, shares this sentiment— I offer our condolences to the American armed forces personnel who have lost their lives and to the others who have been wounded. I am sure that we all share that sentiment.
I thought the noble Baroness might ask a question about readiness, so I was interested to read the Defence Select Committee’s statement from the other place. Governments cannot always be guaranteed that Select Committees will put forward things that are helpful or indeed true—not that they are not true, but you know what I mean—so let me quote from the Defence Select Committee’s statement of 10 March 2026 on developments in the Middle East:
“Members of the cross-party Defence Committee met this morning with senior civilian and military officials from the Ministry of Defence, for a secret briefing on operations in Iran and the wider region. Although we cannot comment on the substance of that discussion, those Members present were left satisfied that the UK’s decision making and preparedness measures in place ahead of the recent military activity were grounded in a coherent logic”.
I just share that the Select Committee has come to that conclusion.
The noble Baroness quite rightly asked, and I do not dispute the challenge, what our preparedness has been. Since January, we have pre-positioned Typhoon jets and F35s, and counter-drone teams, radar and various other air defence measures were put in place because of the situation that we were concerned about. As the situation has developed, four more Typhoons have been sent, along with more F35s, refuelling Voyager aircraft, A400M, 400 more personnel to Akrotiri in Cyprus, three Wildcat helicopters, one Merlin helicopter, more radar and more air defence, and, as we know, HMS “Dragon” is on the way. The UK Government took that as a sovereign decision. There was no immediate request from the Middle East but we sent that as soon as we were able.
The noble Baroness made a very important point about the Serco contract. It is not true that people were restricted to working from only nine to five at Portsmouth to get the Type 45 destroyer ready. They worked virtually round the clock and they deserve a lot of praise. In the face of a national emergency, the workers and personnel there put in ammunition, refuelled and did all the various things that they needed to do. The crew were recalled and, in six days rather than a few weeks, that ship was ready. As Members of your Lordships’ House know, it is on its way.
The noble Baroness asked about planning. She will know from her own experience that planning obviously takes place. There are lots of considerations about what capabilities are available and may be made available to defend our interests. She asked specifically about offensive and defensive actions. We have been very clear that the legal basis for our action is the collective self-defence of the region and the defence of our Armed Forces personnel and people who are out there. She and others may be interested in the numbers. The latest figure I have is that 55,000 people have been brought back from the region, of some 173,000 people who have registered. Action is being taken on that.
As the noble Baroness knows, we have allowed the use of our bases at Fairford and Diego Garcia to take action which promotes the self-defence of our partners and ourselves. Specifically, those allowances and permissions relate to stockpiles and launch sites. As both noble Baronesses will know, if we can degrade the ability to launch missiles and degrade the stockpiles in the first place, that contributes to the self-defence of the region.
The noble Baroness asked about working with our allies. Only today, I met the Middle East ambassadors. I met last week with all of them, to tell them what we were doing and ask what more they would like us to do to support them—we want to work with them, and not do something to them. We have to have alliances and friendships with these people. They talk to us and they see the various actions that have been taking place. As the noble Baroness and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, will know, you cannot have F35s, Typhoons and Voyagers and other air defence flying around without the co-operation of the various states to allow you the space to do it. Sometimes, that requires careful negotiation and consideration, so we work very closely with them to do that. I reassure both noble Baronesses that we continue to do so. At the end of our meeting, I suggested regular meetings. We met last week, we met today and we will have a regular meeting with them to ensure that we continue to work in the way that they would want.
The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, asked about the defence investment plan, though I will come to the industrial strategy as well. I can say no more than I have said in the past. We will publish that when it is ready to be published. On the industrial strategy and the particular point she made about the Type 26 and Type 31 being built in Scotland, she will welcome the 13 ships that are being built. To be fair, some of that was started under the previous Government, and she will have signed off some of it. All I am saying is that we have carried on with that shipbuilding programme and there will be 13 ships. It is our intention to deliver those 13 ships as quickly as we can, because they will provide us with some of the capability that we need.
The issue is how we deal with the current situation. That is why the noble Baroness was right to ask about the planning and consideration that is going on as to how we meet our responsibilities at the present time while we wait for some of the other capabilities that we want to be built and delivered.
The noble Baroness asked about the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship, RFA “Lyme Bay”. That is being readied for deployment, should that be decided. We are not in the situation that the noble Baroness suggests of, “Oh, my goodness, we should have an auxiliary ship available”, to take people away, for evacuation or for the delivery of supplies. RFA “Lyme Bay” is in Gibraltar and is being readied to be deployed should it be needed. That will be a further asset for us to use. There is a considerable number of things going on. There are always challenges and difficulties in these situations, and deployments are sometimes not easy. We are working as fast as we can to deliver the things that we are being asked for.
I have mentioned the Middle East and Akrotiri. We have had many discussions about why we do not deploy an aircraft carrier. We have an aircraft carrier, Akrotiri, which is our sovereign base that operates there. We have deployed numerous additional air defences and jets for the defence of our allies in the region and our personnel in the region. Noble Lords will have seen a few days ago the Defence Secretary going to Cyprus to thank and reassure personnel, and to work with and reassure the Government in Cyprus.
A whole range of different actions is taking place. At the end of the day, we will do all we can to reassure our allies, work with them and defend the region, to ensure that we have regional stability and, alongside that, that we protect British citizens, our Armed Forces and our interests there. We are working as hard as we possibly can to do that. I am very proud of much of what is being done, notwithstanding some of the challenges that we face and will no doubt face in the future.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom was not expected to take part in the initial strikes on Iran, as far as I am aware, so why did the Government not authorise the use of Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford in mid-February, as my noble friend pointed out, when our ally the USA requested the use of those bases? It meant that the US Air Force was spending 37 hours in the air without a base in Europe.
Further to the attack on RAF Akrotiri, which, as the Minister quite rightly mentioned, is a sovereign British base, by Hezbollah—obviously, the proxy of the Islamic Republic of Iran—when will the Government expel Iranian diplomats from the United Kingdom, as they did following the Novichok attack by Russia, when we expelled 16 diplomats?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The Foreign Office will no doubt have heard the noble Baroness’s request about Iranian diplomats. She will also know that the Foreign Office called in the Iranian ambassador to express our displeasure with what was going on.
There is a point of difference between the noble Baroness and me. I thought the Prime Minister was right not to join in the initial offensive by America and Israel on the Saturday. We did not think it was correct and that is why we would not allow the use of our bases at Fairford and Diego Garcia. She is quite right to point out the problems that that caused flights from the United States, but when the US came with the new request, we agreed.
What made the difference among the Middle East nations was that they could not believe the indiscriminate way in which Iran retaliated. It did not retaliate only against American military bases and Israel; it launched missile attack after missile attack against numerous Middle Eastern countries which were in disbelief that that had happened. They then started to say, “What are we going to do to protect ourselves?” Along with the Middle Eastern countries and their populations, it endangered our Armed Forces and our citizens—people from the UK there for business and tourism.
That is why, in defence of our friends and allies in the region, and in self-defence, we thought the situation was different and it gave us a legal basis on which we could support the action and allow the use of our bases. That was the Government’s decision. Others may disagree with it, but I suspect the vast majority of people in our country think it is right to act in a way that promotes self-defence rather than the offensive action which took place on the Saturday.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the troops who are involved in this action, and I commend the Government for what they have done up until now, because criticism has been levelled at them—a lot of it unjustified. But is this crisis not a wake-up call for all of us in this House in that it underlines what the Prime Minister said at the Munich Security Conference a few days ago? He said:
“Time and again, leaders have looked the other way, only re-arming when disaster is upon them. This time, it must be different. Because all of the warning signs are there”.
All the political parties in this country need to galvanise themselves in light of what we are seeing at present and do something about it for the future.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I join my noble friend Lord Robertson in the tribute to our Armed Forces and I thank him for the points he made about the way in which the Government have acted and the various policy decisions that they have made. I know it has a been long-standing demand from my noble friend, who led the government review—the SDR—which laid out some of the challenges we face and the investments that the Government will need to consider. I am sure the Prime Minister will read his letter with interest. He made those comments at Munich, and we look forward to seeing how the Government will turn the 3% ambition into action in the next Parliament, should economic conditions allow, and similarly the commitment to 5% by 2035. Perhaps my noble friend will share the response from the Prime Minister when he receives it.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in reflecting on what the Minister and the Statement said, that Iran has lashed out with
“dangerous, indiscriminate and reckless strikes”,
which is clearly an accurate description, I join the Front Benches and others in offering thanks to the British service personnel who are seeking to protect threatened communities, ships and other sites.
At the same time, we are seeing extensive and extremely heavy strikes by America on Iran, particularly in built-up areas. The Mines Advisory Group says that when explosive weapons are used in populated areas, 90% of the casualties are civilians. That results not only in physical trauma but a great deal of mental trauma. Today, a report has come out about the Minab elementary school where 175 mostly small children were killed by a Tomahawk strike which it now appears came from the US. Are the Government speaking to the US about minimising civilian damage and following international law, particularly in view of the fact that many of the civilians under these strikes will be those who have been seeking to overturn the Iranian regime?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
That is a very important question. Of course we speak to the United States. The permissions we have given are very clear. Nobody wants to see civilian casualties, and we talk to the Americans about the need for careful targeting and to ensure that any potential impact on civilians is minimised. The noble Baroness makes an important point, which I am sure we all share.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, as other Members of the House have done, I pay tribute to His Majesty’s Armed Forces. As the father of a soldier, I am acutely aware of what the families at Akrotiri in Cyprus are going through at the moment. I am sure they are being well supported by chaplains in the Armed Forces, just as many of the communities in the Gulf will be being supported by Anglican and other denomination chaplains serving in the Diocese of Cyprus and the Gulf. I am grateful to the Minister for the briefing that was given yesterday at the Ministry of Defence. I found it immensely helpful and it gave me assurance about the preparedness that had gone on over the last few weeks.
However, when we focus on one conflict, we tend to take our eye off the ball of other conflicts, and I am very worried about what is now happening in Ukraine—I am sure we are still as committed to supporting the people of Ukraine—but also elsewhere. I hear increasing reports of Israeli settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank. Six Palestinians were killed by settler militia armed by the IDF in the first week of the war with Iran. In Qaryut, two brothers were killed a week last Monday and three others were injured simply because they were trying to protect their olive groves. Settlers are taking advantage and acting with impunity under the cover of this war. What is His Majesty’s Government doing to ensure that in other places where we have a strategic interest, or a deep concern for the people, we are not taking our eye off the ball, particularly in the West Bank, where this further violence is reducing yet more the possibility of a two-state solution?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for the point about the briefing. We try to have as many briefings as we can so that people can keep up to date with the MoD’s thinking, and then they can make up their own minds. I join in him recognising the support that chaplains and other faith leaders give people in conflict, as well as the Armed Forces. That is a very important point to make.
Of course, our focus also remains on Ukraine. The MoD will be visiting the High North in the not-too-distant future. All of that is going on. He also made the point that, of course our focus at the moment with respect to the Middle East is on Iran, but that does not alter the fact that there are continuing issues with respect to Gaza and the West Bank. Tomorrow, I am seeing the Lebanese ambassador to talk to her about some of the issues occurring with Israel, the south of Lebanon and Hezbollah. So, it is quite right to say that, and we will continue to work with others to ensure that these other conflicts and problems, while they may not be in the headlines, are not forgotten and also need to be resolved as quickly as possible.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as the Minister said earlier, the legal basis for this intervention is the collective self-defence of our allies in the Gulf. The Government’s position is that under collective self-defence, we may only target missiles and drones launched by Iran and the missile facilities. However, the law of armed conflict, once an armed conflict has begun, allows the targeting of all military objectives, which includes, at a minimum, all military personnel and all weapons. The UAE has now endured 250 ballistic missiles and 1,500 drone attacks. Are the Government really suggesting that a state under such an attack should respond by targeting only the specific weapons used against it, but not any other lawful military objectives, including any weapons such as, for example, an Iranian fighter jet? The Government have chosen to set out their targeting policy in this conflict in very legal terms. Are the Government not now concerned that, unless that statement from last week is updated and clarified, we risk conveying the impression to allies and enemies that our legal approach to targeting is now uniquely benevolent?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
All I can say to the noble Lord is that the UAE was at the briefing discussion we had in the MoD earlier, and we are working with the UAE as well as other allies to defend the UAE from attack. We have seen that happen, and it has been very satisfied with the way in which we have defended it against missile attack, as have other Middle East states. Some in this Chamber will know the difficulty, sometimes, of ensuring you can get the permissions you need in order to be able to do that. But we are working really hard, and the co-operation of all of those Middle East allies ensures we can protect as many of them as we can, including the UAE.
I know not everybody here agrees, but the legal basis on which we operate, to make a differentiation between taking offensive action and taking action in our self-defence and the defence of those in the region, is something that the Middle East countries themselves support, because they are worried about what is happening extending and developing in a way that becomes uncontrollable. All I am saying is that we are taking prudent, sensible and proportionate action to deliver the self-defence we all want.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. The whole House is very lucky to have him as our Minister. If it took only six days for HMS Dragon to get ready, why was readiness not instructed on or after 11 February?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We had no request from the region for a Type 45 destroyer. We made our own sovereign decision, on the basis of the intelligence and of the threat we perceived, to get a Type 45 there as soon as we could. People worked around the clock in order to deliver it there. Other assets were sent both before and during and will continue to be sent to deliver the defensive effect we want. That will be enhanced by the Type 45. Our assessment is that that needed to go, and we made the decision last week to send it and make it ready as soon as possible.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
My Lords, I associate myself with the gratitude and thanks to the armed services that has been expressed by all Members of this House. I ask my noble friend the Minister directly, does he agree with me that the British people understand that the responsibility of the British Government and the Prime Minister is primarily to protect British interests? Does he also appreciate that British people are worried at the moment about the military and economic consequences? Therefore, do the Minister and the Government have a clear plan to communicate with the British people and reassure them that the Government have a steady plan to protect British interests and the military and economic interests of the British people going forward?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
That is the whole basis of how the British Government are operating and of the decisions we are taking. The noble Baroness is quite right that the decisions we take are in the interests of the British people, both here and abroad, and obviously of our Armed Forces. We have a clear plan to do that. That is why we will operate only in a self-defensive way, because we do not want to escalate the situation. We are calling for de-escalation, which is the way to do it. We are also considering some of the economic impacts and how we might mitigate them.
A point I often make is that when you take action, it has consequences. When you do not take action, that also has consequences. So, sometimes a decision you make is based on your best assessment of how to deal with a particular situation. Our assessment, while not agreed by everyone, of the offensive action on the Saturday, was that it was not the right time to participate with the Americans and the Israelis. But, when the indiscriminate retaliation happened from Iran, with the attacks on numerous states across the region and their requests to us, the further request from the US was a reasonable one for us to allow it to use the bases to provide the self-defence that is so necessary.
Lord Redwood (Con)
I thank the Minister for his support for our Armed Forces. Has this action, which relies to some extent on aircraft operating out of Diego Garcia, persuaded the Government that it would be a very bad idea to give the freehold of this base to a friend of China and to take the risks with a non-nuclear power? Is that why they have paused that rather bad idea, or is it that the United States has warned them that it will not consent to vary the treaty which set up the base in the first place?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a couple of points. First, as a counterpoint to the point about China, if we are talking about Mauritius, the biggest friend it has got is India rather than China, and the Indians are just as worried about the influence of China in much of that region. The discussions continue around the Diego Garcia treaty, and we will see where that takes us, but the important thing is that Diego Garcia is and will be an important strategic asset for us. The debate the noble Lord and I would have is how we ensure the security of that base for us to continue operating in the way that we have done.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I say at the outset that I hold the Minister in great regard and see him and his Secretary of State colleague, the right honourable John Healey, in the same tradition as great Labour patriots such as James Callaghan, for instance. But I take him back to the very interesting question put by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame. Is it not time at this juncture to step back and look at the cumulative damage to the reputation of the United Kingdom as a reliable and trustworthy ally to our most powerful friend, the United States, when even Tony Blair has criticised the Government’s conduct over this conflict?
This narrow interpretation of international law, as between defensive and offensive capabilities, has been applied erroneously, in my opinion. If it was 1939, with those same parameters, we would not have come to the aid of Poland, because the UK population was not under a direct threat. The point is surely that the Iranian Islamic Republic has been an ongoing threat to British, US, Israeli and other citizens for 47 years. On that basis, we should have been a more loyal and trustworthy supporter of the United States, because, at the end of the day, the United States and the Israelis are on the front line of a civilisational fight, which we will all be involved with very soon if we are not careful.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for the comparison with James Callaghan; I appreciate that. The serious point is that we are all patriots in here. I would not question anybody’s patriotism in this Chamber. We all want the best for our country. We all support our Armed Forces and wish to ensure that the UK remains as powerful and significant on the world stage as it always has been. There will be points of difference within that. The UK is still hugely regarded across the world. It is still of huge significance to the large number of countries that want the UK to stand with them—and not always with regiments of troops or, say, 50 aircraft or 40 tanks. The fact that the UK will often stand with countries across the world gives those countries a sense of legitimacy, confidence and purpose about what they are doing. We should remind ourselves of that sometimes and be proud of that—I am, and I know the noble Lord is.
From the Government’s perspective, there is no doubt that it is imperative for our security and that of the United States, and the security of the values that we stand for, that we retain and maintain the closeness of our relationship. That is the Government’s policy. Does that mean that sometimes there are difficulties? Of course there are. The noble Lord and I could recount historical examples of where there have been very serious problems between the United States and the United Kingdom, but that has not altered the fact that, fundamentally, our two countries are united in standing for freedom, democracy and human rights. Considerable co-operation still goes on between the US and the UK, including on intelligence sharing and in the military-to-military discussions that happen all the time, notwithstanding some of the things that we read. The worst thing we can do—I refuse to do this—is to say, “The President said this and the President said that”. He is the President of the United States; we will do all we can to work with him to deliver common objectives. At the end of the day, the only people who gain from any division between the United States and the United Kingdom—notwithstanding the fact that, sometimes, there will be policy differences, as there were a week or two ago—are our adversaries, and we should not allow them to experience that at all.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:30 - Division on Amendment 394 - Ayes: 44 / Noes: 153 - Amendment 394 disagreed.
Baroness Doocey
“Suspension of chief constables(1) The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 is amended as follows.(2) In section 38 (appointment, suspension and removal of chief constables), after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) Before suspending a chief constable under this section, the police and crime commissioner (or their successor) must—(a) be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the chief constable’s continued exercise of their functions would present a serious risk to the efficiency or effectiveness of the police force, or seriously undermine public confidence in the policing of the area, and(b) consult His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (or any relevant successor inspectorate) and have regard to its views.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require a police and crime commissioner (or their successor) before suspending a chief constable under section 38 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, to consult His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services and to be satisfied that suspension is necessary to avoid a serious risk to the efficiency or effectiveness of the force or to public confidence.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 393 seeks to protect the operational independence of chief constables by introducing vital safeguards at the point of suspension—the moment when they are most vulnerable to political pressure in practice.
In Committee, I tabled an amendment addressing a later stage of the formal dismissal process. However, after listening to police representatives, it has become clear that the real problem arises much earlier. The unilateral power of suspension currently exercised by police and crime commissioners, without any duty to seek independent input, is a significant driver of the leadership instability we see today, with nearly one in five forces losing their chief constable every year.
Under the current framework, the independent inspectorate must be consulted before a chief is formally removed, yet suspension often pre-empts this and can be triggered on relatively vague grounds, including simply that a chief constable’s continued presence may be detrimental to the efficiency or effectiveness of the force. In practice, this suspension loophole means the mere threat of suspension is often enough to force a chief to resign just to avoid a very public confrontation.
This leadership churn has real-world consequences. In Devon and Cornwall, the disruption of having three chief constables in 18 months led to service shortfalls and diminished morale. The Government’s own recent White Paper admits that the PCC model has often “not facilitated effective management” and acknowledges
“tensions in the one-to-one relationship”,
which ultimately harm communities.
My amendment proposes two modest but critical adjustments. First, it would require the PCC to be satisfied on reasonable grounds that continued service poses a serious risk to efficiency or to public confidence, replacing the current vague thresholds. Secondly, it would extend the duty to consult HMICFRS at this earlier stage, creating consistency between the decision to suspend and the decision to remove.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for her amendment. It is a measured proposal that would simply require a police and crime commissioner, before suspending a chief constable, to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for doing so and to consult His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services.
Chief constables occupy one of the most demanding leadership roles in public life. They are responsible for operational policing, for thousands of officers and staff, and for maintaining public confidence in the rule of law. Therefore, decisions to suspend them are of the utmost seriousness, not only for the individual concerned but for the stability and effectiveness of the force they lead.
Recent events remind us why clarity in these processes matters. The policing of the Maccabi Tel Aviv fixture generated significant public and political debate about policing decisions and leadership accountability. In that context, the actions and judgments of the then chief constable of West Midlands Police, Craig Guildford, have been the subject of rightful scrutiny and commentary. There is potential concern about the necessity for the amendment, but I look forward to what the Minister has to offer on it.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for her amendment. I say at the outset that she has a point: the process by which police and crime commissioners may suspend a chief constable should be looked at.
The noble Baroness has suggested that His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services should be involved in this process. As I discussed in Committee, the inspectorate already has such a role for the enforcement of resignations or retirements of chief constables under the Police Regulations 2003. I am pleased to tell the noble Baroness that the Government agree with the suggestion she has made; I do not wish to surprise the noble Baroness.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hope she can recover from that shock. I ask her to look at paragraph 134 of the White Paper, From Local to National: A New Model for Policing, which we published on 26 January. It says:
“We will reform the process for the appointment, suspension and dismissal of Chief Constables to introduce greater fairness, transparency and balance into the process. This will include introducing a requirement for Mayors and Policing and Crime Boards to seek views from His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary before taking any action to suspend the Chief Constable”.
I confirm that we intend to bring forward the necessary legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows. We want to do that as part of the wider police reform package, so that it is not a piecemeal approach. There will be a wider police reform follow-through on the White Paper as soon as parliamentary time allows. It is a very ambitious programme. I want to make sure that we do not just deal with it in isolation. That reassurance is on the record, and on that basis I hope the noble Baroness will not push her amendment.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, tells me that it is a victory. I thank the Minister for that confirmation, and I am very pleased that it is not just when some chief constables are going to be sacked; it is actually at the stage I asked for in my speech. That is the key point. If they can be suspended and that does not require consultation with anyone, the fact is that practically all of them have just taken the view that they do not want a big public outing, so they have just resigned anyway. That is what I am trying to stop. The Minister has said that he is going to do exactly what I have asked for. Can someone write that down? I am delighted, and I therefore withdraw my amendment.
Lord Pannick
“(3) The court may, on application by or on behalf of D and on notice to the media, make an order—(a) withholding from the public in proceedings before the court—(i) D’s name, (ii) D’s address,(iii) D’s date of birth,(b) giving a reporting direction (see section 170) in respect of D (if one does not already have effect), or(c) making an anonymity order (see section 171) in respect of D.(4) To make an order under subsection (3) the court must—(a) be satisfied that the order is necessary—(i) to protect against a real risk to the safety of D or another person arising from D being identified as the person alleged to have committed the offence, or(ii) to prevent real harm to the public interest, and(b) be satisfied that the order includes the least restrictive measures possible to address the conditions in (a)(i) or (ii) and is proportionate having regard to the principle of open justice.(4A) Where the court considers that giving notice under subsection (3) would defeat the purpose of the application, it may make a temporary order without notice, which must be reconsidered at the earliest opportunity after notice has been given to the media.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment would replace the presumption of anonymity for firearms officers in Clause 168 with a power for the Court to grant anonymity where it is necessary to protect against a real risk to the safety of the officer or another person arising from D being identified as the person alleged to have committed the offence, or to prevent real harm to the public interest, having regard to proportionality and the principle of open justice.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I hope the Minister will give me as satisfactory a response in relation to this group as the other Minister just gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey.
Amendments 393B to 393F in this group are in my name. They address Clauses 168 to 171, which will create a presumption of anonymity for an authorised firearms officer who is charged with an offence in relation to the use of a weapon in the exercise of his or her functions. That presumption will apply unless and until that defendant is convicted of the criminal offence.
I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Black of Brentwood, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, for adding their names to these amendments. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Black, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, cannot be here tonight. They send their apologies. We will all miss their contributions, as they made powerful speeches on this subject in Committee. I also record my gratitude to Emma Snell of Justice and to Sebastian Cuttill of the News Media Association for their very helpful briefings.
Amendment 393B would replace this presumption of anonymity in the Bill with a power for the court to grant anonymity where it considers it necessary to protect against a real risk to the safety of the firearms officer or another person, such as a member of the officer’s family, or to prevent harm to the public interest, having regard to proportionality and to the principle of open justice. That, in essence, is the common-law position that applies now.
I recognise the need for courts to have this power to grant anonymity in appropriate cases, but it would be a mistake to legislate for a statutory presumption. That is because the criminal courts have long proceeded, and rightly so, on the basis that open justice is a core principle of our legal system. It is a core principle because it is essential to maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice. Restrictions on reporting what goes on in our courts always need to be justified. In the context addressed by Clause 168, there are especially strong reasons for upholding open justice.
We are here typically concerned with the actions of a firearms officer acting on behalf of the state, whose use of a weapon has killed another human being. That event will have led the CPS to bring a criminal prosecution, which means that the CPS believes that two criteria are satisfied—first, that on the available evidence, the court is more likely than not to convict, and secondly, that it is in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution. Of course, the prosecution must prove its case, but in this context the interests of open justice are very important in the public interest. The public, not just the family and friends of the deceased, surely have a strong interest in knowing what is alleged against whom.
Open justice, I suggest, is of particular importance at this time, when public confidence in our police force is low—perhaps lower than ever before. A presumption that the press cannot fully report a murder trial will, I fear, inevitably cause further damage to public confidence.
I accept that there will be cases where open justice should give way to the need to protect the defendant and his or her family. The court must have power to provide protection by requiring anonymity, but that must be because of information that provides a reasoned basis for concern that such protection is required in the particular circumstances of the case.
I also emphasise that Clause 168 would confer special protection on firearms officers. The Government do not suggest that other police officers or prison officers whose conduct may lead to the serious injury or death of another person should enjoy this presumption of anonymity, and rightly so. To confer this unique protection on firearms officers is unnecessary because a discretion for the court suffices, and it is wrong in principle because this is a context where the interests of open justice are at their strongest.
In Committee my noble friend Lord Carter of Haslemere—I am very pleased that he is in his place—suggested that firearms officers might be deterred from taking up such posts if there is no presumption of anonymity. That seems to me, with great respect, a weak argument when no other police officer enjoys such a presumption, when Clause 168 does not guarantee anonymity, when our amendments would allow anonymity in appropriate cases and when a firearms officer is far more likely to be concerned about the risk of prosecution than about the question of anonymity.
Also in Committee, my other noble friend—I do not have very many—Lord Hogan-Howe, whom I am also very pleased to see in his place tonight, emphasised the difficult and important job done by firearms officers. I recognise that, and I agree with my noble friend. That should be carefully borne in mind when decisions are taken in the public interest on whether to prosecute. Once a prosecution is brought, no defendant should enjoy a special presumption of anonymity. My noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe also drew attention to the fact that there are not many of these cases. That is no doubt true, but I suggest that adds nothing to the debate on how such cases should be treated when a prosecution is brought.
In Committee the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, emphasised that firearms officers can face serious death threats and intimidation—very regrettable but no doubt true. So can other police officers, and if there is information suggesting such circumstances or a risk of such circumstances, our amendments would allow the judge to protect anonymity. That is the right way to ensure both protection and open justice.
The other amendments that I have tabled, Amendments 393C and 393D, would ensure that the criteria for courts imposing restrictions are the same after conviction and pending an appeal, and Amendments 393E and 393F would ensure that courts have flexible powers to vary or revoke reporting restrictions or anonymity orders in the light of any changes. I beg to move.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to just two amendments, Amendments 393B and 394. Amendment 393B is the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has introduced about anonymity. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with him. However, I shared with him a few days ago that I have some sympathy with the general position. Police officers should be accountable and one of the main ways in which to be accountable is to be identifiable, which is why they wear numbers and now wear their names. That is important. I therefore hesitate before I argue for anonymity. I am not saying that it is a black-and-white question. However, on balance, I agree with the Government’s proposal, which is to provide anonymity for firearms officers. The assumption is changed from the present: it is that there will be anonymity unless the judge decides there will not be. That is the complete reverse of the situation today. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, prefers it as it is today, but would put it in statute rather than common law.
I am going to say more on Amendment 394 and the group of special people we rely on. It is important because, in the case we have heard about of Sergeant Blake and Chris Kaba, the man that he shot, there was clear information before the court that Mr Kaba was a member of an organised crime group. In fact, he was wanted for two firearms offences, so there was reasonable suspicion that he and others who were linked to him had firearms access. That will not always be the case. Despite that, the judge in the case decided to lift the anonymity that had been possible. I met Sergeant Blake a few months ago. The effect on his life and his family was significant. When someone has been named, it cannot be retracted, which is why it is so important to get it right at the beginning. That is why I prefer the Government’s position. It could be argued out but, once argued in, everybody is named and consequences flow from that. Sergeant Blake was incredibly understanding of what had happened. He was not overly critical of anyone at all. We as Parliament have to consider him as one example, but there have been others. So, I prefer the Government’s position and I think it is defensible.
Finally, I made a mistake when I was speaking about this in Committee. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, corrected me. He was quite right. I said that it was a small case. It was not about being a small issue but about a small number of people. That is the point I misapplied. I realise it is an important issue. It is also important that these officers get supported. This protection, which can be argued out, is more important than the general principle on this occasion. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that other officers have come under threat who do not carry firearms. They can also apply for anonymity. However, if you are shooting someone dead, it raises the threat and the risk level and I prefer the Government’s calculation. So, I support the Government and not the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
Amendment 394 is about trying to get a higher bar before officers are prosecuted. Not too many officers have been prosecuted over the years, and everyone who has been charged has been found not guilty. Some lawyers have said, “Therefore, the system works, why do you worry?” The trouble is that it sometimes takes three to five years for that outcome to arrive, during which time the officers and their families are under incredible pressure. So it matters who gets charged and we have to consider this special group of people. Out of the 145,000 police officers, probably about 3,500 can carry a firearm. They deploy to around 17,000 incidents a year. That was in 2025 in England and Wales. They actually discharged their weapon in between five and 10 operations. They hit fewer people and not everyone who was hit died. My broad point is that they are not a trigger-happy group. There is no evidence that they regularly go out and shoot people. When it happens, it is a serious issue, and of course there should be some accountability. But we rely on them as volunteers. They do not get paid more, and if they ever change their mind—which I think was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter—we have no way to force them to do it. You cannot order an officer to carry a firearm in our present regime. We are not America, where it is a condition of service. So we rely on them an awful lot and we prey on their good will quite a lot, too.
I do not want to address the legal issue in terms of these officers, but I want to bring our attention to the policy involved. We all have to bear in mind that there are probably three broad groups of firearms operations. Something happens in front of an officer or they get deployed quickly; it is a planned operation, they are going to arrest somebody in their home; or it is a crime in progress. It all comes down to the same thing. In that second in which you have to make a decision, you remain a human being. You have to decide whether you are going to shoot or not. On the whole, the evidence shows that they get it right. Should they kill someone or hurt them seriously, the whole system, the whole panoply of the state, descends on them. “Why did you do that?” That is not the problem for me.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, raised the issue of other professions. I do not know how many surgeons there are in the Chamber, but when a surgeon makes a mistake and slashes an artery, the whole world does not descend and say, “Why did you do that?” But it does when a firearms officer shoots. I realise there is some distinction, but the outcome is the same. The firearms officer is going to come under severe scrutiny during that period. We have to consider that they remain a human being who did their best that day. They did not go to work to try to kill someone. They went to work to try to do the job that we had asked them to do on our behalf. In an unarmed society with an unarmed police force, I believe that they are a special group.
As I come towards the end of my speech, I should say that I have met most of the officers who, over the past few years, have been charged. One is called Anthony Long. He was under inquiry for 11 years before he was cleared by a Crown Court jury. Each officer I have met who has been in this position has shown great humility. They are the sort of people you would want to give a gun to. It is not about just whether they can shoot straight; it is about the judgment they apply at that time. You want sensible, mature people.
Despite the fact that all these people had been under inquiry for so long, they were incredibly understanding of why they were in that position. They understood that there had to be an inquiry, and they were very understanding of all the different processes. I think that this group of people deserves our honour as well as their own. At the moment, I am afraid, the system—not individuals—is treating them badly. Somebody has to speak up for them, which is why, for me, these amendments have so much power. I realise that there are big legal issues that must be considered—no one is immune to that—but my passion has been to try to support these people in what is, I think, a very difficult job. There is evidence that they are doing it properly; over the past 40 years, there has been no evidence of them doing it badly. There have been no convictions of an officer.
My final point is that it seems as though, on the route to getting into a court, everybody makes the judgment that this is a criminal charge. There is the investigation, which the police sometimes did; now, it is the IOPC. The CPS makes a decision, then it is put before a jury. To me, that is where some common sense gets applied. The benefit of a jury is that we have the judgment of our peers. When they apply their judgment, they conclude that this group of officers is generally doing things right. I wonder why the system cannot do more for firearms officers to encourage them to carry on doing this and taking these very difficult decisions on our behalf without having, in that second, to worry about the consequences over the next few years. We cannot sustain that, and I do not think that they should. That is my reason for arguing for these two amendments.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 403 in this group is in my name.
The group that we are talking about raises the issue whether authorised firearms officers deserve any special protection if they are, or may be, prosecuted for their conduct or if they are convicted. Some would say that they are not so deserving, because it would not be giving equal treatment to all. Others, me included, believe that they most certainly need some additional protection, whether that is a presumption of anonymity, a higher threshold before a prosecution can be brought, a lesser penalty if they are convicted, or a combination of all three.
These are among the bravest people in society. They volunteer for the job so as to protect the public, even though it means exposing themselves to a high risk of death or injury. They are motivated by the highest ideals and deserve special consideration because of it. They are emphatically not in the same position as ordinary members of the public who injure or kill others with a firearm, so I support the statutory presumption of anonymity, which the Government commendably proposed. I also oppose Amendment 393B, which would impose conditions before there can be anonymity.
In fact, I do not think that there is a huge difference between the Government’s Clause 168 and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—whatever number it is. In essence, we are talking about what the default position should be and whether that can be rebutted in the interests of justice, one or either way. The Government have come down in favour of a presumption of anonymity, which is where I come down as well, but I do not think that there is a huge gap.
For me, it goes without saying that the safety of firearms officers and their families is at real risk because of the extensive publicity that such cases attract. Parliament should, therefore, presume that to be the case. However, even anonymity does not avoid the intense stress that such officers, who have put their lives on the line for the rest of us, must endure while waiting for trial, which can, of course, take years, so I agree with the principle behind Amendment 394: that a higher threshold should be set before such a prosecution can take place. Whether this should be as high a threshold as requiring the case to be exceptional before there can be a prosecution is a matter for debate, but I agree that the factors set out in proposed new subsection (5), which would be inserted by Amendment 394—
“the exceptional demands and stresses to which authorised firearms officers are subjected to in the course of their duties, and … the exceptional difficulties of making time-sensitive judgments”—
should always be given particular weight.
Where a prosecution is brought, especially if there is no higher threshold for prosecution, my Amendment 403 is designed to mitigate the penalty imposed if certain conditions are met. I tabled this amendment in Committee. but the debate took place with just 10 Peers in the Chamber at 11.15 at night, so I have brought it back on Report. It is about whether police firearms officers who use excessive force on the spur of the moment in the honest but mistaken belief that the degree of force is reasonable, and who would otherwise be entitled to rely on self-defence, should be found guilty of murder or manslaughter.
Thirty years ago, in the Lee Clegg case, the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords recommended that, in these circumstances, law enforcement officers should not be treated the same as terrorists and other murderers if they use excessive force; and that they should be convicted of manslaughter, not murder. I find that a statement of the obvious. Quoting the Court of Appeal, Lord Lloyd of Berwick said:
“There is one obvious and striking difference between Private Clegg and other persons found guilty of murder. The great majority of persons found guilty of murder, whether they are terrorist or domestic murders, kill from an evil and wicked motive. But when Private Clegg set out on patrol on the night of 30 September 1990 he did so to assist in the maintenance of law and order and we have no doubt that as he commenced the patrol he had no intention of unlawfully killing or wounding anyone. However, he was suddenly faced with a car driving through an army checkpoint and, being armed with a high velocity rifle to enable him to combat the threat of terrorism, he decided to fire the … shot from his rifle in circumstances which cannot be justified … we consider that a law which would permit a conviction for manslaughter would reflect more clearly the nature of the offence which he had committed”.
However, Lord Lloyd ruled that it was inappropriate for the courts to change the law and that it was for Parliament to do so. Here we are, 30 years on, with that opportunity.
In rejecting my amendment in Committee, the noble Baroness the Minister said that it would
“create a two-tier justice system where police officers who kill or injure in the course of their duties are judged by a more lenient standard than applies to the rest of the population”.
But is treating police firearms officers differently from other murderers a two-tier justice system? Surely not. We are not treating like with like. Police firearms officers who go on duty, risking their lives to protect us all and, in the words of the Minister, are
“having to make life and death decisions in an instant”.—[Official Report, 20/1/26; col. 266.]
are emphatically in a different category from those who kill with an evil motive. The law should therefore treat them differently.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thoroughly welcome these sensible and proportionate amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, which he more than ably explained. I was prompted to speak on Amendment 393B having just read the Government’s Protecting What Matters action plan. I have plenty to say on that, but your Lordships will be relieved that I am not going to do so now.
In the plan, the Government readily admit that trust in institutions is in decline and that social cohesion is fraying. I am concerned that, if Clauses 168 to 171 go through unamended, it could create a problem of further distrust in policing. Despite the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, saying that there is not a huge gap between the amendment and the Government in relation to presumed anonymity for armed police officers, the Government are proposing an unprecedented rejection of the principles around open justice and, more importantly for me, press freedom. I am concerned that the clauses will limit the ability of the press to report in any meaningful way on cases involving the use of lethal force by police officers.
Replacing the presumption of anonymity should not leave officers vulnerable or unsafe, but the amendment would allow the power to grant anonymity if there are specific risks to safety or if it is in the public interest, to prevent harm. This is a blunt instrument. It would set up a privacy regime that would shut the media out from scrutinising the state’s exercise of power with guns. I cannot see how the public will not see that as covering up when the media will be denied any meaningful opportunity even to contest such anonymity, let alone to report. That is the concern. I am sure that the Minister will explain.
It is interesting that the police have recently been asking for greater freedom to release more details in relation to some investigations. This is not in terms of armed police, but police forces have recognised that suppressing information can lead to misinformation. That can turn nasty if the public feel that there has been a cover-up.
That is a move to transparency to ensure public consent and build trust, which goes in the right direction. I am just worried, although it is not their intention, the clauses will be a step back from a duty to have candour and from the state being transparent when, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out, an armed officer representing the state takes another human being’s life. We should not just grant automatic anonymity in that way. We have to at least allow the media to ask questions and scrutinise.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, my name is on the series of amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has spoken to, and I will make a few brief comments in support of them. Before I do, I shall make a few observations about Amendment 394. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, has not yet spoken to it, and he may be able to answer all the points I will make.
I start by saying that I share—with all noble Lords, I think—concern and admiration for the police generally, particularly for police officers who undertake willingly the task of bearing arms on our behalf in circumstances that may conceivably lead to serious harm to them and which call for difficult judgments to be made, often on very little information and in a split second. I entirely understand the concern.
I also wonder whether all these amendments are not significantly inspired by the Chris Kaba case and the officer, Martyn Blake. As to the decision not to grant him anonymity, it is very arguable that the judge came to the wrong decision. But, of course, we must bear in mind that hard cases make bad law and that there is a danger that, from one case, we then proceed to legislate in a way that overreacts and makes a change which is not really justified.
I will deal with Amendment 394, on presumption against prosecution. I am concerned about this. The idea of a presumption against prosecution does not find its way into the criminal law very often. I was able to find only one, the much-criticised Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021, where the then Conservative Government brought in a limit to the prosecution—a legal threshold in relation to overseas acts by serving forces rather than police officers. In certain exceptional circumstances there would be a presumption against there being a prosecution after five years. That was much criticised. What I struggle with in this amendment is that, before any prosecution is brought—the Minister will know this better than anyone, really, in your Lordships’ House—there has to be a consideration of whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, and, secondly, whether it is in the public interest to prosecute.
The factors referred to in this amendment, for example, in proposed new subsection (5)—
“In making a decision to which this section applies, a relevant prosecutor must give particular weight to the following matters … the exceptional demands and stresses to which authorised firearms officers are subjected to in the course of their duties, and … the exceptional difficulties of making time-sensitive judgments”—
are absolutely right, but I respectfully say that those are the very considerations that would be taken into account by the prosecution in the ordinary course of affairs when deciding whether there is sufficient evidence and deciding whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. This would put into the criminal law a presumption that does not have a satisfactory precedent and place officers in a particular position. I feel we must leave it to the prosecutors to take all these matters into account in deciding whether it is appropriate to prosecute.
I should perhaps declare an interest, in that I was a barrister who acted on behalf of the police in one of those few cases where an officer did, in fact, unfortunately, kill a suspected criminal. The case went all the way to the House of Lords. It is called Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police. Ashley’s relatives were represented by Sir Keir Starmer, as he was not then, whose junior was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, as he was not then. The argument involved very much the same issues that we have discussed this evening about objective and subjective mistakes. A very junior officer, as part of the armed response unit, thought he had seen a sudden movement. He opened fire and unfortunately killed Mr Ashley. He was prosecuted for murder and acquitted, because it was a mistake. Civil proceedings followed in due course. It was difficult, but he clearly made a mistake and the jury had no difficulty in acquitting him.
That brings me to the amendment suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I understand what has been said over the years in relation to those matters, but they are very much taken into consideration by juries in any event. Self-defence would include all those matters, or the urgency of the situation. Although I will listen carefully to what the noble Baroness has to say, I am not at the moment convinced that we need to change the law.
I said that I do not like presumptions in the context of the criminal law. I do not like presumptions much anyway, which brings me to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. What worries me about the presumption is: what rebuts that presumption? At the moment, the law provides that a judge decides in the particular circumstances whether it is appropriate to grant anonymity, and he or she will take into account all the factors, including the risk of danger to the officer if he or she is named, which is entirely proper. But this presumption would, I respectfully suggest, mean that the judge would be getting a very strong steer from Parliament that he should grant anonymity unless—and we do not really know what the “unless” is.
Granting anonymity runs contrary to the principle of open justice. Although one has considerable sympathy for any officer caught up in the situation, nobody is above the law, whether they are officers or not.
The press has a duty to report cases, particularly cases of this sort, where serious consequences have followed from the action of the state. We know that journalists are thinner on the ground than they once were and often have to cover different courts. I speak with some experience as the chairman of the press regulation body and knowing the pressures that journalists are under. They themselves often have to make representations to judges, in all sorts of circumstances, as to whether there should be an anonymity order or not. They might be faced with having to persuade a judge who has already been told that there is a presumption of anonymity. That is a hard burden to discharge for a journalist who may or may not have some legal representation. As a result, it seems to me almost inevitable that all officers will be granted anonymity.
If that is what Parliament thinks is appropriate, so be it, but let us not delude ourselves into thinking that presumption will mean anything other than automatic anonymity in these circumstances. I think this is a step that should not be taken. Although all these amendments concern a very real issue and concern, open justice and fairness to all seem to me to point to the result that the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, should be accepted and the other amendments rejected.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
Before the noble Lord sits down, could he just consider one thing? He made some very strong points. One thing that concerns the officers—although the noble Lord is quite right to identify that there have been relatively few criminal charges over the period—and the reason they are not persuaded by the CPS, or whoever is making the decision, taking into account only sufficiency of evidence and public interest, is that on every occasion the CPS has brought a criminal charge, the jury has disagreed with it. It leads you to wonder what led to that decision-making process, because all the points the noble Lord made about all that is considered do not survive the test of a jury when it arrives.
That is why there is this concern. I am with the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. Is this the perfect solution? I am not a lawyer and not in a position to judge whether it is the best solution, but it is why this question is raised so frequently—not because of the frequency of the cases but of how often they have been cleared in a very short time after all the careful consideration by very good lawyers who come to a completely different judgment from that offered by a jury.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
The prosecuting authorities have decided in these cases, for whatever reason, that they think it appropriate to bring a prosecution, to bring the matter before a court where a jury determines what is right. We trust juries—I know that it is a contentious issue at the moment as to what extent we trust them and in what circumstances—but in cases of this sort juries will remain, whatever happens to the prospective reforms. It shows that juries are perfectly capable of taking into account all the pressures that face officers in the situation the noble Lord describes and they regularly do so.
I am content to leave it for the prosecution to decide whether there is a case. Of course, if, having heard the prosecution’s evidence, the judge decides that there is not a prima facie case, the case can stop at that stage. Then the matter comes before a jury, and the common sense of 12 citizens decides—almost inevitably, it seems, reflecting all the factors we have discussed—that in very rare circumstances would it be appropriate to convict an officer. Precisely as the noble Lord has said, these are rare circumstances; often, the officer has not discharged a gun in anger before—we are not talking about Los Angeles or New York—so I am content with the situation.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I should declare an interest as a paid adviser to the Metropolitan Police, although I have not discussed this issue with the police.
I came this evening looking to support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, but a couple of things that he said have caused me some concern. One is about the principle of open justice—yes, it is important to maintain public confidence, and it requires open examination of the evidence, but in police shooting cases, I am not sure that it is a requirement to identify the individual officer concerned. Exactly what happened during the incident has to be heard in open court and openly reported, but not necessarily the identity of the officer at that stage.
The noble Lord also tried to say that firearms officers did not have a unique role, but they do in the use of lethal force. They discharge their weapons on the understanding that it is highly likely that if they do, somebody will die. They aim at the largest body mass and therefore a fatality is the most likely outcome. That is something that no other police officer who is unarmed, or prison officer, as the noble Lord mentioned, would have to face. Therefore, the role of a firearms officer is unique for those reasons.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I spoke on this subject in Committee; I did so with considerable wariness given the strength and distinguished nature of the lawyers who were stressing the importance of open justice. I listened to their speeches incredibly carefully and the House owes them a great deal for coming forward and making the position clear.
I worry about the situation of firearms officers. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made an incredibly important point. Firearms officers do not pick and choose which incidents they attend; they do not have the opportunity to take legal advice before they pull the trigger, and if they do pull the trigger, the likely outcome is death. That is very different from the situations that most police officers find themselves in.
The second point is that we owe them the presumption that we—the Government, their force, and society more generally—will support them in the work that they do, and if they find themselves in the circumstances that we are discussing this evening, their anonymity will be protected until such time as they are convicted, if that is what happens, because by the time their anonymity has been granted, it is too late. I believe that they need to have that certainty at the outset before they go on any missions, before they are deployed.
We ask firearms officers to go into harm’s way. They face intense physical danger from what they do. They are called only to the most serious incidents and stand the risk of being killed themselves. They face the risk of prosecution or perhaps disciplinary action for the shot they discharge, if indeed that is the outcome—which is, as we have heard, incredibly unlikely, but it does happen. We owe them the limited support of the presumption of anonymity, which could be waived if the situation demanded that. It is a big step indeed to go against the presumption of open justice and I fully recognise that—a very powerful argument has been put forward there.
There is one other point to consider that I do not think has been really explored this evening. The obvious conclusion if officers are worried that their names will be publicised should a legal action be brought is that they might hesitate in their duty. They might hesitate to pull that trigger and, in so doing, someone else, a member of the public, may be killed because there is doubt in the minds of those officers. That is something that we should consider very carefully as well.
I got to my feet with considerable temerity, as, apart from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I am the only non-policeman or non-lawyer present in the discussion so far. None the less, there are some points to bear in mind, and I support the approach of the Government.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 394 and to the other amendments in this group. Britain has a very proud and distinctive model of policing by consent. The defining feature of that model is that the overwhelming majority of our police officers do not routinely carry firearms and when firearms are deployed it is because the threat is so grave that lethal force may be necessary to protect life.
That responsibility falls on a very small and highly trained group of officers, and I do not think it hyperbole to say that police firearms officers are some of the bravest, most dedicated officers in the country. According to the latest Home Office statistics, as of 31 March 2025, 6,367 police officers were authorised to carry firearms in England and Wales. That compared with 6,473 the year before, so it is clear that their number is shrinking. That is not something we can afford. It is why my amendment would introduce a presumption against the prosecution of armed police officers where they had discharged their firearm. It would do this by requiring a prosecutor when considering bringing charges against an armed officer to apply the principle that it should be exceptional to bring a prosecution against that officer. This raises the threshold for prosecutions to be instituted. The CPS would have to clear a higher bar to do so.
I want to cast aside some incorrect aspersions. I am not suggesting that armed police officers should be above the law—I want to be absolutely clear about that. The higher prosecution threshold that would be introduced by proposed new subsection (4) of my amendment would still permit prosecutors to bring charges against officers where there are exceptional circumstances. All it is saying is that there must be an acknowledgment of the unique nature of the circumstances that lead to an officer discharging their weapon. Proposed subsection (5) would require prosecutors to give particular weight to the unique demands and exceptional stresses to which firearms officers are subjected, as well as the incredible difficulties of making time-sensitive, split-second decisions.
I want to impress this on the House. It is impossible to understand the immense pressure facing you when you are tasked with the responsibility of carrying a police firearm. I know—I have done it. I carried a firearm for a number of years while employed on counterterrorist duties. Imagine the toll it takes on you as a person. To make it worse, you always have the thought in the back of your mind that, if you do have to use your weapon, you might be hounded for years by the press, by protestors and even by the police force you so dutifully served.
To face the possibility of being dragged before the courts simply for doing your job, with your name splashed over all the papers, is enough to deter anyone, but we cannot afford that to happen. All police firearms officers are volunteers. We need these dedicated officers. We rely on them to protect us in this very building—they are outside, right at this very moment, standing ready to prevent any possible attack.
That is why I cannot support the amendments in this group from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. As I said in Committee, I am firmly supportive of applying the Government’s approach of a presumption in favour of anonymity. The amendments from the noble Lord would not, in my view, substantially alter the status quo, whereby the decision to grant anonymity is at the court’s discretion.
We all say that we must support the police, but support is expressed not only in words; it must be reflected in the structures of law and justice. Those who protect the public in the gravest of circumstances deserve a system that recognises the unique demands placed upon them. Above all, we must ensure that we protect those who protect us. If the Minister cannot accept my amendment, or if I do not hear warm words, I may well seek to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I apologise; I thought the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, was going to speak only to his amendment, but in fact he was summing up. I should have spoken first.
We have sympathy with the principles behind the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. They would replace the current presumption of anonymity with a more flexible, case-by-case judicial test, based on real risks to safety, the public interest and open justice. These are important safeguards and they align with our long-held position. From these Benches, we continue to support a carefully balanced presumption of anonymity for firearms officers who face criminal charges, one that can be rebutted when a court considers identification essential for justice or for maintaining public confidence. The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, would make anonymity the exception, rather than the starting point. That risks undermining the reassurance that these vital specialists need.
In these thankfully rare cases, where hesitation can cost lives, we believe the balance should rest with a rebuttable presumption. It offers protection to officers acting in good faith, without compromising transparency or creating any sense of special treatment. Just as importantly, it protects their families. For me, this is a key issue. Police officers’ children should not have to face abuse at school or live in fear of vigilante threats or gang reprisals. Our approach suggests a middle way, avoiding a chilling effect on recruitment while maintaining public trust through strong judicial oversight.
We are less sympathetic to Amendment 394. While armed officers face exceptional pressures, the proposed presumption against prosecution would send a damaging message that they are being judged by more forgiving standards than other citizens. That is not a principle we believe that we should endorse.
Finally, we understand that the aim of Amendment 403, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is to reassure firearms officers that the law recognises the realities of split-second decision-making, but we fear that it would, in practice, create a special homicide defence available only to that group. We would rather continue to trust judges and juries to apply the existing nuanced law, which already allows for context and proportionality, than to carve out a lesser liability for one profession.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments illustrates exactly how sensitive and difficult these cases are, does it not? In some of the amendments, noble Lords are saying that firearms officers should be held to a different standard than the rest of the population, but, in the others, it is being argued that even a small additional protection for them and their families is too great a differential in treatment.
Against that background, I start with Amendments 393B to 393F, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I met the noble Lord, together with the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Black, and the News Media Association, and I thank them all for the interesting and constructive conversation that we had. The Government have considered the noble Lord’s amendments with great care. We understand, and entirely support, the principle of open justice and freedom of the press, but what is in issue here is trying to find the appropriate balance.
I am really sorry to have to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, whom I admire greatly, but the Government firmly believe that firearms officers face very real and specific risks from organised crime groups and violent offenders, and that this requires there should be a presumption that only their personal details should be withheld up until such time as they are convicted—and if they are acquitted, that their identity will remain protected.
In doing so, we recognise that firearms officers who are being prosecuted for discharging their firearm face a unique situation, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said. The threats they face before and after the trial are real and, unlike most defendants, if acquitted, they are simply unable to return to their old lives as innocent people. Firearms officers and their families have targets on their back, even if they are cleared of any wrongdoing.
This special set of circumstances requires a tailored response, and we believe that the Government’s proposals achieve the correct balance. Those who are opposed to establishing a presumption of anonymity until conviction have twin concerns: first, that there is insufficient evidence that this is necessary; and, secondly, that it represents the thin end of the wedge. I want to deal briefly with each argument in turn.
First, on the evidence that this is needed, there is no doubt that the threat faced by firearms officers is not theoretical. There are very real risks. As I set out in Committee, and will not repeat in detail, firearms officers can face serious death threats and other forms of intimidation, which also extend to their families. As evidence for the need, there is real concern that the revelation of the identity of police officers who are being prosecuted is having a negative effect on the recruitment and retention of these essential officers. I am not sure that these are exactly the same statistics that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has, but certainly those from the document on armed policing attrition and retention record that, since 2019, there has been a loss of 583 armed officers, or an 8.8% reduction. This is a very real concern.
What is important is that this measure does not force the courts to issue an anonymity order. It will not cause secret trials. Judges must still consider the interests of justice and they have an active duty to uphold open justice. Even if no party challenges the anonymity, they still must, in considering the interests of justice, assess whether a reporting direction is necessary and proportionate. Even when anonymity is granted, the proceedings will remain public and the evidence will be tested in open court.
I am afraid the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, is under a misapprehension about what this involves. The only restriction is removing the identity, so they will be referred to throughout all proceedings as Officer A. Everything else will be reported, and, in the event that they are convicted, anonymity will be rescinded and their identity will become known.
A further concern has been the ability of the media to challenge the making of such an order. The Government absolutely understand the point, and we offer the following reassurances. First, by virtue of Criminal Procedure Rule 6.2, courts must actively invite media representations whenever anonymity or reporting restrictions are under consideration, and the judge must create the opportunity for scrutiny.
Secondly, HMCTS has delivered a package of reforms to strengthen media access and support open justice in criminal courts. As part of this reform, every criminal court now has a new circulation list called the reporting restriction application notice list. This list includes contacts from the media distribution list who have specifically agreed to have their details shared with applicants for advance notice. They will be added as mandatory contacts to all reporting restriction application notice lists held by criminal courts to ensure service on their members. In addition, HMCTS has established a media engagement group to improve processes to better serve media professionals in criminal courts.
Thirdly, the law grants the media the right to appeal any decision to make a reporting direction or an anonymity order to the Court of Appeal. But here is one of the most important points: if a judge refuses to make an anonymity order, the prosecution and the defendant have no right of appeal. That is one of the reasons that the Government have decided that the starting point should be a presumption that anonymity is granted.
Would this be the thin end of the wedge? These are unique circumstances. The number of trials is tiny. In the past 10 years there have been two criminal trials for murder or manslaughter as a result of a fatal police shooting. By way of comparison, there have been 13 fatal police shootings since 2019-20. Clauses 168 to 171 have been carefully drafted to strike a lawful and proportionate balance between fundamental rights and the need to protect our firearms officers and their families.
I turn to Amendment 394, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and spoken to powerfully also by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. It is one of two amendments that take the opposite view to that advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
While we acknowledge, once again, the importance of firearms officers and the debt that we owe them, the Government are unable to support this amendment, for these reasons. It would fundamentally alter the basis upon which prosecutorial decisions are taken by introducing a statutory presumption against prosecution for a particular group of citizens, who in this case happen to be police officers. Without doubt, this would create a two-tier approach to prosecutions in the criminal justice system. All public prosecutorial decisions, as we have heard frequently this evening, are made in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, which has statutory force. Its two-stage test has stood the test of time.
The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, suggests that the CPS is getting the decisions wrong because of the number of acquittals. With respect to the noble Lord, that rather misses the point. The CPS test is not to decide whether it prosecutes somebody who is guilty. If we knew they were guilty, we would not need the jury. The test is whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction. That is an exercise of judgment as to whether it is more likely than not that there will be a conviction. If so, and if the public interest stage is satisfied, the case is put before a jury, who decide whether or not they are actually guilty.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
I thank the Minister for giving way. I understand and accept the distinction that she makes. Over the past 20 or 30 years, the concern for the police officers involved is that, on every occasion that the decision has been made, it has been wrong so far as the jury is concerned. It has left the officers believing, sometimes, that the way that the CPS has discharged its problem—with a public outcry about the shooting—has been to test it in a court, rather than making its own decision for which it should be accountable. I understand the distinction that the Minister makes, therefore, but it is spooky that on every occasion the CPS has got it wrong so far as juries are concerned.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, again, that is a fundamental misunderstanding. If the CPS had got it wrong, the judge would have withdrawn it at half-time. It would never have got as far as a jury. The two things —one of them being the fact that the jury has acquitted—simply do not correlate.
The noble Lord’s amendment gives no indication as to how this proposed test would fit with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, save that we would then have a two-tier system, with one rule for the police and another for the citizens they police. It is hard to see how such a situation could command public confidence.
As the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said, the unique position of firearms officers will be taken into consideration at both stages of the full code test. In cases involving fatal police shootings, the Crown Prosecution Service already considers whether the officer’s actions were necessary and reasonable in the circumstances, as the officer honestly believed them to be, recognising how difficult it can be to make fine decisions in the heat of the moment. It is the same law that applies to every citizen. Prosecutions in these cases are very rare, reflecting the high threshold already applied; an additional statutory presumption is neither necessary nor appropriate.
Lastly, I turn to Amendment 403 from the noble Lord, Lord Carter, which was, as ever, attractively advanced by him. The Government’s position remains as it was in Committee: there cannot be a separate criminal law for police officers in homicide cases. The current legal framework already offers robust protection for those who act under a genuine and honest belief, even if that belief later proves to be mistaken. In any event, the Law Commission is considering the offence of homicide, and the Government will consider its report carefully in due course.
I am grateful for the debate that we have had today. It is clear that there are strongly held views on both sides, but the Government believe that they have struck the right balance to protect our highly valued armed police officers while not standing in the way of the principles of open justice and a single-tier justice system. For that reason, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister and to all noble Lords who have spoken in what has been an interesting and important debate on a vital question. I am also grateful to the Minister and her officials, who have devoted considerable time to meeting me and others concerned about this matter, for taking our concerns so seriously. My noble friend Lord Carter of Haslemere made the point that there is much agreement on all sides, and there is. It is very important to emphasise that. We all agree that firearms officers do a vital job. They do it in the public interest, they do it in exceptionally difficult circumstances, and they have our thanks for their service.
Respectfully, I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on Amendment 394, for all the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Faulks. To say to the public that a particular category of defendant—firearms officers—should be prosecuted only if the circumstances are exceptional would send a terrible message to the public and damage public confidence in cases where someone has died by reason of the actions of an officer of state. Surely the standard principle should apply: the CPS asks itself whether a conviction is more likely than not and whether it is in the public interest for there to be a prosecution. As my noble friend Lord Faulks said, in assessing the public interest and whether a conviction is likely, the CPS of course takes into account all the circumstances; in particular, whether the officer is acting normally in the heat of the moment in exceptionally difficult circumstances.
I have a couple of points on my amendment in relation to anonymity. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made the powerful point that firearms officers are unique in that they are licensed to shoot, and that, in almost all cases where they exercise that power, the likely outcome is death. I say to the House that this special and unique role makes it all the more important that open justice fully applies, unless there is information before the court suggesting that anonymity is needed.
The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, made the powerful point that these officers deserve certainty, because otherwise, when they go out to work and are faced with an immediate threat, or what they perceive to be an immediate threat, they might hesitate before shooting as they are worried about the consequences for them. This would be very much against the public interest. I say to the noble Viscount that, under Clause 168, the firearms officer does not have certainty. All that the Government are providing is a presumption, and, as the Minister rightly emphasised, the court will decide, even with a presumption, whether anonymity should apply.
However, whatever noble Lords may think of my judgment on this, I can count, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower
“Presumption against prosecution for alleged conduct by authorised firearms officers(1) Where a relevant prosecutor makes a decision to which this section applies, the prosecutor must, in making the decision—(a) apply the principle set out in subsection (4), and(b) comply with subsection (5).(2) This section applies to a decision of a relevant prosecutor as to—(a) whether or not proceedings should be brought against a person (“D”) for a relevant offence, or(b) whether or not any proceedings against D for a relevant offence should be continued,in England and Wales.(3) In this section, an offence is a “relevant offence” if—(a) it is alleged to have been committed by D acting in the exercise of functions as an authorised firearms officer,(b) the conduct alleged to constitute the offence involved the use by D of a lethal barrelled weapon to discharge a conventional round, and(c) D was, at the time of the alleged offence, authorised by the relevant authority to use that weapon with that round.(4) The principle referred to in subsection (1) is that it is to be exceptional for a relevant prosecutor making a decision to which this section applies to determine that proceedings should be brought against D for the offence or, as the case may be, that the proceedings against the person for the offence should be continued.(5) In making a decision to which this section applies, a relevant prosecutor must give particular weight to the following matters—(a) the exceptional demands and stresses to which authorised firearms officers are subjected to in the course of their duties, and(b) the exceptional difficulties of making time-sensitive judgments as are required by the nature of D’s functions as an authorised firearms officer.(6) The following are “relevant prosecutors” for the purposes of this section—(a) the Director of Public Prosecutions,(b) a Crown Prosecutor, or(c) any person to whom the institution or taking over of proceedings for a relevant offence mentioned has been assigned under section 5(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (conduct of prosecutions on behalf of the CPS).(7) In this section, “authorised firearms officer” means—(a) a member of a relevant police force who is authorised by the relevant chief officer to use a lethal barrelled weapon with a conventional round in the exercise of functions as a constable, (b) a National Crime Agency officer who is authorised by the Director General of the National Crime Agency to use a lethal barrelled weapon with a conventional round in the exercise of functions as a National Crime Agency officer,(c) a member of the Police Service of Scotland or the Police Service of Northern Ireland who—(i) is provided under section 98 of the Police Act 1996 (cross-border aid of one police force by another) for the assistance of a police force in England and Wales, and(ii) is authorised by the relevant authority to use a lethal barrelled weapon with a conventional round in the exercise of functions as a constable, or(d) a member of the armed forces who—(i) is deployed in support of a relevant police force or the National Crime Agency, and(ii) is authorised by the Secretary of State to use a lethal barrelled weapon with a conventional round for the purposes of that deployment.(8) In this section—“conventional round” means any shot, bullet or other missile other than one designed to be used without its use giving rise to a substantial risk of causing death or serious injury;“lethal barrelled weapon” has the meaning given by section 57(1B) of the Firearms Act 1968;“member of the armed forces” means a person who is subject to service law (see section 367 of the Armed Forces Act 2006);“relevant authority” means—(a) in relation to a member of a relevant police force, the relevant chief officer;(b) in relation to a National Crime Agency officer, the Director General of the National Crime Agency;(c) in relation to a member of the Police Service of Scotland, the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland;(d) in relation to a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland;(e) in relation to a member of the armed forces, the Secretary of State;“relevant chief officer” means—(a) in relation to a police force in England and Wales, the chief officer of police of that police force;(b) in relation to the British Transport Police Force, the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police Force;(c) in relation to the Ministry of Defence Police, the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police;(d) in relation to the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, the Chief Constable of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary;“relevant police force” means—(a) a police force in England and Wales,(b) the British Transport Police Force,(c) the Ministry of Defence Police, or(d) the Civil Nuclear Constabulary.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would apply a presumption against prosecution for armed police officers where they discharge their weapons, and requires prosecutors to consider the unique burdens placed on armed officers.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 394 seeks a presumption against prosecution for alleged conduct by authorised firearms officers. I really think that we owe it to firearms officers, who have an exceptional responsibility, to provide this presumption against prosecution. I have to say that I did not hear the warm words that I was looking for from the Government Front Bench, so I am afraid that I seek to divide the House on this.
Lord Hanson of Flint
““law enforcement employer” has the meaning given by section 174(1);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment applies the definition of “law enforcement employer” in clause 174 to all of clauses 173 to 178.
“ScheduleNotification requirements for child cruelty offenders: child cruelty offencesPart 1Child cruelty offencesOffences Against the Person Act 1861 (c.100)
1 An offence under section 27 of the Offences Against the Person 1861 (abandoning or exposing a child), if the offender— (a) was 18 or over, and(b) is sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months.Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c.12)
2 An offence under section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (child cruelty) if the offender—(a) was 18 or over, or(b) is sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months.Infanticide Act 1938 (c. 36)
3 An offence under section 1 of the Infanticide Act 1938 (infanticide).Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 (c. 31)
4 An offence under section 1 of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 (female genital mutilation), if—(a) the victim was under 18, and(b) the offender—(i) was 18 or over, or(ii) is sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months.5 An offence under section 2 of that Act (assisting a girl to mutilate her own genitalia), if—(a) the victim was under 18, and(b) the offender—(i) was 18 or over, or(ii) is sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months.6 An offence under section 3 of that Act (assisting a non-UK person to mutilate overseas a girl’s genitalia), if—(a) the victim was under 18, and(b) the offender—(i) was 18 or over, or(ii) is sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months.Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (c. 28)
7 (1) An offence under section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 of causing or allowing a person’s death, if the victim was under 18.(2) An offence under that section of causing or allowing a person to suffer serious physical harm, if—(a) the victim was under 18, and(b) the offender—(i) was 18 or over, or(ii) is sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months.Part 2Corresponding service offences8 (1) An offence under section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 as respects which the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales (within the meaning given by that section) is an offence listed in Part 1 of this Schedule.(2) Section 48 of that Act (attempts, conspiracy, encouragement and assistance and aiding and abetting outside England and Wales) applies for the purposes of this paragraph as if the reference in subsection (3)(b) to any of the following provisions of that Act were a reference to this paragraph.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Schedule lists offences which are child cruelty offences for the purposes of my first new clause inserted after clause 164.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a requirement to add civilian employees to the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and British Transport Police advisory lists, where allegations are made against them after they resign or retire. This reflects the position for civilian employees of territorial police forces under section 88I of the Police Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts the meaning of “disciplinary proceedings” in relation to the Ministry of Defence Police.
Baroness Doocey
“Police training: independent review(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must establish an independent review of the quality of in-service police officer training within police forces in England and Wales.(2) The review must—(a) assess the consistency, effectiveness and outcomes of all training provided to police officers after completion of their initial entry-level training, including all—(i) in-service training,(ii) workforce development programmes,(iii) refresher courses, and(iv) specialist training;(b) consider the extent to which training equips officers with the necessary skills, knowledge and professional standards to reflect the demands of modern policing, including—(i) digital skills,(ii) investigative skills,(iii) trauma awareness and conflict management, and(iv) processes by which police officers are informed of, and trained in, changes to the law, and(c) make recommendations for improvement, where appropriate.(3) The review established under subsection (1) must complete its work within 12 months of its establishment.(4) Within three months of receiving the review, the Secretary of State must lay a statement before Parliament containing their response and proposals to take forward the recommendations in the review.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to establish an independent review on police training.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 398 I will speak also to the other amendment in my name, Amendment 399. Systemic flaws in our training infrastructure leave front-line officers underequipped and the public at risk. Training should be the bedrock of policing excellence, not a Cinderella function that is both underfunded and undervalued.
In Committee, the Minister asked the House to wait for solutions in the Government’s White Paper. That document has now arrived but, instead of solutions, it proposes to streamline training, and even scopes a reduction in essential public and personal safety training. In the real world of policing, “streamline” is too often code for cutting corners. At a time when one-third of our officers have less than five years’ service—the most inexperienced workforce in decades—reducing the frequency of safety and de-escalating training is a dangerous recipe for increased injuries and risk of misconduct.
The White Paper offers licences to practise and digital passports. These are bureaucratic distractions, not real reform. We risk burying officers under accreditation paperwork while they struggle to build chargeable cases for complex modern crimes such as cuckooing, stalking and online fraud.
Most concerning is the shift towards learning on the job within everyday operational work. For an inexperienced force, this too often means picking up bad habits from equally inexperienced colleagues. Furthermore, by absorbing the College of Policing into the new national police service, the Government are asking the police to mark their own homework. No organisation can objectively evaluate its own systemic failings. An independent statutory review should be non-negotiable. We cannot keep adding new duties into the statute book—respect orders, offensive weapons laws and the rest—without a concurrent independent assessment to check whether the training system, last audited nationally in 2012, can actually deliver them.
Amendment 399 addresses another critical gap by placing a statutory duty on every police force to provide regular, high-quality mental health training. Mental health calls now constitute 15% to 25% of all police demand, yet too many officers lack the specialist training to manage them safely. The amendment seeks to establish a national minimum standard aligned with “right care, right person”, requiring every officer to complete initial training within six months of assuming front-line duties, followed by refreshers every two years.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for bringing back her Amendment 398. We broadly supported the intention behind her amendment in Committee, and we echo that today. It is of course not acceptable that there has been no independent review of the quality of the more than £400 million spent annually on training for eight years, and the statistics on police officer experience and unsolved crimes bear witness to that fact.
I am grateful that, since our debate in Committee, the Government have brought forward a White Paper that covers many aspects of policing, including training. That is a welcome step, but perhaps the Minister could outline some more specifics on the form that this reform will take? I am conscious that the College of Policing is still working on precise proposals, but an update would be very much appreciated. It is a positive sign that the Government recognise this gap in our policing and seem to be acting on it. As such, while we support the noble Baroness’s intention, we believe that letting the Government carry out their work is a more practical next step.
As we noted in Committee, while we also support the noble Baroness’s intention in Amendment 399 to provide the best possible care to those with mental health problems, we cannot support this specific measure. The Government made it clear in the Mental Health Act last year that they want to reduce the role of police in mental health decisions. We broadly support that. It reflects the belief that health workers, not the police, are the right officials to deal with mental health issues. Any police training must not blur this clear distinction. That said, I understand that police officers are often the first responders to situations concerning mental health patients, so I acknowledge the complexity of the issue and would welcome the Minister underlining the Government’s position on this in his reply.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for these amendments, which bring us back to the important issue of police training.
Amendment 398 would require the Home Secretary to commission an independent review of police training. As your Lordships’ House will be aware, the College of Policing is responsible for setting national training standards, including the police curriculum and accreditations for specialist roles. Our police reform White Paper set out our commitment to develop a licence to practise for policing. It will seek to create a unified system that brings together mandatory training with consistent professional development and well-being support.
As we work with the sector, we will examine the existing training landscape and look to the findings of the police leadership commission, led by my noble friend Lord Blunkett and the noble Lord, Lord Herbert. We will also consider how this model can build on the accreditations and licensing already delivered by the College of Policing in specialist operational areas.
As has been noted, both this evening and in Committee, the College of Policing is also developing a national strategic training panel, which will provide further sector-led insight into existing training. We would not want to pre-empt the outcomes of this work or create a burden of extensive reviews for the sector when much activity is under way through police reform. We therefore do not believe it necessary for the Home Secretary to commission an independent review of police officer training and development, as proposed in Amendment 398. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment, as these issues have been examined comprehensively through existing work. I can assure her that it is a key element of our police reform agenda. Having published the White Paper, we will obviously progress that at the appropriate time and produce further reforms that may be necessary, which there will be further opportunities for your Lordships’ House and the other place to debate at length, whether through a legislative vehicle or not.
I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, was rather dismissive of introducing the licence to practise. Officers deserve a clear and consistent structure to empower them to learn, train and develop as skilled professionals. Once implemented, a licence model will provide greater assurance that the police have the correct training and well-being support to do their jobs and that there are regular reviews to ensure that they meet national standards. We recognise that we will not be able to introduce a licensing model overnight, but we have set out the first steps for a licensing model, including mandatory leadership standards and a strong performance management framework.
Amendment 399 seeks to ensure that police officers have the training required to deal with people suffering through a mental health crisis. As I indicated, the setting of standards and the provision of mandatory and non-mandatory training material is a matter for the College of Policing. It provides core learning standards, which includes the initial training for officers under the Police Constable Entry Programme. This underpins initial learning levels around autism, learning disabilities, mental health, neurodiversity and other vulnerabilities. Through forces utilising this established training, officers are taught to assess vulnerability and amend their approaches as required to understand how best to communicate with those who are vulnerable for whatever reason, and to understand how to support people exhibiting these needs to comprehend these powers in law and continue to amass specialist knowledge to work with other relevant agencies to help individuals.
We consider it impractical to expect, or indeed require, police officers to become experts in the entire range of mental health and vulnerability conditions, including autism and learning disabilities. Instead, the College of Policing rightly seeks to equip them to make rational decisions in a wide range of circumstances, and to treat people fairly and with humanity at all times.
I have said this a number of times: all forces are operationally independent of government. To seek to impose requirements on mandatory training risks undermining that very principle. Furthermore, each force has unique situations—different pressures, priorities, demographics and needs. To mandate that a small rural force must undertake the same training as a large urban force will not give it the flexibility it needs to best serve its local communities. Furthermore, the College of Policing is best placed to draw on its expertise to determine the relevant standards and training that the police require.
The training already provided equips officers with the knowledge to recognise indicators of mental health and learning disabilities; to communicate with and support people exhibiting such indicators; to understand their police powers; and to develop specialist knowledge to work with other agencies to help individuals. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, this is not about replacing real experts and mental health workers, in the NHS and other agencies, who are best placed to provide that specialist knowledge and expertise.
I hope that, on the basis of these comments and the work already under way, the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
I thank the Minister for his response. I do not think it matters who is responsible for training. What matters is that training is appropriate and that officers are trained.
I spent most of last year talking to chief constables in the whole of the UK. Their view was very different from what the Minister just said. Their view was that they do not get sufficient training, that training is piecemeal and that they have virtually no training in anything to do with mental health. I do not think they were just making that up; this was something that they genuinely believed. In fact, I am pretty certain about it.
Also, HMICFRS has reported time and again that training is inconsistent, the quality is weak, there are weak checks on force-run programmes, there is poor support for new officers and obvious risks in forces marking their own homework. These gaps demand independent scrutiny. That is not similar to what the Minister just said. Training is a vital ingredient for officers. We sit in this House and in the other place, and we make rules and regulations as to what should happen. But we do not make sure that the people on the ground facing these problems every day are equipped to deal with them. That is, frankly, a disgrace. The fact that there has been no independent check on police training since 2012 is almost beyond belief. However, it is late, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Doocey
“Duty to record algorithmic tools(1) Each police force in England and Wales must disclose its use of any algorithmic tool used in the exercise of its functions that may affect the rights, entitlements or obligations of individuals by completing entries in the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard (ATRS).(2) Under subsection (1) “algorithmic tool” means a product, application or device that supports or solves a specific problem using complex algorithms.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment places a duty on police forces to disclose any algorithmic tool used in the exercise of its functions.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 401 in my name. The amendment would place a clear legal duty on police forces to declare high-impact algorithmic tools using the Government’s algorithmic transparency recording standards, known as ATRS. It is currently just professional guidance, not a binding obligation, and compliance is dangerously patchy, with many live operational tools still undeclared publicly. Yesterday, a search of the public repository found only two entries for police AI tools, despite systems such as live facial recognition being in widespread use.
The Government’s White Paper promises a new registry through its police.ai initiative. However, without statutory backing, this risks becoming another underused voluntary scheme that takes years to implement while AI moves at a relentless pace. In Committee, the Minister claimed that the ATRS was too jargon-heavy and designed only for Whitehall. The ATRS contains dual tiers, a plain English narrative for citizens and technical details for experts. The real barrier is not jargon but commercial confidentiality clauses in procurement contracts. Without a statutory duty, forces cannot override these clauses, even where tools restrict rights and freedoms.
The Minister was also concerned about compromising operational effectiveness and scrutiny. The ATRS already builds in exemptions for national security and cases where disclosure would prejudice law enforcement. A statutory duty would codify these existing safeguards, not remove them. We are talking about tools of state coercion, predictive pre-crime models and risk-scoring 999 calls. The public are entitled to operational transparency to judge their fairness. Defendants cannot challenge what they cannot see.
My Amendment 401 responds to the national audit of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. It mandates a national plan, with clear milestones to modernise police data systems for real-time intelligence sharing. The Government’s White Paper admits that 90% of crime now has a digital element and that policing has fallen behind. Fragmented IT creates a back door for security vulnerabilities and a forensic backlog of 20,000 devices. The Minister insists that existing programmes offer more agility than a statutory plan, but this piecemeal approach is exactly what has failed us for 30 years.
I welcome the NPCC’s recent announcement of a national data integration and exploitation service. However, this is still at the scoping stage, offering only guidance. It lacks binding timelines and parliamentary oversight, which the serious failings exposed in the audit of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, suggest are urgently needed and that Amendment 401 would deliver. The Home Secretary says that she wants to go big or go home on police reform. This is her chance: a clear pathway towards a national strategic overhaul. A basic transparency duty must be part of that foundation. The service with the most intrusive powers should not work to a lower transparency bar than Whitehall. I beg to move.
Lord Strasburger (LD)
My Lords, I was going to speak on Amendments 400 and 407 in this group, but my noble friend Lady Doocey made such an excellent contribution that I will skip my speech on Amendment 400. I want to say, though, that I am not quite sure what the point is of me speaking on any amendment at this stupid time of day and with no chance of a meaningful Division to test the opinion of the House. What we are doing here is not scrutiny; it is just going through the motions. Nevertheless, I will go ahead with my speech on Amendment 407, if only to put my views on the record.
Amendment 407 is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, who is not here. As my name is also on the amendment, I may, I believe, speak to it on her behalf. Am I correct?
Lord Strasburger (LD)
Thank you. Amendment 407 asks us to make a practical decision about policing and tackling violence against women and girls. It is not—I repeat, not—about taking sides in a culture war. Recording biological sex in every case is about getting the basics right: honest crime figures, sound operational decisions and better protection for victims of violence. If we do not know clearly in our police data who is male and who is female, we cannot properly track male violence, spot patterns and target resources where they are most needed.
When police forces blur sex and gender identity, the data starts to go wrong. Hardly any perpetrators of sexual violence are women, so it takes only a small number of male offenders being recorded as women to make it look—wrongly—as if women are suddenly committing many more violent and sexual offences. That distorts our statistics, makes it harder to see the true scale of male violence against women, and risks bad safeguarding decisions.
If systems shift between recording sex, gender as perceived or self-identified gender, we lose track of the trends. We can no longer say with confidence whether male violence is rising or falling, or whether policy changes are working. When the public discover that “female” means one thing in one table and something different in another, trust in policing and government data inevitably suffers.
Professor Alice Sullivan is one of the UK’s leading experts in quantitative social science. She was appointed by the Government to independently review how public organisations can best collect data on sex and gender. Her review cuts through the confusion that currently exists. It says that, when the state needs sex data, it should ask a simple factual question about biological sex—“What is your sex: male or female?”—and that that must be kept separate from any voluntary questions about gender identity. It strongly recommends that all police forces record biological sex in all relevant systems.
Some people worry that this will force trans people to out themselves to the police. It should not and it does not have to. The police already record very sensitive information—religion, disability, sexuality—while respecting confidentiality, human rights and data protection law. The sex question is about biological reality for operational and statistical purposes. Held securely in background systems, it is not a licence to broadcast someone’s history or to deny their gender identity in day-to-day interactions. Where there is a need to understand gender identity, that can be done through a separate, clearly labelled voluntary question with strict safeguards.
The choice is stark. If we do not record biological sex, we accept distorted crime figures, poorer operational decisions, broken trend data and growing public mistrust. If we do record biological sex clearly and consistently, we give ourselves honest statistics, better safeguarding and a policing system that can see and therefore tackle the reality of male violence against women and girls.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 407, on the recording of sex in police data. It is a real shame that the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, is unable to be with us because she would have introduced it very elegantly.
A year ago, in March 2025, Professor Alice Sullivan’s Review of Data, Statistics and Research on Sex and Gender came out. It pointed out:
“It is well-established that sex is a major determinant of offending and victimisation”.
The noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, may have been going through the motions but he went through them very well by explaining clearly why this amendment matters. As he pointed out, it is very difficult for the Government to claim to have a target-based campaign to reduce violence against women and girls if they do not have consistent, accurate data in relation to women and girls. Although Professor Sullivan’s review was broadly welcomed by the Government, its recommendations have not yet been acted on. This amendment attempts to nudge some action from the Government.
The issue of delayed guidance is a constant problem. The Women’s Rights Network recently contacted the National Police Chiefs’ Council, inquiring whether it intends to now record sex accurately and address what it said was the “ideological corruption of data”. The NPCC’s reply says that
“updates to the collection and recording of sex and gender reassignment questions are pending subject to the issue of national guidance by the Office for National Statistics/Government Statistical Service following the UK Supreme Court ruling earlier this year”.
That is one pending answer. Individual police forces responding to a variety of organisations’ queries about the continued use of a variety of approaches to collecting sex data—including self-ID, recording a rapist as female and so on—say that they are waiting for guidance from the ONS and the GSS. Is there anyone not waiting for guidance? It feels as though this is a waste of time that is unnecessarily adding to confusion.
In Committee, I went into detail about differing and contradictory data collection practices across police forces. I will not repeat that, but recording practices vary not just between but within criminal justice agencies and even relevant government departments. As there are 40 different databases at a national level relating to criminal justice, the data that is being collected as we speak is full of discrepancies. The Home Office’s annual data requirement on demographic data, for example, advises police forces to record sex subject to a gender recognition certificate. Other mandatory Home Office standards—on police use of force, for example—require officers to record perceived gender, with a choice of male, female or other. There are also the multi agency public protection arrangements, which focus on protecting the public from the most serious harm from sexual and violent offenders, including convicted terrorists. They too conflate sex and gender in their data collection.
However, the Murray Blackburn Mackenzie criminal justice blog discovered via a freedom of information request that MAPPA provides police officers across the UK with
“51 options to record the gender identity of high-risk offenders”.
How does it help to keep the public safe, or aid operational coherence, to know whether a terrorist or paedophile is pangender, genderqueer, agender, bi-gender or gender-fluid, just to name a few of the 51 options they could fill in? I am not trying to be glib; I am just urging the Government to bring clarity and consistency to the collection of data on sex in relation to victims and perpetrators, because otherwise I think it is unfair to claim that there is anything like an evidence-based policy when it comes to sex and, indeed, gender.
We have recently had some exchanges about the new aggravated offences in relation to transgender people, and there are people who are transgender who claim that hate speech and hate crime against them has gone up. I am not challenging whether or not that is true. But to collate the data to make a case for that, one has to make a distinction in the collection of data between somebody who is transgender and somebody who says “I am a woman” who is in fact a transgender person who identifies as a woman.
I think that, for all victims concerned, let alone for understanding the nature of offenders, we need to have accurate, consistent data across all criminal justice agencies and all police forces. I hope that the Minister will at least give us an assurance that the recommendations of Professor Sullivan’s fine and important review—which is full of detail and evidence, with practical conclusions, and which the Government have welcomed—will be acted on. If we can get that assurance tonight, that would be brilliant. If there is any government reluctance to accept Professor Sullivan’s review, it would be really helpful to understand why—what the hold-up is—and maybe the Minister could explain that too.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, given what the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, said about the lateness of the hour, which I think we are all aware of, I want to be very short on my concerns about Amendments 406 and 407. I am sorry not to see the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, in her place.
My concerns about both amendments are about practicality and the dignity of people. In a nutshell, this is what they have in common: the police are going to be the race police and the sex police in addition to being the police, and they require police officers to make a judgment even against the way that the suspect—or the victim—defines themselves at any stage in the criminal justice process. I think that is a mistake.
How is this going to work? A victim goes to the police because they have experienced an assault or another serious crime. Whatever community or person they are, they will go to the police, and, under both these amendments, the police officer is required to interrogate whether they are who they say they are on sex and race grounds. I think this is a real mistake, and it will not help the police in the difficult work they have to do and certainly will not help all our communities in these difficult times.
I think that is one minute and 58 seconds. I hope noble Lords understand my point.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak on a slightly different topic: my Amendment 409FA. I have tabled it because we face a three-pronged crisis. First, there is the growing evidence of foreign interference from Governments and individuals seeking to subvert our democracy. The case of the former Reform UK leader in Wales, Nathan Gill, who pled guilty to eight charges of bribery, is perhaps the most prominent example, but it is by no means the only one—as shown, for example, by MI5’s recent alert to MPs, noble Lords and parliamentary staff after finding that Chinese intelligence officers were attempting to recruit people.
Secondly, there have been far too many other political scandals involving misbehaviour by politicians, such as those involving the then Lord Mandelson, although he is, sadly, by no means the only person from this House, or due to join this House, who has recently been in the headlines for all the wrong reasons.
Thirdly, trust in politics and politicians is at a worryingly low level. A headline from the 41st British Social Attitudes survey, for example, was:
“Trust and confidence in Britain’s system of government at record low”.
Given recent events, it is a reasonable fear that future BSA data will show new record lows being hit. We therefore need to up our game. It is welcome that the Government are taking some steps to do so. The plans in the Hillsborough Bill to modernise the law over misconduct in public office are particularly welcome.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, after that, I had better begin by confessing a misdemeanour. Many years ago, I added my terrier’s name to the census as a “rodent operative” and gave her age in dog years. That illustrates that it is important that when we are gathering data it is, by and large, reliable.
In fact, the principles of GDPR should surely lead us to say that we have no business collecting personal data from people if we are not going to use it. If we are collecting data that is so remarkably corrupt as some of the data that the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, talked about, it is useless. It tells us nothing about what is going on in society. It has no function—there is no valid use we can make of that data—so we should not be collecting it.
The first question for the police and the Government to ask themselves is whether they need the data. Do they actually need to record sex in all crimes and for all victims. If so, what will they use that data for? If they are going to use it, is it not important that it is accurate? They should choose, therefore, what data they record according to the use they are going to make of it. I therefore have a lot of sympathy with Amendments 406 and 407. I am, despite my past bad behaviour, in favour of accurate data.
I end by giving the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, a moment’s comfort. Once an amendment is on the Marshalled List, it is the property of the House—anybody can move it or address it.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I wish to speak incredibly briefly, purely because the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, mentioned the noble Baroness, Lady Cash. She personally spoke to the noble Lords, Lord Hanson and Lord Katz, and she apologises. She was otherwise detained and sends her regrets.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as I said earlier, I am a paid adviser to the Metropolitan Police. However, I have not discussed this subject with the police; these are my personal views.
With regard to Amendments 406 and 407, from my operational policing experience I know that the proportion of transgender men and women in the general population is very small. The proportion of offenders who are transgender is even smaller, and the number of transgender people who are convicted of violence is tiny. The number of criminal offences committed by transgender people is neither statistically nor operationally significant for the police.
On victim data, the most important operationally useful data for the police in relation to hate crime is how the victim identifies themselves. For other offences, it is what motivated the assailant—that is, what did the assailant perceive the victim to be? Did the assailant perceive the person to be female, in which case it is misogyny? Did they perceive the victim to be transgender, in which case it is transphobia? The birth sex of the victim is not that operationally significant for the police, nor is it likely to be statistically significant.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I have one sentence to add to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. The Office for National Statistics, in response to an FoI, said on the collection of data in relation to the “gender identity different from sex registered at birth” category:
“We have to be robust enough to provide reliable estimates”,
but there is not enough data to be able to do that. Why? Because the data is so low that it is statistically insignificant. It is not corrupt and it is not many more to twist it for women. We need to be factually accurate when looking at this issue.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I was not making the point it has been assumed I was making. This is about consistency, which is the point made by Professor Sullivan. Different police forces are collecting different data on gender identity or sex, sometimes conflating the two and sometimes using multiple variations on a theme. I then used the analogy of this happening across criminal justice. From the point of view of whatever evidence someone is trying to collect, as has just been pointed out, if we are going to collect data—and maybe we should not bother—will it be useful if it is different all over the country depending on the department?
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am struggling to hear the question in the noble Baroness’s intervention. I repeat the point that the Office for National Statistics and the police data that is currently collected both say the numbers are so low they are insignificant and therefore unusable.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments raises two significant issues for modern policing: transparency in the use of algorithmic tools and the modernisation of police data and intelligence systems.
I turn first to Amendment 400, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. We on these Benches recognise the intention behind the proposal. As policing increasingly makes use of complex digital tools, such as data analytics and algorithms, it is entirely right that questions of transparency and public confidence are taken seriously. However, as discussed in Committee, we should be mindful that policing operates in a sensitive operational environment. Any transparency framework must strike the right balance between openness on the one hand and the need to protect investigative capability and operational effectiveness on the other.
Amendment 401, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, addresses a different but equally important issue: the state of police data and intelligence systems. Few would dispute that technology within policing must keep pace with the demands of modern crime, and the challenge is not simply identifying the problem but determining the most effective mechanism to address it. Modernising policing technology is a complex and ongoing task that already involves national programmes, investment decisions and operational input from forces themselves.
For these reasons, while we recognise the important objectives behind these amendments, the question for noble Lords is whether the specific legislative approach proposed here is the most effective way of delivering them.
The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Cash seek to require the police to record the ethnicity and sex of a suspect. These are steps that these Benches wholly support. The importance of these measures can hardly be overstated. Recording ethnicity data has been recommended by experts of all professions, parties and associations. It is a requisite for enabling police to track and measure crime trends within certain communities and serves a secondary purpose of allaying or affirming arguments and claims about offending statistics, which currently are regrettably too often reduced to conjecture. Similarly, we support the recording of sex data as part of a larger drive to secure the rights of women by delineating sex from whatever gender identity an individual assigns themselves.
We are entirely supportive, therefore, of my noble friend Lady Cash’s amendments and are grateful to other noble Lords who have spoken in support of them tonight. I hope the Minister agrees that these are issues that should be above the political divide and that these amendments will improve operational efficiency. I look forward to his response.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this wide-ranging debate on a wide-ranging group of amendments.
I begin with Amendment 400, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. I fully agree—indeed, we have cross-party consensus here—with the importance of transparency in the use of algorithmic tools by the police and acknowledge the current lack of a complete or consistent national picture of police use of AI, as has been highlighted by the noble Baroness. However, the algorithmic transparency recording standard, or ATRS, was designed for central government and arm’s-length body use and is simply not the most effective or proportionate mechanism for delivering meaningful transparency in an operational policing context.
As we announced in the policing reform White Paper, the Government are taking forward a national registry of police AI deployments. The registry will be operated by the new national centre for AI and policing, which will be launched later this spring. This police-specific registry approach will address directly the concerns raised in Committee, and again this evening, about patchy disclosure, public confidence and accountability, while respecting operational independence.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, rightly noted the importance of having a flexible approach when it comes to operational policing. Locking policing into an inflexible statutory mechanism to disclose tools under the ATRS, even as an interim measure, would risk duplicative reporting, unclear disclosure expectations and putting additional administrative burdens on forces without improving public understanding or oversight.
The policing registry is an active programme of work designed specifically to close the transparency gap. It will adopt a tiered approach to transparency. All operational AI deployments will be recorded nationally, while a robust exemptions framework will protect genuinely sensitive capabilities from public disclosure, in a similar manner to how the Freedom of Information Act operates. This approach is designed to deliver clear narratives for the public, with named officers accountable for AI deployments in their force and strong compliance incentives. The Government fully expect police forces to utilise the registry and be transparent with the public about the algorithms they are using and the steps that have been taken to ensure they are being used responsibly. This is vital to building and maintaining public consent for the use of these powerful tools.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
I thank the Minister for his response and am pleased to hear that there is to be a new registry. I think the Minister said that it will be up and coming in a couple of months and that, critically, it will deal with the issues that I raised both in Committee and tonight on Report. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel
“Exception of the police from the public sector equality dutyIn schedule 18 (public sector equality duty: exceptions) of the Equality Act 2010, after paragraph 3 insert—“The Police
3A (1) Section 149 does not apply to any police force when exercising policing or law enforcement functions.(2) For the purposes of this paragraph, “police force” includes—(a) a police force maintained by a local policing body,(b) the British Transport Police,(c) the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, and(d) the Ministry of Defence Police.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to exempt the police from the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010, so as to ensure they are solely committed to effectively carrying out their policing functions.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 402, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower, concerns the application of the public sector equality duty under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, specifically to policing and law enforcement functions. The amendment would ensure that police forces are left to focus on their core duties—to prevent crime and protect the public—without being constrained.
Every day, police officers must make difficult and sometimes instantaneous decisions in the most challenging circumstances, and their priority must always be public safety. This amendment provides a clear and limited exception from the public sector equality duty when, and only when, police forces are exercising their operational policing and law enforcement functions. Operational decision-making, which so often takes place in fast-moving situations, must be guided first and foremost by the need to prevent harm and uphold the law. Police powers are already limited by statute, such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, regulations, ethics codes, codes of practice, the IOPC and, of course, the courts, not to mention operational safeguards.
This amendment would ensure that clarity and focus are restored to the operational framework of the police. It would allow officers to concentrate on stopping crimes and protecting victims, without the risks that those decisions could later be questioned by a framework that was never designed with front-line policing in mind. I know that my noble friend Lord Davies and the Minister had a spirited debate in Committee on this topic. I must be entirely frank with your Lordships that I do not intend to test the opinion of the House on this matter. I would like to probe the Government, however, as to their rationale on retaining the current framework and its impact on policing. For those reasons, I beg to move.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is me again. I declare my interest as a paid adviser to the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, particularly on issues of culture and leadership.
In the UK, we police by consent. That relies on public trust and confidence. Public trust and confidence, in turn, relies on the police treating every member of the public with dignity and respect, no matter their background or the community with which they identify. In addition, to ensure every police officer and member of police staff can be themselves and give of their best, the public sector equality duty is essential. Yesterday, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Sir Mark Rowley, told the London Policing Board that he was committed to continuing the work of the UK’s largest police force on diversity, equality and inclusion. If noble Lords will not take my word for how important the public sector equality duty is to policing, maybe they will take Sir Mark’s.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, introduced Amendment 402, which proposes that the police should be exempt from the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010, to ensure that they are
“solely committed to effectively carrying out their policing functions”.
I still have some difficulty in following the arguments for this amendment; I also raised this in Committee. I wonder whether the noble Lord seriously believes that applying the PSED takes away from the police carrying out their duties effectively. In speaking earlier to Amendment 400, my noble friend Lady Doocey mentioned the review by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, and the importance of standards, training and inspection: the perfect circle that ensures police forces are working effectively. The PSED is absolutely at the heart of that.
A number of high profile cases have absolutely strengthened the need for the PSED. Indeed, it has been failings in policing that shocked the country, and every report on those incidents has talked about appalling attitudes to vulnerable people. On Monday evening, the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence of Clarendon, spoke about the murder of her son Stephen, and how that racist murder might have been stopped if the police had done their job earlier, when the harassment was escalating. Following the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the Macpherson report of 1999 was a means of changing the culture in public institutions, not just the police, to ensure that they had due regard to race equality decisions. This was later extended to disability and gender issues.
It was clear in Macpherson’s report then that the police were “institutionally racist” and had a lack of curiosity, in the Lawrence case, about the anti-social behaviour of young white gangs and what they were doing to local Black young people. The whole design of the PSED was to ensure that the police could do their job properly, without fear or favour, and support vulnerable communities. There are many excellent, moral and dedicated police officers who fulfil this every working day. Sadly, it has not always been consistent.
When sisters Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman were murdered in a park in June 2020, the public were appalled by the behaviour of the police. Photographs of the dead girls were taken and shared by police officers: this was racism and misogyny. In that case, more work was needed to change the culture of the Met. When Sarah Everard was murdered in March 2021 by a serving police officer, the country was shocked. The background story about misogyny in the force was equally shocking, as was the fact that, at work, the dreadful behaviour of the murderer had been tolerated and not dealt with. I raise these cases because each of the reports on these incidents keeps returning to the culture that engenders racism and misogyny in certain places in the police.
I have absolutely no doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, that there is an enormous amount of work going on to change that culture, and in many forces it is working well. But without the PSED there would be no priority to have due regard to race, gender and disability. There would be no yardstick for the police inspectorate to look at and address culture. There would be no clear duty to ensure that staff are trained. Worst of all, it would be all too easy to slip back into the old ways. I am sure that the Conservative Front Bench would not want that to happen. The PSED is an important tool in the armoury of the police to keep us all safe, including those who are both vulnerable and at high risk. Please do not support Amendment 402.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We are here again. I do not expect the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, to understand why I am not going to change my position. There is a view that, for all the reasons that have been given, equality is extremely important for a public sector body. I did not disagree with a single word that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, or the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, and I stand here to say that the public sector equality duty is one that this Government fully support.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, is not going to press this amendment to a Division this evening. If he did, I would ask my noble friends to vote against it. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, the police are the public, and they have the confidence of the public. The Peelian principles, on which the police were established all those years ago, are about the police reflecting the public, understanding the public and taking the public into account. The public are made up of people who have disabilities, people who are gay, lesbian and trans, and women who face particular challenges. The public are people who have protected characteristics. We need to understand that.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. As my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower said in Committee, the question that your Lordships must ask yourselves is what we want the police to prioritise. These Benches have argued that the answer to that question is public safety, crime prevention, and the fair and firm enforcement of the law.
This amendment is aimed at removing a layer of bureaucratic obligation that, in our view, is simply not fit for purpose for operational policing. Effective policing is a public good. The way to ensure that the largest number of people are met with dignity and respect is to ensure that the law is enforced effectively. However, in the light of all contributions, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Kidron
“Police protocols when investigating the death of a child(1) The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 is amended as follows.(2) After section 27 (common law rules as to criminal investigations), insert—“27A Inclusion of guidance on collecting digital data when investigating the death of a child(1) Within six months of the day on which the Crime and Policing Act 2026 is passed, the code of practice under section 23 must include protocols that a person must adhere to when investigating the death of a child.(2) These protocols must include the treatment of potential online harm as a primary line of enquiry.(3) In order to treat a potential online harm as a primary line of enquiry, an investigating person must—(a) seize and forensically examine digital devices as soon as is reasonably possible;(b) take all reasonable steps to capture early digital evidence and account data, taking into account that online services delete user data after a short period of inactivity;(c) document a child’s activity on all known online services, including recommended content, interactions with other users, content viewed, content uploaded, and any relevant metadata.(4) Where an investigation gives evidence that a service regulated by the Online Safety Act 2023 may have breached the terms of that Act, OFCOM must be notified and supplied with the evidence.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to update statutory guidance issued to police to include guidance on effective evidence-collecting related to potential digital harm during an investigation into the death of a child. Currently, there is no statutory guidance for police to follow regarding investigating digital harm.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 404, 405, 431 and 432. In the light of the hour and the spirit of my conversations with the Minister, I will not go through my amendments in detail, nor the very long journey it has been to get here. In short, they concern earlier agreements that, in cases where a child has died, the coroner and the police should be equipped and informed to preserve data from online services.
I thank the Minister, and officials from both the Ministry of Justice and DSIT, for their engagement. Before I put on record some of my concerns, I acknowledge that, for the past few weeks at least, we have been trying to get to the same place on this. I am disappointed that we have not quite found a way to do so, and I hope that the Minister will find a way to reassure me and—possibly more importantly—the bereaved parents who have fought hard for these amendments.
Both my Amendment 404 and government Amendment 429A seek to make it automatic that, on being notified of the death of a child, a coroner issues a data preservation notice which means that a regulated service under the Online Safety Act would have to preserve the data of a child within five days. The Government have agreed to this in principle but wanted to exclude children who die in circumstances such as a road accident or in hospital as a result of illness, to which I have agreed. But, in their effort to exclude those children, they have, in proposed new subsection (1)(b) in their Amendment 429A, allowed the coroner to decide
“that no purpose would be served by OFCOM giving a notice”
under the Act
“because such information is of no relevance to a child’s death”.
That is too broad. Giving permission for a coroner to decide what constitutes “no purpose” is a bit like snakes and ladders: we are back to the problem that has plagued bereaved parents, where coroners underestimate the speed necessary to preserve data, or the scope and importance of information that might be preserved in this way. This is not a criticism of coroners. It is far beyond the experience of professionals, across all domains, to understand the range of online material available or its ethereal nature.
My second issue with the government amendment is that they have chosen to reduce the length of time that data is preserved—the preservation notice—from a year to six months. I discussed this with officials earlier today, and I understand that it is extendable, but both I and Ellen Roome, bereaved mother of Jools, feel that it is not long enough. Some 45% of inquests take longer than six months; 18% take more than a year. Reducing the time is deliberately creating a weakness in the system at a time when parents need support and must not be made anxious by watching the clock running down and worrying whether someone, somewhere in the system, will fail to extend the preservation order.
There is also an ongoing issue with conflicts between our laws and those in the US. I received a letter from Minister Narayan this week updating me about the conflict between Section 101 of the Online Safety Act and the US Stored Communications Act. The letter said:
“Interpretation of the SCA is not settled”,
there may be some variety between different US states, and
“discussions between DSIT, Ofcom and service providers are taking a place to find a path forward”.
This regime depends entirely on resolving this issue. We were promised from the Dispatch Box that this was a priority for DSIT nearly two years ago, when the previous Government were in power. It was not done then and it is still not resolved. The letter did not mention anything about discussions between Government Ministers and their counterparts in the US, upon which this finally depends. I hope that the Minister is not surprised at the level of frustration felt by bereaved parents at the lack of speed with which this issue has been pursued.
The Government have put out a press release and made assurances to bereaved parents, and now we are here at a time of night when no vote can reasonably take place. So I would like the Minister to offer to bring pack tighter wording at Third Reading. I believe it is necessary and what parents are expecting. Even if she is not able to make that commitment tonight, it is what should happen and I ask her to try to make it happen. It has been promised and I believe it must be delivered.
I do not intend to pursue my Amendment 405, but I simply ask the Minister to put on the record how the police will be better informed of this regime. I finish by paying tribute all the bereaved families who have campaigned for this change—Jools’ law—and the amendments that preceded it. We in this House are witness to your pain and your generosity in campaigning so that others do not suffer as you have.
I wish to remind the Government of what one father said the day before Committee: “I was happy with the meeting with Liz Kendall until I realised it was the exact same meeting I had with Peter Kyle the year before. Nothing had changed except the size of the room to accommodate the increased number of bereaved parents”. There is a crisis unfolding that the Government are not grasping. Sorting out this amendment is not enough, but it must be done. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak on this vital group of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, concerning the investigation of child deaths, to which I have been very pleased to add my name. We all absolutely acknowledge that the noble Baroness has been tireless in her campaign and her support for the bereaved parents, and she is no less eloquent or persuasive even at this time of night.
The chink of light provided by the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, in Committee and the movement represented by government Amendments 429A and 454A are very welcome. However, on these Benches, like the noble Baroness we question whether they are as comprehensive as the solutions proposed in her amendments. The government amendments are substantive concessions regarding the principle of automatic data preservation, but they fall short of the immediate statutory certainty and the proactive coronial and police duties sought by the noble Baroness to ensure a comprehensive investigation into digital harms. So, while I welcome in principle the Government’s agreement to make DPNs automatic, their current drafting often leans on secondary legislation and future consultations. These amendments place the duty firmly in the Bill, providing the immediate legal certainty that bereaved families deserve in 2026.
Perhaps the most critical missing piece in the Government’s current approach is addressed by Amendment 404, which requires the police to investigate digital harm as a primary line of inquiry as a matter of routine. We cannot treat the digital environment as secondary to the physical. If a child is found harmed in a public park, the police do not wait for a consultation to decide whether to check the CCTV, yet when a child dies in circumstances which may involve social media, digital forensics are often treated as an afterthought or a secondary consideration. So the noble Baroness’s additional amendments should not be controversial. They should be accepted, fast-tracked and robustly enforced, and I urge the Minister to take them on board today.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I too will speak very briefly, given the hour. I was also pleased to add my name to Amendment 431. For the benefit of Hansard, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, referred to Amendment 404—but I think she was talking about Amendment 431. Anyway, I am going to try to talk about Amendment 431. I agree with everything the noble Baroness said in her opening remarks.
I too will focus on subsection (4)(i) of the new clause proposed by the Government’s Amendment 429A, which reduces the time for which data would be preserved, from 12 to six months. I have been given to understand that part of the reason for that is because of the ECHR and the need to respect the privacy of those concerned, but it leaves bereaved parents in an unsatisfactory situation, and I wondered why the Government did it this way round and why there could not be a mechanism for automatically deleting any data the minute the inquest was completed and the data was no longer needed, rather than putting pressure on coroners to have to extend, and apply for an extension of, the notices. I would be grateful if the Minister could consider that.
Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson (Con)
My Lords, I will not detain the House at this hour. I thank the Minister for the progress the Government have made on this since we spoke about it in Committee—it really is a step forward. However, like other noble Lords, I urge the Minister to just go a little bit further, and, if she could possibly address the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that would be fantastic. I hope she will have good news for us when she stands up.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I begin by placing on record my gratitude to all the noble Lords who have led the campaign on this important issue, none more so than the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who has so ably championed this cause. I think it self-evident that we all acknowledge the harms that phones and social media are doing to our youth. I speak as a father of teenage children who are grappling with these very issues day to day.
This is most tragically brought to the fore when phones and social media lead to the death of children. Parents who face this unimaginable tragedy should be able to know what their child was accessing, and the evidence from these awful incidents should prove to the general public that steps have to be taken. I see no argument for why the police should not be required to collect evidence relating to potential digital harm, as indeed they are required to do for general causes of death. Similarly, if social media has in part led to the death of a child, the bare minimum that providers should do is to retain the data relating to the victim.
I too express gratitude to the Minister for considering the arguments raised in Committee and acting upon this. I understand that many in your Lordships’ House believe that Amendment 429A does not go far enough and that it does not place the desired duties on police forces. However, I welcome at least the start that this represents.
There is a tension, I fear, between what the Government are doing in your Lordships’ House—rightly, making concessions on the issue—and, at the same time, in the other place voting against further protections from online harms. The Minister’s amendment today places duties on providers. It is a short step from mandating data retention to enforcing age limits. This is not the time for that debate in its entirety, but it is worth putting it on the record. I reiterate my gratitude to all Members of your Lordships’ House who have campaigned on this important matter.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, the Government remain grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and to the bereaved families who have raised concerns about the effectiveness of the existing framework for the preservation of online material that may be relevant to understanding a child’s death. I reiterate what I said in Committee: the loss of any child is a profound tragedy, and the Government are clear that we must take every possible step to safeguard children online.
I pay tribute to all the campaigners on this issue. Of course, I would be delighted to see Ellen Roome. I had the opportunity to meet her briefly; she was introduced to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson, outside the Chamber. It would be good to organise something formally and to include the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Barran. I will do what I can to find out what is happening with the inquest. Obviously, I cannot commit my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General to anything, but I will do what I can to find out what is happening.
I promised in Committee that the Government would consider how that framework could be amended to ensure that data preservation is applied consistently and as quickly as possible. We have done that: we listened and we have acted. I am delighted today to bring forward government Amendments 429A, 454A and 467AB, which require speedy data preservation in every case involving the death of a child aged five or above. The only exceptions to that will be where the child’s online activity is clearly irrelevant to their death or an investigation is plainly not necessary.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for her constructive engagement on the development of this provision. Our most recent meeting was this afternoon, where we did our best to move things forward; I will return to that in a moment. As I have emphasised to her, the Government’s firm intention is that a DPN request becomes the default and should be made in every case, unless the coroner is very clear from the outset that online data is not relevant to a child’s death. We will ensure that this expectation is clearly set out in the Explanatory Notes to the new provision. I will write to the Chief Coroner, asking her to consider issuing guidance for coroners on the application of the mandatory requirement and, crucially, the circumstances in which an exception may be appropriate.
The Government thought we had done enough and that we had done what was wanted of us, because we all agreed with the objectives. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has reservations, and I understand them. I hope that we can continue to discuss this, so that we can reach a position where everybody is happy that we are doing what we have set out to do.
On the time limit, this now mandatory policy will entail the preservation of a much greater volume of data, including that of third parties, than at present. As it preserves the data relating to the dead child, it will also sweep up those on the other end of the interaction—the third parties are the issue here. To ensure that it is proportionate, we are therefore reducing the initial retention period—not the overall retention period—to six months, which, in the majority of cases, should provide sufficient time for the coroner to decide whether the online evidence is relevant. It is not related to when the inquest takes place, because the coroners all start working on this long before the inquest actually opens. It is simply putting it in place so that they have time to make the decision. There is a provision to extend it. The coroner does not have to apply to extend it; it is much simpler than that—they simply have to decide to extend it. Therefore, more time can be secured by the coroner if it is not yet clear.
We will work with the Chief Coroner and operational partners to ensure that coroners are clear that a positive decision is needed at the six-month point on whether or not to extend a DPN. If there is any doubt, the default position should be to extend the DPN to ensure that the data is preserved until the inquest.
These amendments will make a minor change to the existing regulation-making power in Section 101 of the Online Safety Act, so that regulations setting out the kinds of services that will automatically receive a DPN can refer to ongoing research. That means they will remain current and will capture any new and emerging services that become popular with children.
Amendments 431 and 432, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, would, as we are all aware, basically give effect to the same issue as the government amendments, but they include preserving data where online activity is not relevant to a child’s death. The reason for the difference is that the government amendments carve this out to reduce delay and diverting resources away from relevant cases. For that reason, we cannot accept the noble Baroness’s Amendments 431 and 432, as they would require a disproportionate retention of third-party data, which would risk breaching Article 8.
Finally, on Amendment 404 and the consequential Amendment 405, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, we agree that it is essential that the police both understand the powers available to them and can use those powers consistently to access all relevant information when investigating these cases, including digital material or content held on social media platforms. As the noble Baroness knows, the National Police Chiefs’ Council is developing guidance to improve awareness and to promote uniform use of these powers, and the Home Office is committed to working with the police on this issue.
I know how concerned your Lordships’ House is about the pace of change in some of these newer technologies. That is exactly why, for guidance to remain practical and effective, it must be able to evolve alongside the fast-changing technological developments and legal frameworks. That is why it is preferable not to set this guidance or its detail in primary legislation but instead to continue working with the police to ensure that this guidance is delivered soon and to a high standard.
For the reasons I have set out, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments. I thank her again and thank all other noble Lords who have spoken for their collaboration and engagement on this important issue.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I thank all noble Lords who have supported this, not just tonight but on previous occasions, and I thank the Minister. Earlier this afternoon, we were looking for the perfect words. When she stood up, she said “clearly irrelevant” to the death of a child, and that would have been the perfect phrase to have in the Bill. I say it on the record. Maybe she can come back with a surprise at Third Reading.
I very much appreciate the work of the department and where the Government have met us, and I accept the point about the police. I say for one final time that, unfortunately, we have been round this three times. If this does not work, we will be back again with fury. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bailey of Paddington
“Police covenant: mandatory reporting on suicide and attempted suicide(1) The Secretary of State must ensure the collection and publication of data on suicide and attempted suicide among police officers and police staff for the purposes of supporting mental health and wellbeing under the police covenant (see section 1 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022).(2) Each police force in England and Wales must collect and submit annually to the Secretary of State—(a) the number of confirmed suicides by serving police officers and police staff;(b) the number of attempted suicides by serving police officers and police staff; (c) contextual information, where reasonably available, including duty status, length of service, role, rank, known occupational stressors, and access to mental health support.(3) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, and annually thereafter, lay a report before Parliament (to be known as the “Police Covenant Mental Health Report”) which must include, but is not limited to—(a) national and force-level data trends,(b) analysis of occupational contributory factors,(c) assessment of the adequacy, usage and evidence-based outcomes of mental health and suicide prevention provisions under the police covenant,(d) recommendations to address identified risks, and(e) a statement from the Chief Medical Officer for England.(4) The report under subsection (3) must—(a) be published and disseminated to all police personnel;(b) include commentary from the College of Policing on compliance, data quality and best practice at force level;(c) include contributions from staff representative bodies and trade unions.(5) Anonymised data, disaggregated by force area, must be published, subject to data protection and safeguarding.(6) Each Chief Constable must, at the end of every calendar year, provide a statement to the Secretary of State certifying that the requirements under this section have been met by their police force.(7) Where a Chief Constable fails to provide a certification under subsection (6) without reasonable excuse, the Secretary of State must notify HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services.(8) The Inspectorate must have regard to a notification under subsection (7) in the course of its inspection of that police force under the police effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy (PEEL) programme.(9) The Secretary of State must establish an independent advisory board, to be known as the “Police Suicide Prevention and Mental Health Advisory Board”.(10) The Board must consist of persons with expertise in clinical care, occupational health, staff representation and academic research.(11) The functions of the Board are to—(a) advise the Secretary of State on guidance relating to suicide prevention and mental health in the police workforce,(b) set standards for the collection and reporting of relevant data, and(c) review and make recommendations on force-level responses to risks identified through data and inspections.(12) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the operation of the Police Suicide Prevention and Mental Health Advisory Board, including provision about—(a) the Board’s procedures,(b) its terms of reference, and(c) its reporting duties.(13) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about—(a) data collection standards,(b) statutory guidance,(c) audit mechanisms, and(d) such further oversight as may be considered necessary. (14) In this section, “police officer” and “police staff” have the same meanings as in section 1 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.”
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, before I go into detail on Amendment 408, I thank the Police Federation of England and Wales for its tireless work on this issue.
If we are serious about the police covenant then we must be serious about the well-being of those who serve. We cannot claim to support officers and staff while failing even to measure properly the most tragic outcomes of poor mental health. The amendment is rooted in a simple principle: what is measured is what is acted upon. At present, the collection of data on suicides and attempted suicides in policing is too inconsistent and too limited. Without clear national data, patterns are missed, warning signs are overlooked and opportunities to save lives are lost.
The amendment would require proper annual reporting to Parliament, force-by-force data and analysis of occupational stress points. This matters because policing places extraordinary pressures on people—trauma, long hours, operational strain and repeated exposure to distress. We need evidence-based data, not just warm words.
The amendment would strengthen accountability. Chief constables would have to certify compliance. HMICFRS would be alerted where forces fell short. An independent advisory board would help to drive best practice. This is not just about getting figures and gathering data; it is about making sure that those figures are acted upon.
Behind every statistic is a human being—an officer, a staff member, a family member or a team member left grieving and asking whether more could have been done. This amendment would help us understand the scale of the problem, improve prevention and honour the spirit of the police covenant by protecting those who protect us. I beg to move.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, both the amendments in this group highlight a serious issue in policing. Many officers and staff are under extreme strain and we are not systematically measuring the scale of the problem. We support the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, for the mandatory recording and reporting of suicides and serious suicide attempts, a proposal backed by the Police Federation. Whether through his amendment or Amendment 409, it is important that we act now to bring this problem into clear view so that we can assess the risks and protect officers’ welfare, as we would with any other occupational hazard. It is therefore necessary to place a legal duty on forces and the Home Office to record these incidents and publish the figures so that appropriate support and interventions can be designed, and responsibility for preventable loss of life can be properly examined.
The police service rightly places emphasis on officer well-being, but these amendments would take a further step by increasing transparency so that we can understand what is happening to those who carry some of society’s heaviest psychological demands. Police officers are often the first to assist people in mental health crisis, but we must ensure that their own welfare is addressed. As my noble friend Lady Brinton observed in Committee, policing has often relied on signposting staff to external organisations rather than building internal support that is tailored to their needs.
First, however, we must remedy the lack of consistent data across forces. A unified system for collecting and publishing a mental health matrix would allow targeted evidence-based support that is timely and preventive. I hope that, in this instance, the Minister will recognise the importance of a clear duty to measure and report these outcomes as the basis for any serious strategy on officer well-being.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments addresses the important issue of mental health and well-being for those serving in police forces. Amendment 408, in the name of my noble friend Lord Bailey, and Amendment 409, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, seek to improve the collection and publication of data relating to suicide and attempted suicide among police officers and police staff.
The intention behind them is clear. If we are serious about supporting the well-being of those who serve in policing, we must first ensure that we properly understand the scale and nature of the challenges that they face. Policing is a profession that places extraordinary demands on those who undertake it. Officers and staff routinely encounter traumatic incidents and cumulative stress that comes from protecting the public in difficult circumstances, and I can personally vouch for that. While the vast majority serve with resilience and dedication, it is clear that these pressures can have a profound effect on mental health.
In Committee, my noble friend Lord Bailey spoke movingly about the importance of ensuring that the police covenant is underpinned by robust evidence. Without reliable national data, it is difficult to identify patterns, understand risk factors or evaluate whether the support structures currently in place are working as intended. The same point was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who emphasised that better data is essential if we are to design effective prevention strategies.
There is already recognition across policing on the need to strengthen the evidence base in this area, and work is under way through national policing bodies to improve the collection of welfare data. However, the amendments before the House highlight the importance of ensuring that this work is transparent and capable of informing meaningful action. Ultimately, the police covenant reflects our collective commitment to those who protect the public. Ensuring that we understand and address the mental health risks faced by officers and staff is central to that commitment.
For those reasons, this group of amendments raises issues to which the Government should give careful consideration. I look forward to what the Minister has to say in response.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bailey of Paddington and Lord Hogan-Howe, for tabling the amendments in this group. I am conscious of the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, supported the amendment’s general direction of travel.
First, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, that suicide and attempted suicide in the police workforce have devastating consequences. I and the Government recognise fully the need to address mental health and well-being in policing seriously and responsibly. As the noble Lord will know, the National Police Wellbeing Service already does vital work in tackling suicide risks to the police workforce, including work on prevention, postvention support for forces, a 24/7 mental health crisis line for anyone working in policing, and specialist trauma services.
I am grateful for the way in which the noble Lord has framed his amendment and brought it forward. However, I say to him respectfully that placing an additional statutory reporting duty in primary legislation is not, I feel, the right approach at this time. I say this for three broad reasons. First, much of the information sought by the amendments, particularly in relation to attempted suicide, is often clinical, confidential, medical data. In many cases, it cannot be lawfully or ethically shared with employers, so mandating this through primary legislation would be the wrong approach and would risk unintended consequences around confidentiality, trust and data integrity. In my view, that is a significant blockage in the amendment to date.
Secondly, I reassure the noble Lord that the absence of legislation does not mean the absence of action. This is a really important point. Police forces already collect data on deaths by suicide, and there is national co-ordination of that data. The challenge is not in getting forces to comply; it is in what we ask for from forces, how it is defined and, most importantly, how it is used to drive meaningful prevention. Again, I look forward to the future and looking at a revised national police service downstream, following the White Paper, where training, well-being and personnel functions are brought into the centre and where there is a smaller number of police forces on the ground. There will be a real focus on this, and I know it is important to do that.
Thirdly, I do not want to be locked into a rigid framework before necessary clinical, operational and ethical questions have been resolved. This is not simply a matter of reporting; it also requires high-quality support. In particular, as I think the noble Lord will accept, it demands a culture that understands that mental health challenges are there in police forces. Police officers see some horrendous things on the ground. They have really hard experiences and are very often traumatised. It is important that we embed in the culture of the police force how we respond to those issues. It is not simply about collecting statistics. I know that that is the noble Lord’s prime motivation but, ultimately, it should be about having an automatic, embedded culture that recognises the stresses and strains, helps identify them and puts in place measures to help people with their mental health.
That is why the Government are focusing their efforts on strengthening well-being support, trauma care and early intervention in the police White Paper, and also why my colleague, the Minister directly responsible for policing and crime, has engaged with police leaders, staff associations and experts to look at how we can improve the quality of the data and, more importantly, the quality of preventive action. As it happens, I had a useful discussion with the Police Federation at my party conference in Liverpool in October last year. We understand that there is a real issue to help support, but I do not believe that the amendments before the House on Report today would be the right solution at this stage.
With this recognition of the problem and a grateful Minister who says to the noble Lord, “Thank you for bringing this issue forward”, I hope that, on the basis of what I have said, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
I thank the Minister for his response and for the nature of his response. I truly believe that the Government are beginning to focus on this long-lasting issue. My slight pushback and challenge are around the embedding of a culture. The organisation is so big and so diverse in its approach to this problem. Many forces do not collect the figures and certainly could not provide them when asked by the Police Federation. We need to ask them officially because, as was said, we need to embed that culture. By asking for those figures, we build a mechanism that embeds that culture.
However, in view of the Minister’s very generous approach to this subject, and my belief that the Government truly are beginning to focus on this, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes
Policing: devolution to Wales(1) Schedule 7A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 is amended as follows.(2) In section B5 (crime, public order and policing)—(a) omit “and policing”, and(b) omit line 41 “policing”.(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause seeks to devolve policing to Wales, by removing it from the list of reserved matters in the Government of Wales Act 2006.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, my Amendments 409A and 409B concern the devolution of policing and youth justice to Wales. These are the same amendments that I tabled in Committee. I will keep my remarks brief, considering the late hour, but I hope that the Minister can provide further clarity, because the questions raised in Committee remain unanswered.
Not long after Committee, the police reform White Paper was published. There are some good things in it, particularly the focus on neighbourhood policing, but it does not address the unfairness of policing powers being withheld from Wales compared with the other devolved nations. At that time, the Minister stated that the White Paper’s proposals for Wales concern organisation rather than devolution and that devolving policing is not right for Wales at this time. However, I say respectfully that, if we are reorganising the whole system, this would seem to be precisely the moment to align responsibility with accountability through devolution.
The abolition of PCCs fundamentally reshapes the governance of policing. In England, functions will move to mayoral authorities, yet Wales has no equivalent structures. It is logical that the Welsh Government should be part of the answer, whatever that answer is, to the newly created gap. Yet we still do not know what model the Government envisage for Welsh police governance, whether devolution of policing even remains under consideration, despite consistent recommendations from independent commissions, or how Welsh financial contributions, already substantial, will be recognised. In 2024-25, only around 43% of policing expenditure in Wales came from the UK Government. The remainder came from Welsh government contributions and council tax. This remains a reserved matter in which the UK Government retain that decision-making power, yet Welsh citizens already fund most of their policing.
On youth justice, I welcome the Minister’s confirmation that work is under way on the manifesto commitment that they have themselves. As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, noted in Committee, Wales’s child-first approach has helped to drive
“a sharp and sustained decline in first-time entrants”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/1/26; col. 466.]
over many years. He also highlighted that children in conflict with the law often have “overlapping needs” and that the “jagged edge” of the current settlement can impede the joined-up support that those children require.
Crucially, many of us have argued that youth justice is a contained, high-impact area where devolution would be feasible and important, demonstrating new intergovernmental respect and co-operation. The Minister has previously referred to a programme of work in relation to youth justice. Today, I would like to find out more on the progress of this: what its scope is, when conclusions will be reached and, if legislative change is anticipated, through which vehicle and on what timetable. Without this detail, Parliament cannot scrutinise the direction of travel. Scotland and Northern Ireland have full responsibility for policing and justice. Wales remains the outlier.
I am not asking the House to decide on these matters today; I am asking the Government to provide the clarity that Wales deserves. When will proposals on Welsh police governance be published, what is the timetable for decisions on youth justice devolution, and how will accountability be secured for systems largely funded in Wales but not yet controlled in Wales? I look forward to the Minister’s response at the end of the debate. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
When we had a debate in Committee, Wales was squeezed into the very short time we had on the Thursday afternoon before a debate had to start. It is no one’s fault but Wales is being squeezed again. It is now 11.30 pm and this is serious—it is no-one’s fault, and I am not blaming anyone; it is the way the cookie has crumbled. It seems to me that what we want is a proper debate. On the previous occasion, in inviting the noble Baroness to bring her amendments back, the Minister promised a fuller debate. At this hour of night, I do not really think that is sensible, but I will say two things.
First, as the parliamentary process seems to produce no proper forum for the discussion of these serious issues, and the Minister said he had very serious arguments to support the non-devolution of policing, will he agree to have a proper meeting about these things so that we can look at how policing has operated in Scotland and Northern Ireland to the benefit of those two nations, and how it could benefit Wales? Secondly, why is Wales treated as though justice were an island removed from Wales? Justice is not an island; it is an integral part of policy. Separating out areas of justice from the rest of internal affairs is almost, I think, unique across the world to Wales as a self-governing nation.
On the two particular matters, I do not want to add much about policing, but I want to say a word about youth justice. Since the debate in Committee, the Government have published A Modern Youth Justice System: Foundations Fit for The Future. If I may say so, with genuine respect—I put that in because, sometimes, it is said of lawyers that, when they say “with respect”, they mean without any respect at all, but I mean this with genuine respect—the foreword written by the Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Chancellor and Minister for Justice presents an irrefutable argument for the way in which youth justice must be properly aligned with other services.
What is fascinating about that paper, however, is that there is not a single word about what is to happen to youth justice in Wales. There are excellent arguments as to what is to happen in England. Had we had a debate at a sensible hour, I was going to weary your Lordships, I hope not unduly, by looking at the arguments so powerfully made by the Deputy Prime Minister. This is not the time to embark on that argument: I would weary noble Lords unduly at this hour of night. In the first debate on Report, however, the Minister rightly emphasised how important it was that the Government stuck to their manifesto commitments when emphasising why we had to have a respect order. In the face of a powerful argument that did not add anything to what we already said, he said that it was a manifesto commitment. I therefore hope he will be able to explain the manifesto commitment to look at youth justice and its devolution, and say what is to be done.
I found it very disappointing listening to the evidence of one of the Welsh Ministers, Mr Irranca-Davies, of the Senedd’s Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, when he was asked repeatedly about youth justice. He said that discussions were going on and they were working hard, but he could not say anything of any detail and hoped that they would be able to do something soon.
I very much hope for two things. First, I hope that the Minister and those who take a different view can have the opportunity for a robust argument, so that we can see what each side says. The report of the Silk commission, the report of the commission that I chaired, and the report of Rowan Williams and Laura McAllister’s commission all argued for the devolution of both these things, and no one has ever presented an argument as to why they are wrong. It seems to me that a robust discussion would be the best way forward.
I also hope that the Minister is able to explain tonight how the Government intend to honour the manifesto commitment and how the powerful logic of the Deputy Prime Minister’s arguments can be applied not merely to England—although I accept here, of course, that it is most important that they apply to England—but how they are to be applied to Wales.
Lord Jones of Penybont (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will know that when I was First Minister of Wales, I strongly supported the devolution of policing, and my position has not changed. I fail to see why Wales alone, of the four nations of the UK, should not have the powers to shape policing and policing priorities.
I have heard arguments about crime being cross-border. Well, that is true of England and Scotland as well, and indeed of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland for that matter. Simple co-operation between police forces is a way of overcoming that. I saw that in 2013 when we had the NATO summit in Newport. Police officers from all over the UK had come to help police that event.
The Minister will, I am sure, be relieved to know that I am not looking for him to agree with me tonight. I know the view of the UK Government that, currently, policing should not be devolved in Wales. Nevertheless, we now have a lack of clarity as to the future, because with the abolition of the PCCs, the suggestions that have been made about how policing will be made accountable in the future are based on English political structures that do not exist in Wales. We do not yet know what will happen in Wales. That is important because there are, of course, arguments that we have to make to ensure that Wales is properly recognised. Wales has its own civil contingency forum, language, laws and ways of policing that must be reflected in the future. With that in mind, does the Minister agree that a way must be found to take this forward? Will he agree to meet me, and perhaps others, to see how we can deliver better policing that nevertheless reflects Wales’s national distinctiveness?
I turn very briefly to Amendment 409B, in which I have a personal interest. This was a recommendation that came from the Brown commission, of which I was a part. Naturally, I fully support the devolution of youth justice. I was delighted to see this included in the manifesto that the Government were elected on in 2024 and I look forward to its delivery.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, when my noble friend was the First Minister, and slightly before that, when I was the Secretary of State, I was less of a campaigner for this issue than he was. But I recognise that times have changed over the last few years. I am told that devolution is a process rather than an event—something that I have witnessed myself over the last 20-odd years that I have been involved in Welsh politics at a ministerial level. But two or three things have occurred literally within the last year or so that mean we have to bend our minds to something that I was not all that keen on all those years ago.
First, as my noble friend said, the Labour Party manifesto indicated that youth justice and probation were now to be matters for the Welsh Government and the Welsh Senedd. Like my noble friend, I was a member of Gordon Brown’s commission, and that was something we all agreed on. I look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s response on those specific issues, which we must not forget.
On the issue of policing generally and its devolution, the view over a number of years was that it was quite hard to devolve policing without devolving criminal justice. The noble Baroness referred to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Scotland historically has had both over many centuries. Northern Ireland has not—it did and then it did not after the collapse of the first Stormont arrangement. Indeed, when I was Northern Ireland Secretary, I held responsibility for criminal justice and for policing until the Good Friday agreement made the difference by recommending that both those issues should eventually be devolved to Northern Ireland, which they have been, and very successfully too.
Two things have occurred over the last few weeks. First, my noble friend the Minister came to the Chamber and told us that police and crime commissioners were to be abolished. I do not think that that was in the manifesto, but I entirely concur with it. However, if we are to abolish police and crime commissioners, the responsibility for accountability has to lie with somebody. In England, there are mayors and the new organisations which will follow the devolution Bill, but in Wales there are no such institutions. There are no mayors and no local authorities which currently have a responsibility for policing. We have to find out what happens in Wales when that Bill goes through. That makes us think more about general police devolution.
Secondly, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has now decided in the White Paper on policing that there will be far fewer police authorities and police boards in England. What happens then? Will the current four police forces in Wales be abolished? Will we have two or one for the whole of Wales? I do not know but obviously there will be a change if the White Paper affects Wales as much as England.
Those two issues mean that we have to bend our minds to what we do about policing in the months ahead. Those months ahead will inevitably be complicated by the fact that in 60 days’ time there will be an election in Wales, the outcome of which none of us knows but it will undoubtedly be something we have to deal with in a rather different way from how we have over the past 100 years.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, given the hour, my contribution to this debate will be a short one.
I first apologise for not having spoken to similar amendments on this subject in Committee because of illness. I express my gratitude to my noble friend Lady Brinton, who is no longer in her place, for taking my place on that occasion. My thanks go also to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, for bringing the amendments in this group back for debate on Report.
On these Benches we agree with both Amendment 409A on the devolution of policing and Amendment 409B on the devolution of youth justice. They are in line with both Welsh Liberal Democrat and our federal Liberal Democrat policies. Had this debate taken place at an earlier hour, we would have joined the noble Baroness in the voting Lobby.
I will speak very briefly on youth justice, which was seen as an early candidate for phased devolution. The Welsh Government have been able to influence youth justice policy through devolved areas such as education, health and social services, and have established a youth justice system that prioritises prevention, rehabilitation and the rights of children over punitive measures.
According to a Senedd research document published in January this year,
“The Welsh Government has said that it has agreed with the UK Government for officials in both governments to work together to ‘explore options’ where responsibilities in the youth justice system could be ‘realigned’”,
as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, referred to. What progress has been made there?
But despite that and other affirmative statements, the Senedd Equality and Social Justice Committee warned last year that
“the UK Government could row back its promises on the devolution of youth justice … in Wales”
Disappointingly, experience is showing us that this is what appears to be happening.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, for bringing forward Amendments 409A and 409B, which raise the question of devolving policing and youth justice to Wales. As discussed in Committee, these amendments engage an important constitutional issue about the structure of the devolution settlement. It was argued that devolving these responsibilities could allow them to sit alongside other public services already devolved to the Welsh Government, such as education and health.
However, as was also noted, these matters currently form part of a single legal jurisdiction covering England and Wales. Policing and youth justice operate within that shared framework which supports co-operation between forces and national capability across the system. Changes of the scale proposed here would represent a significant constitutional shift. A matter of such importance cannot properly be considered through two amendments to an ever-growing policing Bill. Indeed, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd: he is absolutely right that this certainly requires more time. It would require a broader, more fundamental discussion about the future structure of the devolution settlement which, in respect of policing, we on this side, I am afraid, would resist. I look forward to the noble Lord’s remarks.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, for returning to the issue on Report. We find ourselves in a very strange situation today where the noble Baroness who moved the amendment resides in Wales, the shadow Minister was a former Member of Parliament in Wales and resides in Wales, and the Government Minister is a former Member of Parliament in Wales and resides in Wales. We are having a bit of a Welsh fest today where every Member who spoke also resides in Wales. I apologise to my noble friends for keeping them here on this Welsh discussion. I have to say to the noble Baroness that I regret it being this late in the evening. It is slightly out of my control because of the way in which the debates have fallen.
As has been seen in the debate, there are a number of different views and within Wales there are a number of different views on this matter. The Government are still of the view, and the position remains clear, that policing operates effectively within a single integrated England and Wales criminal justice system, and it is really important that we examine that.
As my noble friends Lord Murphy of Torfaen and Lord Jones of Penybont mentioned, there is a lot going on in the policing world at the moment, not just in Wales but in England. There will be legislation to abolish police and crime commissioners and an examination of the model for their replacement. As has been said, that model will include the mayoral model in England but also a local authority model. We have given a very strong commitment that the structures in Wales will be a matter for discussion in the review that is being undertaken, pending the legislation that will come before this House, when parliamentary time allows, to abolish police and crime commissioners.
A review of the number of police forces, currently 43, will be undertaken in the next few months and completed in the summer. There will be significant engagement with the Senedd, Welsh police forces, current police and crime commissioners, Welsh Members of Parliament and anyone else who wishes to have a view on what the format should be in relation to any revised structure in Wales. Self-evidently, there are a number of options: the existing four police forces; a smaller number of police forces; a single police force; and the different types of governance structure that could be put in place. That will be part of the discussion that is undertaken.
Lord Wigley (PC)
I am following what the Minister is saying with great interest because it responds to the numerous points that have been made about the reorganisation that is needed to make sure there is no vacuum. The point I would press is that we have an election for the Senedd coming up in May. Trying to get a coherent discussion, debate and conclusion at this point becomes extremely awkward. It would be good if it could be started immediately, before we find ourselves in the middle of an election, with the intention of bringing everybody on board very rapidly afterwards. The Minister will understand the challenges.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I fully do. The review that is being undertaken of force sizes throughout the whole of England and Wales will commence very shortly. The terms of reference, if they are not public already, will be very shortly. The input of the Senedd, the political parties, the current Administration and, potentially, an Opposition Administration in the Senedd is absolutely valid for that discussion. At the end of that period, we want to try to have an understanding of the preferred models through negotiation and discussion on issues such as force size and governance. That is really important because there has to be legislation at some point to abolish police and crime commissioners. In doing that, there will be opportunities to discuss force size and governance accordingly.
I would like to take up the suggestion of a meeting made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. I am very happy to meet any colleagues who have spoken today. It may be more appropriate that we do that either with the review team for force size and current structures or directly with the Police Minister, but I will reflect on that request and get back to the noble and learned Lord at a sensible hour to determine how we undertake that.
I understand the support from the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys—another resident of Wales speaking, in effect, from the Front Bench, in this case on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. I have set down the principle: the Government do not believe that this reorganisation is about devolution. We have different views on that, but that is the principle of where we are. There are issues still to look at, such as force size and governance, that are for discussion to get the best deal for Wales and avoid, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has said, causing any interregnum in service. I plan to meet some new police officers in Wales shortly, and I will be engaged as someone who has an interest in the matter for this House.
The system currently provides operational resilience, shared capability and strong cross-border co-operation. We do not believe that fragmenting it would improve outcomes for victims or communities. That is the Government’s position. There is an honest disagreement here, but there are still issues that need to be resolved.
On the issue of youth justice, which was mentioned in the debate, it is true that the Ministry of Justice is working constructively with the Welsh Government on delivery and oversight arrangements. The manifesto committed to considering the devolution of youth justice and that work is under way. Consideration does not equate to immediate legislative change, which is why I cannot accept it in the Bill today. No decision has been taken to devolve youth justice through this Bill, but that work is under way. It is a complex issue, and we want to get the best outcomes, but that is the position. I hope the noble Baroness can accept that in the context that I put to her today.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
In looking ahead to a future legislative vehicle for progressing the devolution of youth justice, does the Minister have a specific timeline in mind and what stage of the programme have the Government got to?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I cannot give the noble Baroness a timeline or a commentary on that discussion, but what I can say, as I have said already, is that work is under way. This Government were elected for a five-year Parliament and work is under way—that is what I can say today. She will undoubtedly test us again, as there will be opportunities for questions and debates, and there will be legislative scrutiny whenever any legislation is brought forward on the question of police and crime commissioners. However, today, with the principled position the Government have taken, I cannot accept the noble Baroness’s amendments on devolution or on youth justice. As I have said to her and other interested Members, a process is under way on the question of the structures and governance in Wales, which anybody can contribute to in the next few months. The work under way on the justice issue is being dealt with by my colleagues in the MoJ and by the Senedd.
Whatever happens in the election, there will be a Welsh Government of some form, though I do not know what that will be. We are discussing this with the Welsh Government now and we will discuss this with the Welsh Government afterwards. As the Minister responsible for devolution in the Home Office, I have regular meetings with counterpart Ministers in Wales on those issues, as do my policing colleagues. I hope that, with those reassurances at this late hour, the amendment can be withdrawn.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
I thank the Minister for his answers and all noble Lords for contributing to the debate. What is most important from what we have gathered this evening is to ensure that, whatever arrangement is decided going forward, it is decided not just in England for how it can benefit and work for police forces in England but that there is particular engagement in Wales.
The Minister mentioned engagement with the Senedd and police forces in Wales, but making sure that it is genuine engagement, and that they can design what the system looks like for the benefit of Wales and not have just another version of what will happen in England, is important. I think that all of us who took part in this debate would welcome further discussion to find out more about the next steps. I am sure we will have further discussions about this, but today I will withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“Police enforcement data(1) Police forces in England and Wales must publish annual data on the enforcement of the following offences—(a) shoplifting,(b) offences involving a blade,(c) phone theft,(d) fare dodging on public transport, and(e) offences involving bicycles and e-scooters.(2) In this section, “enforcement” means the investigation and collection of evidence in preparation for a prosecution.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, in moving my Amendment 409D, I will speak to the other amendments in my name. I thank my noble friend Lord Jackson for his support on the crucial issues of police force publication of enforcement data, reducing police paperwork and the reform of disclosure to that end. I have discovered in a long career in business and in government that enforcement of the law is as important as the rules and the regulations themselves, and this is particularly true for neighbourhood policing.
It is not possible to identify and promote the best without comparative data. Better data on enforcement, publicly available, would both be a motivator for effective policy and help to hold the police to account. My amendment therefore takes in five areas of public concern that the great British public care about: shoplifting offences, offences involving a blade, phone theft, fare dodging on public transport, and offences involving bicycles and e-scooters. The Minister mentioned in Committee that the Home Office will introduce a sector-facing police performance dashboard this year. It will help chief constables and local policing bodies to analyse the sort of data that we are seeking, and to drive improvements.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to this group of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. With the finishing post in sight, I will be extremely brief.
These amendments correctly identify a crisis at the heart of our police service. There is a consensus that our police are currently drowning in a sea of unnecessary paperwork, and my noble friend Lady Doocey’s policy paper, Policing Fit for the Future, makes the case with devastating clarity. It records the testimony of chief constables, who warn that low morale and heavy workloads are being compounded by
“archaic IT systems—some over 50 years old”
that force highly trained officers to spend more time as data entry clerks than as crime fighters. The Government’s own White Paper, From Local to National: A New Model for Policing, acknowledges this failure. It rightly sets out a mission to “strip away the barriers” that prevent officers focusing on the public’s priorities. We on these Benches welcome the ambition to automate manual processes and deliver millions of hours back to the front line.
I am not going to go into detail on the amendments, but we cannot support them as drafted. They risk micromanaging the police through the statute book and could become relics of a different era within a few short years. However, I urge the Minister to take the spirit of these proposals to heart and ensure that they are reflected in the new national policing model.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for bringing forward this group of amendments. Together, they address a theme that will be familiar to many across the House: the need to ensure that police officers are able to focus their time on policing rather than bureaucracy.
Amendment 409D concerns the publication of enforcement data for a number of offences that have become a source of considerable public concern, including shoplifting, offences involving blades, phone theft and fare evasion. We lend our strong support to the amendment. Greater transparency around enforcement activity can only help to strengthen public confidence and provide a clearer picture of how policing resources are being deployed.
Amendment 409E addresses the volume of paperwork that officers are required to complete. In Committee, it was rightly observed that administrative burdens can too often draw officers away from the front line. A review of the scale of those requirements and how they might be simplified would therefore be a sensible and constructive step.
Finally, Amendment 409F raises the question of data sharing and the efficiency of the systems that underpin case preparation and charging decisions. As many noble Lords will know, delays and inefficiencies in the exchange of information between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service can slow down the progress of cases and place additional strain on already stretched resources.
There is a significant amount of work that goes into the redaction of police documents before they are sent to the CPS, often for the documents simply to be sent back because they are overredacted. Furthermore, many of the cases the police redact may not end up being prosecuted. It is clear that this is a significant waste of police time and money, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe is right: it would make more sense for the CPS to take charge of the redaction of documents that may enter the public domain, given that it would have a far smaller number of documents to trawl through.
Taken together, these amendments all speak to a wider objective: ensuring that the system surrounding policing work is as efficient as possible, allowing officers to focus on preventing crime, catching offenders and protecting the public. The police should be spending as much time on the front line as possible, rather than being encumbered by unnecessary paperwork. I hope that the Minister will give them careful consideration and, as always, I look forward to his response.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, we are nearly there. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for returning to these issues, which were thoroughly debated in Committee, and the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Davies of Gower, for their contributions to this short but nevertheless important debate. I know that the noble Baroness takes a keen interest in improving how police handle data and utilise their resources effectively. We share that objective and appreciate her constructive contribution to that discussion.
On the noble Baroness’s Amendment 409D, as announced in our police reform White Paper, the Government will introduce a police performance dashboard this year, which will allow chief constables and local policing bodies to analyse transparent and operationally significant data. This will allow forces to understand where they are performing well and where they can improve. The Home Office and the Office for National Statistics already publish extensive data, of course, on police-recorded knife crime, shoplifting and theft, and the outcomes assigned to these crimes. The published outcome data provides detailed information on what happened after a crime was recorded by the police, such as where a result is a charge or summons, out-of-court disposal, et cetera. Essentially, it links crimes to their investigative and judicial results, giving insight into how offences progress through the criminal justice system. Additional data is available through police.uk, where members of the public can access monthly crime maps and stop and search statistics. Transport authorities such as Transport for London also publish enforcement data on fare evasion. This is to say that the dashboards are still in development but will build on what we already provide in the public domain.
I know from her contributions to the Bill that the noble Baroness has concerns about how police are enforcing the law particularly around offences involving cyclists and e-scooters. The Home Office has recently established the police performance framework, which provides a strong mechanism for monitoring enforcement activity across all police forces in England and Wales. This framework is flexible and is currently scheduled for review in 2027-28. Mandating which offences the police publish enforcement data on through a fixed list in statute, as her amendment envisions, does not offer the necessary flexibility, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, noted, as to how the performance framework operates. In addition, it risks duplicating the work already being undertaken that I have outlined.
Turning to Amendment 409E, the Government have already gained valuable insight into how police time is used, through the 2023 Police Activity Survey, to which the noble Baroness referred. Given the usefulness of the results, the Home Office ran the survey again this year, with fieldwork taking place just last week. We expect to have results in the next few months and will consider how to ensure that they can enable police productivity improvements. From this activity, we expect to gain a detailed profile of how police time is used, as well as insights into productive and non-productive uses of that time. We have sponsored the Centre for Police Productivity in the College of Policing and launched the police efficiency and collaboration programme in 2024 to improve productivity and efficiency across police forces.
Furthermore, our recently published White Paper presents an array of the most significant reforms to policing for nearly 200 years. It outlines our plans to modernise the entire workforce, establish a new performance system to drive improvements in forces, strip out duplication and inefficiency and deliver £354 million of efficiency savings through a police efficiency and collaboration programme. I know that the noble Baroness is keen on efficiency savings, so I hope she welcomes that announcement.
Finally, on Amendment 409F, we support the noble Baroness’s desire to free up officer time by removing administrative burdens such as unnecessary redaction and improve the efficiency of case file preparation and the charging process. A large part of the redaction burden is driven by current disclosure practice, so we have collaborated with criminal justice partners to pilot a more proportionate approach to disclosure. The pilot, running in the Crown Prosecution Service’s south-east region, aims to reduce the redaction burden by reducing the unnecessary sharing of unused material and refocus efforts on what meets the test for disclosure. This should make case preparation more efficient and enable more timely and effective charging decisions. We are also working with policing to support the adoption of AI-enabled redaction technology. The majority of forces now have AI-enabled text redaction tools, and we are supporting those forces to adopt audiovisual multimedia redaction technology in the most efficient way.
In conclusion, we support the aims of these amendments, but given the work in train, I hope I have been able to persuade the noble Baroness that they are not necessary at this stage. However, I will be very happy to meet her request to facilitate a meeting with the most appropriate Minister, so that we can take the discussion forward. In the meantime, I invite her to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank the Minister for his courteous reply. The prospect of a meeting is most welcome: I will be able to clarify one or two outstanding points in relation to the material that he has kindly set out. I was glad to hear about the pilot on redaction in the south-east. I hope that, in due course, that will either solve this problem of redaction, which we and the Lib Dems agree is a big problem, or show that some sort of legislation needs to be brought forward. However, in view of the Minister’s response and the lateness of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.