House of Commons
Business before Questions
Speaker’s Statement
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Speaker
Before we begin today’s business, I would like to say a few words of appreciation for a long-serving member of the House service who today is working his final shift as Table Clerk in the Chamber. Liam Laurence Smyth has been a Clerk in the House of Commons for over 40 years. Over the past couple of decades he has worked in a number of senior posts, including Clerk of Legislation, and for the past two years he has been working in a part-time role in the Chamber Business Team. I thank Liam for his service and for the advice that he has given me over many years. He will no doubt continue to play a role in international parliamentary capacity building, which has been a passion of his. I am sure that the House will join me in wishing Liam and his family well. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
I have a little bit of other news: today is the birthday of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—he will still be asking questions.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I join you, Mr Speaker, in your tribute to Liam Laurence Smyth, and I wish the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) a very happy birthday.
The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will establish a reformed, human rights compliant and independent legacy commission that will carry out investigations and provide family reports on behalf of families who have waited far too long for answers.
Lincoln Jopp
I associate myself with your comments, Mr Speaker, about the Table Clerk and I wish him happiness in his next steps. I also wish the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) many happy returns.
Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill took place on 18 November, and the remedial order, which removed the protections from the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, was passed on 21 January, leaving our Northern Ireland veterans, of whom I am one, with no protections under the law. It feels rather like the Government have left our veterans in no man’s land, with no rounds in the magazine and no rounds in the chamber. How is that not a dereliction of duty?
Hilary Benn
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his service in Northern Ireland. The dates for Committee stage and for the next stage of the remedial order will be announced in the normal way. Just to correct the record, if he is referring to the protections in the conditional immunity scheme that were set out in the previous Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, that scheme was never enacted and has never had effect, so the arrival of the newly elected Government has not changed the position in that respect at all. As he will be well aware, the Government have brought forward in the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill protections for veterans that were not contained in the 2023 legacy Act. We are consulting further with veterans and, as the Prime Minister has indicated, we will bring forward further proposals when Committee stage happens.
Harriet Cross
That answer will be of very little comfort to Northern Ireland veterans across the country, including the veteran from Turriff in my constituency who contacted me about this just last week. They are living in fear of vexatious claims, as I am sure the Secretary of State recognises, so why are the Government delaying bringing this legislation back to the House?
Hilary Benn
First, there is no such thing as a vexatious prosecution, because for that argument to be advanced, as others have done in the House, one is saying that independent prosecutors bring prosecutions for vexation or politically motivated reasons, and that is not the case. When it comes to civil claims, the previous Government, in their legislation, left 800 civil claims against the Ministry of Defence in place, and it is almost unknown for an individual veteran to be called to give evidence in such cases.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
One of the lingering legacies of violence in Northern Ireland is our outrageous and distressing levels of violence against women and girls, in the echo of menace and threat that still exists in Northern Ireland. The murders this month of Ellie Flanagan and Amy Doherty bring to 33 the number of women and girls who have been murdered by men they knew. We grieve with their families, and we commend the family of Natalie McNally, who with decency and dignity finally got justice for her murder. Is the Secretary of State confident in all that he is doing on legacy that all possible levers are being used to tackle the disease of misogyny, including through Northern Ireland’s hate crime legislation?
Hilary Benn
I join my hon. Friend in what she says about the recent conviction for the brutal murder of Natalie McNally, and the deaths of Amy Doherty and Ellie Flanagan. It is a source of enormous sadness and—I would hope—shame that Northern Ireland is the one part of the United Kingdom where it is most dangerous to be a woman, in relation to violence against women and girls. One thing that we are doing in the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is closing the loophole that was contained in the previous Government’s legislation. There will now be a means of investigating any sexual-related offences that occurred during the period of the troubles. If they meet the threshold for investigation by the legacy commission, the commission will investigate, but otherwise, once the Bill is passed, it will fall to the Police Service of Northern Ireland to examine the case.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
What reassurance can the Secretary of State give me and my constituents that the health and wellbeing of veterans will be taken into account if they are required to give evidence to the commission or coroners?
Hilary Benn
We have already made that clear in the protections that are contained in the Bill, including the right to give evidence remotely, application for anonymity and no cold calling. Veterans have welcomed the fact that we are now planning to put those protections in place.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
The Secretary of State says that there is no such thing as vexatious prosecutions. I think that he would do well to remember the cases of Phil Shiner.
In 1991, the SAS shot and killed three members of the IRA’s East Tyrone Brigade in Coagh. The coroner originally found that the soldier’s use of force was reasonable and proportionate, and that the IRA men in question had the intent to murder. A judicial review was brought against these findings, but in October last year it was thrown out by the High Court in Belfast, with the judge saying that the case was “ludicrous” and
“utterly divorced from the reality”.
Depressingly, this morning we hear that that case is to continue 35 years after the incident and after the soldier in question has been investigated for years. How can the Secretary of State think that is right?
Hilary Benn
Any citizen of the United Kingdom, as the hon. Member is well aware, has a right to bring a judicial review against any decision that has been made. It is for the courts to determine that. Having seen what the original judge said in throwing out the case, and given the fact that the inquest found that the use of force in that case was lawful, perhaps it is not surprising that the judge threw it out as having no merit whatsoever. If the case is continuing, we will have to leave it to the judicial process to decide what happens, but I have confidence in our courts.
Alex Burghart
Does not this case absolutely exemplify why the Government’s solution is entirely wrong? It reopens the door to vexatious litigation, which allows our veterans to be dragged through the courts, even when the courts themselves say that the case is ludicrous. It also exposes the absurdity of the fact that legal aid is paying for these challenges against our veterans—we are all literally paying for lawyers to bring vexatious litigation against our troops. The Government seem rightly to have paused their Bill. Will they please use this opportunity to think again and take a new approach that guarantees genuine protections for those who serve?
Hilary Benn
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be genuine protections. On the question of legal aid in Northern Ireland, that is a matter, as he well knows, for the Northern Ireland Executive. Given the case that he has cited, I was not aware that the previous Government at any point considered removing the right to bring judicial review against any decisions at all. If he is now advancing the argument that judicial review should not be available in certain cases, I would say good luck to him because that is a foundation of our legal system.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
On a recent visit to Northern Ireland, I met with numerous stakeholders, including veterans, victims and survivors, all of whom are seeking justice. Yet I fear that both the former legacy Act and the current troubles Bill conceive of justice too narrowly, while the constricting lens of lawyers is preoccupied with criminal sanctions and civil compensation. Stakeholders want answers, not retribution. That is why I have tabled amendments to the troubles Bill to formally provide the option of a restorative justice pathway for the many victims of the troubles who simply want to know what happened. Does the Secretary of State agree that restorative justice has an important role to play in reconciliation, and will he meet me to discuss supporting my amendments?
Hilary Benn
I am always happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, and the House will have an opportunity in due course to consider the amendments that he has put forward. Most of the victims I have met—I am sure the same is true for the victims and families he has met—are looking for answers. Most of them recognise that, with the passage of time, the prospects for prosecutions of anybody are diminishing rapidly, and part of the focus of the commission is to help those families to find answers. When it comes to how families are then reconciled to the terrible loss that they have suffered, in the end it will be for each family to find their own way of doing that.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Secretary of State and the Labour Government promised the people of Northern Ireland that they would repeal and replace the legacy Act. They have not. They promised through this two-year extended parliamentary Session that they would deliver legislation that attained support across the community. They have not. The Bill is delayed at the moment because of discord among those on the Government’s own Benches. What does he say to the victims in Northern Ireland who want to see progress?
Hilary Benn
I say very simply that the Government are keen to progress this. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is a very complex piece of legislation, in part because it is having to fix the mess that the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 left this Government to deal with. I make no apology for taking time to ensure that we get the legislation right, because, as he knows, this is the last best hope we have.
Gavin Robinson
The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has just heard from the chief constable of the PSNI, Jon Boutcher, who indicated that the Secretary of State has put in a claim to the Treasury for additional hundreds of millions of pounds to fund the legacy commission, yet the PSNI has nothing. It has £200 million of civil liability cases with it and no resources to progress. Even if it was asked for information, it could not provide it. Does the Secretary of State recognise that there is a legacy funding deficit within the PSNI, and will he similarly seek money for that?
Hilary Benn
The creation of the legacy commission took away from the PSNI some 1,000 cases, which it then fell to the commission to investigate. That cost has been transferred to the legacy commission. Whoever is investigating those cases, and whatever the system is, they will have to be looked into. When they are looked into, disclosure will be required.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
On 10 April we will celebrate the anniversary of the Good Friday agreement, which nearly 30 years ago brought an end to the troubles and enabled Northern Ireland to establish a power-sharing Government. In the years since, Northern Ireland has been transformed, and I look forward to working with everyone to make further progress.
Mr Foster
We approach the anniversary of the Good Friday agreement, which was historic in that it ultimately delivered peace for a generation. With the knowledge that it requires constant political co-operation and public support, its biggest challenge no doubt is the Tory-Reform policy of leaving the European convention on human rights. If the UK left the ECHR, that would undermine a core principle of the agreement. Does the Secretary of State agree that there are some within this Chamber who would wholly compromise the peace in Northern Ireland for short-lived, ill-judged political gain?
Hilary Benn
I do agree with my hon. Friend, and I do not understand why some are advocating removing the ECHR from the Good Friday agreement. It would be highly irresponsible, and it shows a complete lack of understanding about what the agreement involved. You cannot just walk in and pull out one of its pillars for the sake of party ideology.
Jessica Toale
The Good Friday agreement was a landmark achievement of the last Labour Government, and it is a beacon of hope for conflict-affected states around the world. Before coming to this place, I had the privilege of witnessing and experiencing the leadership of Northern Ireland’s young people in this area as they shared their experiences and the lessons from the Good Friday agreement. With that in mind, what is the Secretary of State doing to share the UK’s expertise and ensure that others affected by conflict can benefit from it?
Hilary Benn
I agree with my hon. Friend. The biggest lesson of the Good Friday agreement is that it takes immense political courage to say yes, rather than to go on saying no. To pick up her point, at the end of last year the Foreign Secretary convened the western Balkans countries under the Berlin process at Hillsborough castle, where the First and Deputy First Ministers talked through how Northern Ireland has made this extraordinary progress. That is one example of how the lessons of that agreement are being heard around the world.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
The Good Friday agreement recognised the importance of addressing the suffering of victims of the troubles. Legislating for that remains unfinished business, as does the implementation of a border poll, for which there is significant support in the north. As we approach the anniversary of the agreement, does the Secretary of State agree that it is time to take action on both of those?
Hilary Benn
The provisions relating to a border poll are clearly set out in the Good Friday agreement. There is one criterion that governs such a decision, and at the moment there is no evidence that there is a majority for a constitutional change in Northern Ireland. I commit to the House, as I have done before, that I will uphold in letter and in spirit that bit of the Good Friday agreement.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
May I add to the tributes paid to the Table Clerk? Among all the advice he has given in the last 40 years, he gave particularly good advice on the meaningful vote, which left many of us traumatised, but he developed great expertise in that.
As we celebrate the Good Friday agreement, may I urge the Secretary of State to be crystal clear to the Northern Ireland Assembly and Northern Ireland politicians that there will be less money coming from GB, so there needs to be revenue raising and a sole focus on economic growth for the next Session of the Northern Ireland Assembly?
Hilary Benn
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that economic growth is the answer to many of the questions that the Executive and the Assembly are facing. Northern Ireland, with its dual market access, along with its innovation and ingenuity, has an extraordinary opportunity. Being in government requires taking difficult decisions with the money one has got. We are giving a record settlement to the Executive; they have to decide how to spend it most effectively.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
As the Secretary of State talks up the Belfast agreement, he of course ignores the fact that its primary pledge of no constitutional change without consent has been trashed by the Windsor framework, in that article six of our Acts of Union, no less, has been suspended, and in 300 areas Northern Ireland is subject to foreign jurisdiction. That is constitutional change without consent. More than that, the guarantee of cross-community support was removed to force through the four-year extension to the protocol. Surely the Secretary of State should realise that the Belfast agreement has been hollowed out to promote the nationalist agenda that he seems so ready to embrace.
Hilary Benn
I do not accept the hon. and learned Gentleman’s argument in relation to the Good Friday agreement. When it comes to the Windsor framework, those who advocated to leave the European Union did not think about the consequences for having two entities and one open border and how we could ensure that goods crossing the border would meet the rules of the respective entity—that is what the Windsor framework seeks to do. The Government are negotiating a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU, which has been widely welcomed by all parties across Northern Ireland.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does the Secretary of State agree that, in any marking of the end of violence, a key date is 1994, when the main violence perpetrators, the IRA, finally woke up to the reality that its ranks were riddled with informants and it was running out of options, so it declared a ceasefire, and that was followed by loyalist paramilitaries doing likewise? But civilised society should never applaud or celebrate murderers ceasing to do what they should never have started doing in the first place.
Hilary Benn
I say to the hon. Gentleman that there was always an alternative to violence—always. That recognition was finally achieved when the Good Friday agreement was negotiated and signed, and Northern Ireland has seen the benefits since. It shows, as I indicated earlier, that instead of saying no, which happened repeatedly on all sides, when people are finally prepared to compromise in the interests of peace, enormous benefits flow—in this case, to Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the world.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Matthew Patrick)
We are all indebted to the men and women who serve in our police force, who work day in, day out to keep our communities safe. I know that the Police Service of Northern Ireland purchased the site in the hon. Member’s constituency last year. He will know that policing and justice is devolved, so the next steps are for the PSNI and the Executive to discuss a way forward.
Alex Easton
Does the Minister agree that policing in Northern Ireland has consistently showcased excellence, with some of the most courageous public service anywhere in the UK, and that the development of a new police college on a 54-acre site at Holywood represents a unique opportunity to build expertise? Will he agree to join me for a site meeting to discuss funding opportunities to develop that policing college in Northern Ireland?
Matthew Patrick
I would be very happy to join the hon. Member on that visit. He makes his case powerfully and rightly pays tribute to the brave men and women who serve in our police. I am sure that the Executive will have heard his case for the PSNI as well.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
Northern Ireland will directly benefit from the spring forecast, with almost £390 million in additional funding to the Executive over the next three years, including £231 million in 2026-27. That is money that the Executive can use to deliver on its priorities, which include transforming public services and promoting economic growth.
Douglas McAllister
The £379 million in Barnett consequentials announced by our Chancellor earlier this month is on top of the £370 million of extra funding announced in the Budget, and that is all in addition to the £19 billion funding settlement announced at the spending review. Does the Secretary of State agree that, with that record level of investment, it is now for the Executive to produce a balanced, multi-year budget that will deliver for the people of Northern Ireland?
Hilary Benn
I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government have taken a decision to enable the Executive, if they wish to do so, to agree a multi-year budget. Discussions are taking place, we have had the open book exercise and I hope that the Northern Ireland Executive, given those considerable additional resources, will be able to find a way forward.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
As a result of the Government’s mismanagement of the economy, the spring statement forecast that economic growth and wage growth would go down and that we would have increased inflation, all of which will hit Northern Ireland more severely than other parts of the United Kingdom. Yet the Government refuse to do anything about the massive costs of the Windsor framework and have imposed, from 1 July, carbon taxes on sea transport from GB to Northern Ireland, which will hit our economy even harder. Why are the Government ignoring the real issues that face the Northern Ireland economy, through both their actions and their inactivity?
Hilary Benn
I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of what the Government are doing. We have brought economic stability to the country after the disaster of the previous Government, we have given record support to the Northern Ireland Executive and we are working through our negotiations with the EU to reduce the impact of the Windsor framework. The SPS agreement, which as I said is widely welcomed across Northern Ireland, is a really good example of that.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Though the funding in the spring statement is welcome, the Secretary of State told us that he was looking at alternative sources of funding for the charity sector because of the disappointment in Northern Ireland over the local growth fund split of 70:30. Will he update the House on his conversations?
Hilary Benn
Yes; I am working hard, together with the voluntary sector and, I hope, the Executive to find a way forward. There is £9 million available in resource to fund those schemes from 1 April. I held a meeting to encourage the voluntary sector to apply for a bid to Peaceplus, and with the considerable additional resources that have been made available to the Northern Ireland Executive, it is open to them to make a contribution so that the economic inactivity programmes, which we all value enormously, can continue.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Northern Ireland Office and the Treasury are doing an open book exercise on how all the Departments of the Northern Ireland Executive are spending their block grant allocations. Will the Secretary of State commit to publishing their findings?
Hilary Benn
There will be a report from the Treasury to the Northern Ireland Executive. It is for the Executive to take the decision, but I say from this Dispatch Box that I would welcome its publication.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Hospitality adds nearly £2 billion to Northern Ireland’s economy, supporting more than 75,000 jobs, but last year more than 2,000 hospitality workers in Northern Ireland lost their jobs. Does the Secretary of State agree with Unite the union, of which I know he is a member, that this is the result of the Government’s disastrous national insurance rises?
Hilary Benn
The national insurance rise decision that the Chancellor took in her first Budget was necessary because of the woeful economic legacy left to this Government by their predecessor. If the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to recognise that very basic fact, he has not been paying attention.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
An attack on Britain’s Jewish community is an attack on all of us. I am pleased to say that London ambulances have now replaced the Hatzola ambulances and that the NHS will pay for the permanent replacements. We are accelerating our social cohesion plan to strengthen our British values of tolerance, decency and respect.
We are also strengthening our communities by extending Pride in Place, announcing the locations of seven new towns and delivering over 300 new school-based nurseries. This is investment in our high streets, more homes and action to support working people with the cost of living.
Today, we will celebrate the installation of the new Archbishop of Canterbury. It is a key role in our national life and I wish her every success. 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.
Cat Smith
I would like to thank the Prime Minister for the £47 million that this Government have given to Lancashire county council to repair potholes. However, my constituents still feel like they need a moon buggy to navigate the streets of Lancashire, so would he agree that the Reform councillors of Lancashire county council are clearly wired to the moon if they think they are making effective use of this £47 million?
The Prime Minister
Can I extend my sympathy to residents in Lancashire who are being utterly failed by their Reform county council? It is the same picture across the country. In Kent, Reform is cutting social care. In Worcestershire, it is hiking council tax by 9% despite promising lower taxes. In Staffordshire, the scandals and infighting have been so bad that Reform is on its fourth leader in 11 months. It is a warning to the whole country: Reform has nothing to offer but chaos, grievance and division.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I asked the Prime Minister six questions last week and he did not answer a single one. He has a duty to this House to answer the question. Let us see if he can do better this week. I will start with a simple one. Will the Prime Minister approve the licences for the Rosebank and Jackdaw gasfields in the North sea?
The Prime Minister
Under statute, that is a matter for the Secretary of State, as the right hon. Lady knows. The same arrangements were in place under the last Government. Licences were granted, and they were then struck down because of the defects in the process of the last Government. But oil and gas are coming out of the North sea 24/7. They will be part of the energy mix for many years to come. We fully support all existing oil and gas fields throughout their lifespans, and in November we made changes to extend that to allow neighbouring fields to be exploited.
However, we need to take control of our energy prices. The only way to do that is through renewables. The Conservatives used to make that argument. One of their senior figures in 2022 said that it is
“investment in nuclear and renewables that will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and keep down consumer costs.”
Who was that senior figure? The Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Speaker
Order. This is not the day to be thrown out, with a two-week break coming.
Mrs Badenoch
We can have renewables and oil and gas. The Prime Minister says it is a matter for the Secretary of State—I thought that he was the Prime Minister. He loves to hide behind legal process every single time. I wonder what a Director of Public—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Yasin, you do not want to test my patience, I am sure.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister loves to hide behind legal process. I wonder what a Director of Public Prosecutions would make of the defence, “Sorry, I can’t produce my WhatsApps—my phone has been stolen.” The Jackdaw gasfield could be up and running before winter. All that gas would be used here in the UK to heat 1.6 million homes. That is enough to power Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex put together. Will the Prime Minister approve the licences, or is the Energy Secretary running the Government?
The Prime Minister
Legislation has been passed. It is absolutely clear that the quasi-judicial duty under the legislation rests with the Secretary of State. I really think that if she is going to put this challenge to me, she needs to read the legislation. It is the legislation that the Conservatives applied for 14 years. It is exactly the legislation that they used to put the licences in place which were then struck down because the process was defective.
Let us be clear: when Russia invaded Ukraine, energy prices doubled. During the 12-day war, oil prices hit £100 a barrel. In the last four weeks, because we are on the fossil fuel rollercoaster, everybody is being held to ransom. The only way forward is to go further and faster on renewables. The Leader of the Opposition’s approach is to outsource our foreign policy and let the US decide whether we go to war, and to outsource our energy policy to Russia and Iran and let them set the price of energy. I will never do that because it is not in the British national interest.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister is hiding behind so many people. He is the Prime Minister; he can make this decision today. He is so weak that he is the first person to be pushed around by the Energy Secretary.
Let me remind the Prime Minister who is on my side: the unions—yes, they are on my side—including GMB, Tony Blair, RenewableUK—the very people he talks about are saying to drill in the North sea—Centrica, Octopus Energy and even Labour MPs. Let me quote one Labour Member, the hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell):
“Offshoring our carbon emissions might give some a sense of moral superiority”
but it is simply
“impoverishing our own communities”.
We agree, so why does the Prime Minister think that he knows better than everyone else?
The Prime Minister
I am going to have one more go. The legislation, the statute—[Interruption.] The law prescribes the decision maker. The Opposition know that; they should be embarrassed. The Leader of the Opposition is attacking me without having read the legislation. The legislation sets out who the decision maker is: it is the Secretary of State, not the Prime Minister. It has to be the Secretary of State, and it is a quasi-judicial process—exactly the process that they ran for many years.
Oil and gas will be part of the mix for many years to come, but we do need to get on to renewables. We are discussing this because of the war. We need to de-escalate—[Interruption.] Yes, we are. That is why I stuck to my principles not to join the war and to act in collective self-defence. I appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition does not get that. She wanted to jump into the war without regard for the consequences, and now she has done the mother of all U-turns and is stranded without a thought-through position. When she was asked at the weekend whether she approved of the war, she said, “Oh, that’s a difficult one.” It certainly is if you have absolutely no judgment.
Mrs Badenoch
I am going to let the Prime Minister in on a secret: he is the Prime Minister, and he can change the legislation. Hiding behind the Energy Secretary is pathetic. Under the Prime Minister’s Labour Government, we buy half the gas that we use from Norway. Last year, Norway’s Labour Government drilled 49 wells in the North sea. How many did Britain drill? Zero. For the first time since 1964, under this Prime Minister’s Government, Britain drilled no wells. Why is energy security the right policy for Labour in Norway, but the wrong policy for Labour in Britain?
The Prime Minister
So now the right hon. Lady’s attack is, “If you pass a different law, you can take the decision”—the decision she is challenging me today for not taking. It is absolutely ridiculous. All that would do is to slow the process down. Oil and gas is coming out every day. There is a mix of that and renewables, but the most important thing to do to get energy security is to ensure that we de-escalate this war. I know where I stand on this: we are not joining the war. She wanted to join the war, but she did not think through the consequences, and now she does not know where she stands on the most important issue facing this country at this time.
Mrs Badenoch
The Norwegian Prime Minister is doing what is right for his country—if only our Prime Minister would do the same. Stopping all new drilling in the North sea was a reckless promise when he made it before the election; in the middle of a global energy crisis, it is catastrophic. Experts are predicting a £300 rise in bills in July. Approving new licences would show that he is serious about cutting bills. Why will he not do it?
The Prime Minister
Because of the action that we have taken, household bills are coming down by around £100 next month, then they will be capped for three months. That is what we are doing to protect households across the country. Who voted against it? The Tories and Reform, because they just do not get the impact on working people, who we will protect.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister says that bills are coming down; they are higher than they were when he came into office. He talks about what the Government are doing to help with energy bills. Families and businesses will suffer from the spike in energy costs because of his decisions. He could abolish the green taxes on their bills. He could stop the fuel duty rise. We could drill our own gas in the North sea. What is he doing? He is planning another giveaway to people on welfare. Yet again, he is taking money from those who work to give it to those who do not. First, we had the Budget for “Benefits Street”; now, we have the bail-out for “Benefits Street”. Does that not just prove that they have given up on being the Labour party and are now just the welfare party?
The Prime Minister
The Conservatives are the ones who doubled the spend on welfare. They were the ones with a broken system. When we tried to mend it, what did they do? They voted against it. [Interruption.]
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady talks about the spike in energy prices. That is because of the war, which I say we should not join and she says we should join, without following through on the consequences. Time and time again, she gets the big calls absolutely wrong. She wanted to drag us into the war—she got that wrong. She opposed taking control of energy security—she got that wrong. She opposed our decision to cut energy bills—she got that wrong. She seriously thinks that that will make her relevant—she has got that wrong.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Let me do that. The Israeli settlements, including the E1 settlement, are a flagrant breach of international law and threaten the viability of a two-state solution. That is why, alongside international partners, we have sanctioned those responsible and their supporters who incite violence. We have consistently urged the Israeli Government to act to stop these incidents. We also recommend that settlement products are labelled so that consumers are informed, and we will continue to take the necessary action to defend Palestinians and protect the two-state solution.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about Monday’s despicable attacks on the Jewish community? Antisemitism has no place in our society. Given the potential links with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, I hope that the Government will move faster to proscribe the group as terrorists.
As a former Secretary of State for Energy who granted licences for oil and gas exploration, may I make a judgment on this argument? The Prime Minister is actually right, and the Leader of the Opposition is wrong—[Interruption.] The law is clear, and I believe in the rule of law.
Just before President Trump posted about his supposed negotiations with Iran on Monday, traders made hundreds of millions of dollars of extra bets on oil futures. This looks like Donald Trump giving his mates inside information so they can make themselves richer, while his illegal war in Iran makes everyone else poorer. It looks like corruption of the very worst kind. Does the Prime Minister share my fear that Trump is making his war decisions on the basis of what enriches him and his friends, rather than what makes peace in the middle east?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his verdict. At least he has read the law that the Leader of the Opposition obviously has not read. In relation to the traders, we have seen the activity there. What I can say is that all my decisions are based on the best interests of our country, and that is why I have decided that we will not get dragged into the war, unlike the Leader of the Opposition. I have decided that we will act in collective self-defence—in defence of ourselves and our allies. I comment on my actions, and those are the principles behind my actions.
Ed Davey
If Trump’s war pushes up energy bills by £500, the Chancellor’s very narrow plans simply will not cut it. While I do not fall for the crocodile tears of the leader of the Conservatives, who cheered on this illegal war without a thought for the impact on people’s energy bills, and while the Government are right to reject the idea of repeating Liz Truss’s blank cheque approach, the Government cannot ignore the millions of families who do not receive benefits and who already face a cost of living crisis. Can the Prime Minister at least guarantee to all those families and pensioners that he will not let their energy bills go up by £500 this year?
The Prime Minister
Well, let me now give my verdict. The right hon. Gentleman is right about the Leader of the Opposition wanting to join the war, and she is wrong about that. [Interruption.] At least the right hon. Gentleman has read the legislation on which I am being challenged; it does help. [Interruption.] At least the right hon. Gentleman is right that it was the leader of the Conservative party who said, “Let us all go to war,” without thinking through the consequences. We are now discussing the consequences.
In relation to the support, we have made clear the principles and the approach that we will take. We will keep this under careful review. Energy bills for households are capped until the end of June. It is really important that I make it clear that that will happen whatever happens in the conflict, because I know the public are concerned about that. We will then put in place appropriate support, and we will look at how we put the principles behind it.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The Communities Secretary will make a statement later on the Rycroft review, which sets out the stark threats posed by illicit finance. I can tell the House that we will act decisively to protect our democracy. That will include a moratorium on all political donations made through cryptocurrencies, and I hope that will be welcomed across the House. There is only one party leader who has shown that he will say anything, no matter how divisive, if he is paid to do so.
Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)
“Smash the gangs”—that is what the Prime Minister promised us. “Trust me, I will stop the boats from coming.” But 70,000 people later, with 1,000 in the last week and too many young men who pose a threat to national security, is it not time to admit that “smash the gangs” has been a total, abject failure—along with, frankly, most of his other policies? Is it not time he told us, as summer approaches, what is plan B?
The Prime Minister
That is from the man and the party who voted against giving law enforcement counter-terrorism-style powers to tackle this. The hon. Gentleman wants the grievance; he does not want it sorted. He has absolutely no judgment. Again, he said, “Let’s join the war. Let’s all go to war.” I want to make it perfectly clear that he wanted the war. A week later, he did a screeching U-turn: “We don’t want to go to war”—and he says we should trust his judgment. It is hard to take anything he says seriously. He promised lower tax, and now Reform councils are hiking council tax by 9%. This is what he said about Worcestershire:
“We took…control of a virtually bankrupt council. I wish we hadn’t bothered.”
He asks for people’s votes, and then he abandons them. Reform does not want to solve problems; it only wants to exploit them. I am thankful for the opportunity to change this country for the better; he says he wishes that he had not bothered winning councils. Reform is an absolute disgrace.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. I want to hear the hon. Member’s question, as do those who are interested in snooker.
Dr Tidball
Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I thank the Prime Minister for the £35 million of funding to transform the Crucible theatre and keep the world snooker championship at the heart of Sheffield? I want my constituents to be able to enjoy this fantastic tournament, day and night, and to travel in by tram-train from Stocksbridge to Sheffield via Oughtibridge, Wharncliffe Side and Deepcar. I am grateful to our South Yorkshire Mayor, Oliver Coppard, for kick-starting these plans. Will the Prime Minister work with me and the South Yorkshire Mayor to ensure that we get spades in the ground for a tram-train extension to Stocksbridge as soon as possible, so that my constituents can enjoy the snooker?
The Prime Minister
I see that Reform Members have walked out. They obviously realise that they are absolutely snookered. [Hon. Members: “More!”]
The Prime Minister
Sheffield and the Crucible theatre are the beating heart of snooker, and I am delighted that they will host the world snooker championship for many years to come. This is what Labour stands for: investing in things that make us proud of the places where we live. I reassure my hon. Friend that we are working closely with South Yorkshire combined authority on better transport links and providing over £1.4 billion to spend on its priorities, which could include a new tram fleet and more modern stops, or delivering extensions.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Prime Minister
The steps we have taken have been to repair the damage done by the previous Government. We took those steps, and the spring statement showed the results of those steps: inflation coming down; interest rates coming down; and the economy stabilised. I know the Conservatives do not understand that, because they blew up the economy in the first place.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
An independent audit of the previous Government’s failed insulation schemes shows unacceptable levels of failings. We have acted to make sure poor-quality installations are fixed. It is important that those responsible are held to account for the cost of remediating the issues. I do recognise that there are some complicated cases, and I will make sure a Minister looks at my hon. Friend’s constituents’ case and that urgent action is taken.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Reform has to take responsibility for its decisions, but its Members have moved out.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am deeply sorry to hear about the case that my hon. Friend raises. We are the party of the NHS, and we will always fight to ensure that it remains free at the point of use. We inherited an NHS on its knees, but we are seeing progress: waiting lists are down; patient satisfaction is improving; and we have the best ambulance response times for half a decade. There is much more to do, but we are delivering the investment that is needed—and it was opposed by who? The Tories and the now departed Reform Members.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Prime Minister
Can I thank the hon. Member for raising Susan’s case? It is really important that she does so, and I am deeply sorry for the enduring harm that patients have suffered. Ministers have met campaigners and the Patient Safety Commissioner to discuss their recommendations, and I can assure the hon. Lady we will provide a full response to the Hughes report recommendations at the earliest opportunity. I am happy for Ministers to update her on the actions we have taken and to discuss the particular case that she has raised with me.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her work. She is right to highlight the growing threat posed by dangerous synthetic drugs. Alongside deploying new detection methods at the border to seize drugs, we are investing in better mental health support and drug addiction treatment, with almost £26 million for Stoke-on-Trent. I will ask a Health Minister to discuss her important work with her.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
The Prime Minister
It is really important that nobody is left behind in a cashless society. The vast majority are moving online, but we need to remember that some do not want to, or cannot, and we must ensure that provision is in place for them as well. I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that issue.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. It is shocking and horrifying to hear what those children have to go through. I am absolutely clear in my mind that this should not be happening. I can inform him that I have instructed Justice Ministers to look at what they can do. They will review the payments, and see what else they can do. I am really pleased that he has raised this issue, so that we can now act on it, and I will ensure that he gets the meeting he is asking for.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is responsible for the rise of antisemitism worldwide and here in the United Kingdom; for inciting extreme Islamist attacks; for attacking dissident Iranians and British citizens; and for fomenting all sorts of hate marches. I have a very simple question. We are now at war with Iran, whether we like it or not, yet the reality is that we have never dealt with this organisation. This is not party political; will the Prime Minister make the decision now to proscribe this brutal bunch of thugs and send them packing, or arrest them and put them in jail right now? Get rid of this organisation.
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising that really important and serious point. He knows that we have sanctioned the IRGC in its entirety, and have imposed over 230 sanctions since coming into office. The existing proscription powers are not designed for a state organisation, but we keep this under review—as did the last Government.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for the invitation, and join her in paying tribute to Private Leon Spicer, Private Phillip Hewett and Second Lieutenant Richard Shearer. Their bravery and sacrifice in defence of our values will never be forgotten, and I am delighted to hear that a memorial will be unveiled. I also pay tribute to all those serving in the middle east today, shooting down threats to our allies and protecting our people.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the attack on the Jewish community in Golders Green; there is no place for hatred, antisemitism or violence of any kind against individuals.
An independent panel of senior judges found no basis for misconduct proceedings against the British chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan, King’s counsel, yet reports suggest that elements within the Court’s governing body are seeking to disregard those findings, while ICC officials continue to face external pressure and sanctions. Given the UK’s commitment to the rule of law, and as a human rights lawyer himself, will the Prime Minister set out the steps that he will take to defend the independence of the ICC and support British nationals carrying out international judicial roles?
The Prime Minister
I am not going to comment on the internal proceedings of the Court. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we support the Court; we are party to the treaty, and there are legal obligations that flow from that.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
In my constituency, we have a cohesive and diverse community, with a significant Jewish population, a thriving Muslim community and many others from various different backgrounds all living together and supporting each other. I was therefore appalled to learn of the arson attack against the Jewish community in Golders Green this week, and was deeply concerned by the outrageous comments of the shadow Justice Secretary, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), last week about the community iftar in Trafalgar Square, which were seemingly supported by the Leader of the Opposition. Will the Prime Minister assure me and my worried constituents that he and his Government will do all they can to stamp out hate and hate speech in our communities?
The Prime Minister
I want to say again what a shocking antisemitic attack this was in Golders Green, and to be absolutely clear that an attack on British Jews is an attack on all of us. On Monday morning, I met Jewish community leaders to talk through what we could do on ambulances, on security and on the social cohesion plan. I will also say that I was really struck by the fact that the Jewish community came out last week against the shadow Justice Secretary’s comments; they are standing in solidarity with Muslims who wanted to pray in Trafalgar Square. Equally, at the Eid events we had on Monday, Muslims stood in solidarity with our Jewish community. That is Britain, contrary to what the shadow Justice Secretary said last week, supported by the Leader of the Opposition. That is how far they have fallen.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Thames Water is lurching from crisis to crisis. Last year, it was let off record fines for pumping sewage into rivers by Ofwat. Ofwat is allowed to do that, under rules laid out in the Water Industry Act 1991. Will the Prime Minister consider scrapping those rules, to stop Ofwat letting water companies off the hook?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this deeply concerning matter. We are looking at what more we can do, because this has been of too much concern for too long, and we need to act.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
As the covid inquiry graphically laid bare last week, the NHS was starved of the investment it needed under the Conservatives, and nowhere more so than at Northwick Park hospital; its brave and extraordinary staff worked around the clock during covid, looking after many of my constituents. Given the very welcome, substantial investment in improving the NHS that the Government have committed to, will my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister encourage the Health Secretary to support plans for a new intensive care unit at Northwick Park?
The Prime Minister
The covid report is a stark reminder of the extraordinary efforts of health workers to keep this country safe. We are delivering record investment and reform that our NHS needs, and while decisions about local infrastructure are made by integrated care boards, I will make sure that my hon. Friend gets a meeting with the Minister to discuss this particular case. Today, NHS satisfaction rates have risen for the first time since the pandemic; that is the difference a Labour Government are making.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On 21 November last year, Robert Clancy, a hugely valued and much loved member of my staff, took his own life. He was 29. While successive Governments have done a great deal to deal with the scourge of suicide in this country, there is much more that can be done. Will the Prime Minister personally commit to meeting me to discuss how we can prevent others from experiencing the unimaginable pain that Rob’s family and friends have endured?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the case of Robert Clancy. We are happy to work across the House on all that we can do in relation to suicide. I am pleased that we have been able to put in place a strategy; that is the action of this Government, but it needs to be the action of all of us, and I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman gets the meeting that he is asking for. I thank him again for raising this case; it was really important that he did.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I refer you to paragraph 22.9 of “Erskine May”, which stresses the primary importance of ministerial responsibility? We have to admit that Prime Ministers have always tried to dodge questions at Prime Minister’s Question Time, and you are not responsible for the answers that they give, but what we have seen in recent weeks is not just dodging questions; in reply to every question the Prime Minister is asked, he refers to the Leader of the Opposition’s policies. This is not Leader of the Opposition’s questions; it is Prime Minister’s questions.
Mr Speaker
Once again, as I said last week, I do not have responsibility for, or authority over, answers. It is incumbent on Ministers to try to ensure that there is an answer, but it is not for me to judge whether the answer is correct. That would be politicising the Chair. If that is what the House wishes to do, it can by all means do that, but I have not got that power.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek your guidance on the rules about how many questions a Member needs to stay in the Chamber for after speaking?
Mr Speaker
None whatsoever, because we are in Prime Minister’s Question Time.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I have given advance notice to you and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). There is an important tradition and custom in this House that Members remain in the Chamber for at least—
Mr Speaker
Order. That is absolutely not a point of order, and is not relevant, and I have certainly not had any indication of what you are asking me.
Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
I would like to make a statement on foreign influence and interference.
The responsibility of protecting our democracy is a duty that every single Member of this House shares. As a Government, we are clear-eyed about the evolving threats we must contend with from those who wish to disrupt our democracy for their own gain and their own twisted purposes. We already have a strong toolkit to detect, disrupt and deter interference, and we are strengthening it through our Representation of the People Bill and counter political interference and espionage action plan. But as threats evolve, so too must our protections. For this reason, I announced in December an independent review led by the former permanent secretary, Philip Rycroft, into foreign financial interference in UK politics. I would like to place on the record my thanks to Mr Rycroft for his thorough, diligent and swift work in rigorously assessing our political finance framework and identifying where further safeguards are needed. The full report from his review has today been laid before the House, and the findings are stark. Mr Rycroft concludes that this country faces a persistent problem of foreign interests seeking to exert influence on, and to interfere in, our politics, and that the threat has become arguably more acute. While he welcomes the measures in our Bill, the report is clear that we need to go further, and I agree.
We welcome Mr Rycroft’s assessment and his wide-ranging recommendations, which cover the regulation of corporate and overseas donations, the need to close loopholes used by some non-party campaign groups, the approach to combating online threats, the importance of ensuring that enforcement agencies have the information and powers they need, and the organisation of Whitehall to ensure that we are best placed to tackle these threats.
In advance of the Commons Report stage of the Representation of the People Bill, we will provide a comprehensive, line-by-line response to all the report’s recommendations. I am clear that, wherever necessary, we will amend the Bill to ensure that our defences against foreign interference are robust. Given the gravity of the threats we face and their level of seriousness, I reassure the House that we will take immediate action on the most serious loopholes set out in the report that allow illicit foreign money into our democracy.
British citizens living overseas have the right to participate in UK parliamentary elections, and that gives them the right to donate to parties or candidates they support. However, the report raises two fundamental concerns about such donations from overseas. First, the report is clear:
“Inevitably, tracing the source of funds offered by individuals living abroad is more complex than for domestic donations.”
Secondly, it raises concerns about the “democratic fairness” of allowing people
“who have chosen to live abroad in order to have their wealth taxed abroad”
none the less to
“have the opportunity to make potentially game-changing donations into British politics.”
I will therefore take immediate steps to implement the report’s recommendation on donations from overseas electors. We will introduce an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill to place an annual cap on the total political donations that an overseas elector can make. The cap will be set at £100,000 a year. In the light of the gravity of the issues raised in the report, I am not prepared to allow any window of opportunity in which malign actors based overseas can funnel dark money into our politics. The cap will therefore apply retrospectively, so it will include all donations from overseas electors received from today and all regulated transactions entered into from today.
Once the provisions are in force, any donations by an overseas elector to any political party or regulated entity that exceed the cap for that overseas elector will be an unlawful donation. Subject to parliamentary approval of the amendment that I will table, the recipient of any unlawful donation will have 30 days to return that donation once the legislation comes into force, after which enforcement action can be taken and criminal penalties will apply.
The cap will apply to relevant donations from today in all elections in the UK, including for parties at the upcoming English local elections, Scottish Parliament elections and Senedd elections. In Scotland and Wales, donations to candidates rather than parties are devolved matters, but my intention is to seek a legislative consent motion for our amendments to ensure that there are no gaps in our safeguards. I will speak to my counterparts in the Scottish and Welsh Governments to emphasise my commitment to work together to protect our electoral system right across the United Kingdom.
The second recommendation on which I will take immediate action relates to donations made in cryptocurrencies. Following extensive consultation, Mr Rycroft sets out clearly the deep reservations that many people have about such donations, and his conclusions are clear that
“there is a risk that cryptoassets are used as the vehicle to channel foreign money into the political system in the UK…we should pause the use of cryptoassets for political donations for the time being.”
I accept Mr Rycroft’s assessment that the anonymity inherent in cryptocurrency transactions could make it easier to mask the origin of donations and to evade robust checks on the true source of funds. The clear route that that creates for illicit channelling of money into our politics is unacceptable and undermines public confidence in our electoral system.
In the light of that, I can confirm that the Government will take immediate steps to implement the recommendation made in the report, and we will introduce an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill to place a moratorium on all political donations made through cryptocurrency. I want to be crystal clear: as the report recommends, I mean crypto in any amount, including donations of a value that would ordinarily fall below the threshold for control on donations. There are specific risks posed by cryptocurrency donations, such as the risk of rapid multiple small donations being made just below our current thresholds.
The moratorium will remain in place until the Electoral Commission and this Parliament are satisfied that there is sufficient regulation in place to ensure full confidence and transparency in donations that are made in that way. Subject to parliamentary approval, the moratorium will be applied retrospectively to any crypto donations received from today by any political parties and regulated entities. Once the provisions are in force, if a political party or regulated entity has received a donation in the interim, they will have 30 days to return it, after which enforcement action can be taken and criminal penalties will apply. That will again apply to all elections in the United Kingdom. As I have set out, we will work with devolved Governments to secure legislative consent where that is required.
I would like again to express my thanks to Philip Rycroft for his comprehensive, thoughtful and well-reasoned report. It is, and always will be, an absolute priority for this Government to protect our democratic and electoral processes. The swift and decisive action being taken by this Government sends a clear message: we will do everything necessary to protect the UK’s democracy. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Those Members who have come into the Chamber extremely late will not be called to participate in the statement. Members have to be here for the beginning of a statement, not for the last minute of it.
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I echo his thanks to Mr Rycroft for the work that he has done on a very important report. We began work in this area through the defending democracy taskforce, and I am glad to see the Minister for Security in his place to highlight the important link between the work of this report and the work that he does.
There should be no party political divide when it comes to protecting the integrity of our democracy, and there is a great deal in the report that my party instinctively agrees with. However, the process falls far short of what this House should expect. The 50-page Rycroft review was published just 20 minutes before Prime Ministers questions, and only five minutes before one of the Secretary of State’s Ministers was hosting a meeting to which I was invited about local government reorganisation, making it very difficult for me to read the detail of the report—[Interruption.] That made it very difficult for me to read the detail of an incredibly important report which, as I said, contains much with which we instinctively agree. This is not just poor procedure; it means that it is harder for the Opposition to scrutinise the actions of the Government properly, particularly in light of the fact that many of the proposals in the report are being initiated immediately.
Sadly, this follows a pattern of behaviour by this Government. The Representation of the People Bill has already been through Second Reading and is in Committee, yet today is the first time we are seeing important elements of a report that goes to the heart of that legislation. Foreign interference is growing and it demands a coherent response—a cross-party response—and yet this Government choose to legislate first and make announcements later. They brought forward the Representation of the People Bill before the Rycroft review had reported; they asked the House to scrutinise legislation that was full of holes, as the Secretary of State is now announcing from the Dispatch Box. This is not good process.
My comments are not about process for process’s sake, but about ensuring that unforeseen or bad outcomes are avoided, while protecting what needs to be protected. Now we are told that major changes—fundamental changes—on donations, enforcement and transparency are being rushed into a Bill late in its passage, without proper consultation, scrutiny or time. That is not the way to ensure that cross-party policy is successfully implemented.
It is right that the Secretary of State and the Government want to send a clear message that they take this issue seriously, and we echo that desire, but this is not the way to do it. Announcing Government action by press release, then filling in the details later, undermines the important work at the heart of the report. Russia’s aggression, Iran’s hostile activity on British soil, cyber-attacks on our institutions and Chinese state-based activity against us here in the UK make it incredibly important that we fight this fight together. Having these things bumped on the House, in the way that this report has been, does not help.
The Secretary of State knows that the Conservatives are very much on the same side in relation to these matters, so I have a number of questions for him, which I will rattle through now. Why did he not wait for the Rycroft report before introducing the Representation of the People Bill in the House? Which of the review’s recommendations will require primary legislation and what time will be provided for that primary legislation? Will he commit to a full consultation with political parties and regulators before making any substantive amendments to the Bill going through the House?
From an initial reading, the proposals on company donations will have a significant effect on legitimate domestic donations, so why are the Government proposing to treat domestic philanthropy as if it were something distasteful? Will the Secretary of State confirm that these changes will not be brought forward without proper consultation and consideration on the effects of legitimate domestic funding?
Foreign interference is not the only threat to the integrity of our elections. We have seen evidence of breaches of electoral law, so what steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that current legislation is enforced?
Will the Secretary of State tighten the rules on foreign donations? He talked about devolved franchise changes in Wales and Scotland. What will he do to make sure that the forthcoming elections are protected? Finally, does he now accept that a very short pause to enable good faith interventions from my party and others would make this legislation stronger and send the signal that we are united as a democracy in this endeavour?
Steve Reed
May I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his support for the purpose and intent of this legislation, and, indeed, for his and his party’s engagement with Philip Rycroft and his review? He lists the reasons that this is important to all of us and I agree with him. Certainly, I want to see both proper engagement with the Opposition and the opportunity for proper scrutiny, because that will strengthen the legislation. It is important that the legislation has cross-party support given the nature of the issue.
We had to act quickly to bring forward the provisions, because we could not allow a window of opportunity to open that would enable evasion by malign and hostile actors. Beyond that, the proposals will proceed in the usual way through the parliamentary processes and Members from all parts of the House will have the opportunity to comment and be engaged. It was necessary to act at speed because of the gravity of the threat that Philip Rycroft’s review outlined very clearly.
None of wants to allow foreign interference to continue. All of us believe that it is the right of the British people—and the British people alone—to freely choose their own Government. We will engage with Governments across the United Kingdom and parties across this Parliament to ensure that is the outcome.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
May I start by echoing the comments of the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, paying tribute to Sir Philip Rycroft for his tireless work? I also thank the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy for its work on cryptocurrency?
We have to be honest and say that there is a lot of mistrust in our politics and democracy. I am proud to stand here as someone who was supported by two trade unions and local members in the funding of my campaign. We cannot say in one breath that we want to defend this country from foreign threats and then allow fundamentally opaque payment methods into our democracy. That is not on. It is therefore right that the Government put in place this moratorium on cryptocurrency donations. I welcome the Secretary of State’s pledge, as well as the cap on donations by overseas electors following the extension of their enfranchisement in the Elections Act 2022.
As is stated in the Rycroft review, one problem is the fact that no less than five Departments cover the responsibility for protecting our democracy. If we want to get this right, we need to continue with leadership at the heart of Government, so will the Secretary of State accept recommendation 17 and allocate a permanent secretary with lead responsibility for sustaining our democracy and co-ordinating the response to the threats at the heart of Government?
Will the Secretary of State also commit to ensuring that any amendments to the Representation of the People Bill as a result of the recommendations are tabled before Commons Report stage, so that Parliament can have adequate time to scrutinise the proposals?
Steve Reed
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her questions and for her support for this work. The intention is to bring the amendments forward on Report. In advance of those amendments being laid, we will provide a detailed response to each of the 17 recommendations, including the one to which she has just referred.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I was grateful to meet Philip Rycroft as part of this important and urgent work.
The threat that we face is not new. Back in 2020, the Intelligence and Security Committee said that Russian influence in the UK is the “new normal” and that the Government then were not doing enough. Since then, we have seen Reform’s former leader in Wales being convicted for accepting pro-Russian bribes.
We have said before that the Representation of the People Bill is not nearly ambitious enough, so I very much look forward to working as part of the Bill Committee to incorporate the recommendations. Will the Secretary of State clarify whether the Government intend to accept just the two recommendations that he has focused on in his statement, or all of them?
On overseas donations, a cap is welcome, but does the Secretary of State accept that if this reform is made without wider changes, a malign actor could get around it simply by donating via a UK company? We strongly support the moratorium on all political donations made through cryptocurrency, but much more is needed to really seize this opportunity to clean up our politics. We should ban anyone who has served a foreign Administration from donating to UK political parties, think-tanks or campaign groups A significant opportunity remains for those who have been political appointees in hostile Governments to funnel donations into the UK.
We should also ban politicians from receiving payment for participating in the propaganda of foreign adversaries, on broadcasters like Russia Today and Iran’s PressTV. Will he also address why calls from the Liberal Democrats for Donald Trump’s Administration, and their explicit policy of interference in our democracy, to be included in this review were ignored? Will he order a stand-alone probe into that?
Steve Reed
Let me thank the hon. Member for her and her party’s engagement with Philip Rycroft’s review. She is right to point to the growing threat; it has been evolving over recent years. She mentions the case of Nathan Gill, which underscores the nature and the gravity of that risk. Today I am accepting the report in general. We are bringing forward two provisions now, because had I not done so, a window for evasion would have been left open. We will provide a detailed response to all 17 recommendations. The amendments that we table will be open for parliamentary scrutiny and debate in the usual way. I look forward to her and her party making their views clear as we go through the process.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Rycroft review and I very much enjoyed speaking to Philip Rycroft during the process. Beyond crypto and other financial donations, he says we need to tackle deepfakes, bots and disinformation; create a political ad library; and put in place greater investigatory powers for the Electoral Commission and an incident protocol should there be a major election incident. My amendments deal with all those points. Will the Secretary of State undertake to urgently meet me to see how we can take my currently named amendments and make them Government amendments at the Bill’s next stage?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for her support and her active interest in making sure that the legislation that follows is as robust as possible. I would be more than happy to make sure that she has a meeting with me or the relevant Minister to discuss her amendments. The report and its recommendations cover some of her concerns, and it is our intention to amend the legislation to deal with those concerns.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
As a former elections policy Minister and member of the defending democracy taskforce, may I thank the Secretary of State for launching this inquiry? I also thank Philip Rycroft for his work; it was a pleasure to give evidence to him during that process.
I welcome the spirit in which the Secretary of State has brought forward with urgency the changes that are so demonstrably required. May I ask him two direct questions? If amendments to reflect the Rycroft report are not to be tabled at Committee stage but on Report, will he ensure through the usual channels that the length of time devoted to Report stage reflects the fact that the House will be debating for the first time amendments to the legislation, which were not included on Second Reading? That speaks to the process point made by the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly).
If these important new rules are to be policed effectively and properly, there will clearly be additional demands on the Electoral Commission both in terms of power and resource. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of those needs and how will they be delivered in speedy time to mirror the urgency that is required?
Steve Reed
I thank the hon. Member for his support, for his work with the defending democracy taskforce and for contributing to Sir Philip Rycroft’s review. He is quite right that we want to make sure that there is adequate time on Report for Members to make their points, and I am sure that the business managers will ensure that that happens. Regarding resources for the Electoral Commission, we will need to ensure that the resources are adequate to meet any new demands placed on them or other regulators. That will be part of the process of ensuring that the legislation goes through and can be followed through on.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I thank Sir Philip Rycroft for his important work. In his review, he notes:
“The online environment has created a cheap and relatively simple means of getting anonymised content in front of ordinary people in a way that seeks to undermine their trust in the political process.”
He notes that this activity is “strategic, long-term and patient”, and that
“dissonance is its own reward.”
Does the Secretary of State agree with those findings? What can we do to address the challenge of misinformation and disinformation on social media and in online spaces?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We have to maintain confidence and trust of the British electorate in the integrity of our elections and election processes. This legislation, and the amendments we will table as a result of the Rycroft review, are intended to achieve precisely that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I appreciate that colleagues want to be forensic in their questioning, but shorter questions will be very much appreciated. I call Dr Andrew Murrison.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Mr Rycroft’s wide-ranging review makes the non-inclusion of China—or, failing that, its constituent entities—in the foreign influence registration scheme look increasingly bizarre. Will the Government look at this again as a matter of urgency? If it is the case that the FIRS is inadequate to include the state entity or its constituent parts in the meaning of the scheme, will he look to review it and perhaps replace it with something that will achieve the same end?
Steve Reed
The right hon. Member raises a very important point. The Government are keeping precisely that concern under very close review so that we stand ready to make changes as and when they are required. The Security Minister is on the Front Bench with me today because he would lead much of that work.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I declare that I am a member of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments on the Rycroft review. He says that he will be responding to the many wide-ranging recommendations that the review contains, but can I press him further on what actions the Government are taking to give the Electoral Commission not only resources but the powers needed to both deter and punish breaches of political financial rules?
Steve Reed
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question; it is a very important one. We will respond in detail to the recommendations and bring forward any new powers or resources that the Electoral Commission requires. We will ensure that it can carry out any new responsibilities that we place on them.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
Can I put on record my thanks to Sir Philip Rycroft for his public service? The Secretary of State referenced devolved Administrations. The Scottish Parliament is going into the pre-election period this afternoon, so how will this work in terms of the elections? How will this legislation impact the extraordinary number of political donors who happen to find themselves as Members of the House of Lords, should they be seen to have broken any rules here?
Steve Reed
I hope to speak with the relevant Minister in the Scottish Government today. There will, of course, be engagement between officials during the pre-election period. Any legislative change would come after the elections in Scotland and in Wales.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I very much welcome Sir Philip Rycroft’s review. It is long overdue when we think about how much money has been flooding in from Russia and elsewhere. There are questions about association, and certain individuals who have been donating significant amounts of money while living for 21 years not here but in Thailand. The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, which I chair, made many recommendations in our political finance report, which we published last week. I have tabled 11 amendments, which I hope the Secretary of State will very much view as constructive.
I welcome the connection tests that the Secretary of State has mentioned to do with the individual and on a corporate level, and the moratorium on cryptocurrencies is extremely welcome. California banned them back in 2018, so it just goes to show how much could have been done in recent years. The capacity of the enforcement agencies is a real concern. The higher penalties will be very much welcomed by them, I am sure, but I reiterate that there needs to be greater capacity and expertise across the Electoral Commission and the enforcement agencies.
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I recognise his concerns. I have addressed them in answer to previous questions, and I will not repeat those responses.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for coming to the House to talk about the importance of integrity in politics. However, as purdah arrives, in Sussex we are seeing a mess of dithering and delay and, frankly, blatant disregard of the original process for the changes in local government in Sussex. That is affecting my constituents, and indeed yours, Madam Deputy Speaker. Decisions are apparently taken on a case-by-case basis, but can I point out to the Secretary of State that people are saying that exactly this kind of political gerrymandering is happening in Sussex, which is exactly what he is seeking to prevent? Can he explain to the House how my constituents, and people more widely in Sussex, can have confidence in this process?
Steve Reed
Of the original proposals that we had for Sussex, none were considered financially viable, ultimately. We are reopening the consultation, and the hon. Member and her constituents will be able to comment on the new proposals.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)
I welcome the Rycroft review and, in particular, the Secretary of State’s commitment to take action on crypto donations and to cap foreign donations from overseas donors. I want to draw his attention to the comment in the report that the debate on social media
“seeks to exacerbate division and increase polarisation with a view to simply destroying the capacity of the UK to function as a well-governed state.”
This is chilling. Alongside the proposals that he has spoken about, we need action to tackle deepfakes and disinformation, which are making it more and more dangerous for electoral candidates to operate in our democracy. Will he take action to empower our regulators, including Ofcom and the Electoral Commission, to take action rapidly, without delay?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. Many people who care deeply about democracy have raised similar concerns. The review makes proposals on deepfakes and transparency about the origins of any content that appears online, which is needed. We will provide a detailed response to the recommendations, at which point she and other Members will have the opportunity to scrutinise and debate and scrutiny them as we work through the legislation.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and the action he is taking on cryptocurrency, but can I urge him to go further on corporate donations? A report this week by CenTax revealed that as many as one in four donations from corporate entities are essentially opaque. It put this down to the reliance on persons with significant control rules, and it made a series of recommendations. Will he commit to looking at the recommendations in that report and ensuring that we tighten up the system so that people cannot simply circumvent the rules by donating via British companies?
Steve Reed
The Bill and the Rycroft review already propose actions on that. I recognise the concerns. We need to act on shell companies, for instance, which can be used to funnel in dark money. We have no idea where that is coming from. There are legitimate concerns that the money could be coming from hostile states seeking to weaken and undermine our country by undermining our democracy. We will not tolerate that.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
In his excellent report, Sir Philip Rycroft specifically references the amplification of divisive content on social media. Yesterday my Committee heard from TikTok, Meta and X how in each case the design of their algorithm is determined by a foreign billionaire with a political agenda. Certainly when it comes to Mr Musk, that agenda does not reflect our democratic values—he has called for civil war in the UK. Unlike traditional press, social media algorithms are hidden, inaccessible and use personal data to target content, as Rycroft observes. Will the Secretary of State consider whether political bias in algorithms constitutes a donation in kind, and will he work with colleagues to address the algorithmic, advertising research and transparency failures that our Committee gave detailed proposals about in our report last July?
Steve Reed
I listened carefully, and with great interest, to part of the Select Committee’s proceedings yesterday. We are grateful for the contribution that my hon. Friend and her Committee are making to the debate. This legislation is not intended to target any one individual or state; it is about putting in place safeguards against growing threats, wherever they may arise.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I think the Government are very wise to try to close the potential loophole that somebody might make a giant donation between today and the conclusion of the legislative process, but I can think of at least one other rather glaring loophole, which hopefully the Secretary of State has also considered. If somebody is an elector living abroad, he will be limited to £100,000 per donation, but what about other members of his close family to whom he could channel indefinite numbers of packages of £100,000 apiece? What is to stop them from making similar donations? Has the Secretary of State considered how the limit will work in practice?
Steve Reed
Any attempt to bypass existing laws or the provisions that I have announced today would themselves be illegal. We would seek to identify the ultimate source and, if any behaviours of that kind had been carried out, there would be necessary enforcement action to follow.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
I welcome the measures announced today to tackle foreign interference in our elections. Will the Secretary of State go a step further and support my proposal to break the link between wealthy donors and the parties they help to elect by banning their firms from subsequently holding Government contracts?
Steve Reed
The report is focused on stopping money coming in from hostile states or other hostile individuals who seek to undermine our democracy. That is the extent of the measures that I am announcing today.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Constituents like Andrew from Crewkerne have told me how worried they are about funding from the United States for right-wing UK think-tanks and political parties. Recommendations 4 and 16 of the review would strengthen transparency and reporting around donations to think-tanks and lobbying groups, which can advance foreign influence. Will the Secretary of State tell my constituents whether the Government will implement those recommendations, and when that will be?
Steve Reed
I thank the hon. Member and his constituents for their interest in this important matter. Philip Rycroft makes 17 detailed recommendations in his review. We will respond to all of them line by line, and at that point the hon. Member and his constituents will have our clear view.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for making this important statement. Like the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean), I am concerned about the ability of shell companies to make political donations. Clearly that is not transparent, and that is rightly recognised in the Rycroft review. What steps will the Government take to close that loophole? Crucially, what will the Government do to strengthen the monitoring of donations?
Steve Reed
That is an important point, because the ability of shell companies to exist as funnels for dark, dirty money entering and polluting UK politics is real. That is why we are taking the recommendations seriously, and we will come forward with amendments to the legislation intended to close those doors so that we can keep British elections free for British people.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)
I am going to mention the elephant in the room. Earlier this month, the husband of a sitting Labour MP—the hon. Member for East Kilbride and Strathaven (Joani Reid)—was arrested on suspicion of spying for China. The hon. Member was subsequently suspended from the Labour party. It has been reported that she received a donation from her husband’s firm, which presumably would be covered by the Government’s plans. I do not expect any comment on that live investigation, but in the light of that and the historic case of Christine Lee, Labour MPs and the Chinese Communist party, will the Secretary of State confirm that the measures he has announced will apply equally to members of his own party who find themselves compromised by the Chinese Communist party?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman) will know that when we plan to mention colleagues in the Chamber, we give them notice.
Madam Deputy Speaker
She is saying that she has done so. We obviously do not mention live cases either.
Steve Reed
The right hon. and learned Member, as a former Home Secretary, will of course know that I cannot comment on ongoing investigations. The provisions of the legislation that we will bring forward—as with all legislation—will apply without fear and favour to members of all parties, as indeed does the bribery legislation that applied to Nathan Gill, a traitor who was the leader of Reform in Wales.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
At the time of the Boston tea party, the American colonists demanded, “No taxation without representation.” Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should instil the principle that there should be no ability, in a game-changing way, to influence representation without taxation? Will he elaborate a little on the principles in his statement?
Steve Reed
Philip Rycroft has recognised the concern and proposed what I think is a proportionate approach to dealing with it. I have accepted the figure of a £100,000 cap, which I think most reasonably minded people would agree is a very generous level of funding, for donations from British nationals who are living and paying their taxes overseas.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his comments. The Rycroft report has come at a really important time. As a member of the Bill Committee, I look forward to working with the Government to ensure that all the recommendations are brought through, because they are incredibly important. I return to the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) about the importance of a report relating to US interference in our democracy. What steps are the Government and the defending democracy taskforce taking to protect our democracy from foreign interference more generally before the Representation of the People Bill passes through the House?
Steve Reed
The US, of course, is our closest ally. The provisions that we are making in this legislation do not target any one country, or indeed any one individual; they are intended to be a proportionate response to a growing threat, wherever that threat may arise.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I strongly welcome the report and the Government’s speedy and decisive response to it. Evidence from Germany and from Moldova shows how online attempts at foreign interference can combine with real-life attempts at foreign interference in the run-up to elections. First, was I right in hearing that the Government will look at a transparent protocol for dealing with information emergencies related to foreign actors in the run-up to elections? Secondly, is the Secretary of State aware that in countries where crypto interests have unfairly influenced elections, donations have often been given in domestic currency? Will he look at that broader context?
Steve Reed
There are recommendations covering precisely the points that my right hon. Friend raised. I have accepted the report, in general terms, in full. We will respond in detail to each of the 17 recommendations, which I hope will address her concerns.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I warmly welcome the Rycroft review and the Government’s swift action set out today on crypto and on overseas donations, although I would like to see them go much further. The Secretary of State said that he will amend the Representation of the People Bill wherever necessary. As a member of the Bill Committee, I would love to see those amendments tabled while we are still in Committee so that we can give them the line-by-line scrutiny that, as he referred to, is the normal practice of this House. Will he please pull out all the stops to ensure that happens?
On stopping the spread of disinformation on social media, Philip Rycroft refers on page 47 of the report to the significant benefits that could come from having a real-time online library of social media adverts so that we get that transparency and that light shone on how all sorts of actors are influencing people below the surface. Does the Secretary of State support Philip Rycroft’s view on that? Will he table an amendment to deal with that problem?
Steve Reed
I thank the hon. Lady for her and her party’s support for the review. I also thank her for her work on the Bill Committee. She is quite right; we need to make sure that when the amendments come forward, the Bill Committee has sufficient time—and, indeed, that the House has sufficient time—to go through them in detail. I and the Government will respond to each of the 17 recommendations in detail, and I think that that will be the most appropriate time to respond to the question she has raised.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
As an individual who has dedicated my life to tackling corruption in all its forms and as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for Security, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), for their commitment to addressing foreign interference in our politics, as well as thanking Philip Rycroft for his review. I am grateful for the immediate measures that the Government have announced today on crypto donations and the size of donations made by British nationals abroad. They are very welcome and very much needed.
May I press the Secretary of State on three particular questions? First, to what extent can he assure the House that the Electoral Commission is sufficiently supported to monitor and police the perimeter of the new announcements that have been made today? Secondly, will he confirm that, contrary to the remarks of the shadow Secretary of State, there was ample opportunity for political parties of all stripes to feed into the review? Thirdly, on “know your donor” checks and the risk factors that will be introduced through the Bill, there is a recommendation in the report that they should be more aligned with the anti-money laundering requirements that have been in place for quite some time for banks and other financial services firms. Will the Secretary of State commit to working with other regulators—for instance, the Financial Conduct Authority—to understand how those would best be implemented, working with parties?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for his personal engagement on this issue and for the work of the APPG that he chairs. It has made some significant contributions and we are grateful for that. We will, of course, ensure that the Electoral Commission has the resources it requires to enforce changes as we bring them forward. On his final point, the defending democracy taskforce exists to make sure that there is proper alignment across all the necessary regulators to ensure that we are keeping our democracy in this country free and safe.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s reference to the rights of British overseas electors and the cap on donations as a proportionate response, yet their right to cast their vote is constantly stymied by late arrivals of the post. While the Secretary of State is considering amendments to the Representation of the People Bill, will he meet me to consider my amendments that would address that issue and seek to secure the voting rights of overseas citizens?
Steve Reed
I am aware of that important concern. I am happy to make sure that he gets an appropriate meeting to discuss it.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I welcome the report; it is game changing. I agree with the Secretary of State’s logic that leaving a window open for dodgy money to flood into this country would have been totally irresponsible, so I welcome the swift action. My specific question is about recommendation 2 on company donations. We have learned from the Premier League’s attempt to enforce financial fair play that, unfortunately, revenue can be manipulated very easily—for example, sponsorship can allow clubs to buy players that they otherwise would not be able to afford. I welcome Rycroft’s recommendation that we switch to profit to ensure that only genuine companies that make a profit in this country can give donations. As the Government respond in full to the report, will the Secretary of State take a close look at that recommendation?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for his support. He is quite right; Philip Rycroft was very clear in his reasoning on that point. The objective is to prevent shell companies from being set up to funnel dark money into British politics. It is not to prevent British companies that are just going through a difficult year or two from making donations themselves.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I welcome the review, the Minister’s response and the general thrust of it. I am glad to see the list of people who responded at the back of the review. We responded on behalf of the Unionist community, and it is a good job that we did as no others seem to have done so.
On political donations in Northern Ireland, the Minister will be aware of Sinn Féin being able to funnel money from the United States into the Republic and then into Northern Ireland. That is an issue that we raised and it is itemised on page 25. It is a concern that many people have. Sinn Féin already gets millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money in representative money for not coming here, and in addition to that, it is now getting several millions from the USA via Dublin and into Northern Ireland.
Steve Reed
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his and his party’s engagement with the review. I hear his concerns. It is important that we continue to engage so that those concerns can be heard and, where appropriate, addressed.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his prompt action in banning cryptoasset donations and capping foreign donations. The Rycroft review also recommends that foreign-funded adverts be banned and that all online adverts should have imprints to show who has paid for them. Will the Secretary of State explain when and how the Government will take those recommendations forward?
Steve Reed
Philip Rycroft makes some really important points on that, which of course other Members across the House have made previously. As I said earlier, we will respond in detail to all the recommendations, including those covering the points that my hon. Friend has just raised.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I thank Philip Rycroft for his review and the Secretary of State for the announcement today. I am particularly happy that we have this idea about it being retrospective and applying the measures from today because we do not know when the Bill will come through. May I encourage the Secretary of State to consider, both for crypto and for foreign donations, extending the period of retrospectivity back to the previous general election?
Steve Reed
I am not so sure there is much precedent for that level of retrospectivity.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank Philip Rycroft for meeting me in my position as chair of the fair elections APPG and for including some of my points and evidence in this excellent review. I also thank the Secretary of State for including the donations cap—an issue that I raised with the Minister for Democracy, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), when we met.
My question relates to page 45 of the review, which talks about international best practice, and the point I raised with Philip Rycroft about VIGINUM in France, which monitors foreign online interference. That is the most pressing issue in UK politics today. It is about not just identifying it and publishing it, but attributing and exposing it, and in some cases even getting it removed. Are we considering the same modalities, capabilities and powers when implementing that recommendation in the UK?
Steve Reed
We will respond in detail to each of the 17 recommendations, including the one that my hon. Friend references. However, he is absolutely right: we can and should learn from best practice in other democracies to make our democracy as robust and safe as it can be.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I, too, welcome Sir Philip Rycroft’s work and the Secretary of State’s announcement today. I strongly support the idea of applying the donations cap and the moratorium on cryptocurrency donations to the devolved elections. Will the Secretary of State just clarify, to reassure me, that for those changes to take effect for the upcoming elections, we will not have to have a legislative consent motion from the devolved legislatures before the elections because, as others have mentioned, there is very little time for that to happen?
Steve Reed
No; to reassure the hon. Gentleman, the provisions I have announced today apply to the entire United Kingdom, with immediate effect.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I strongly welcome the review and I thank the Secretary of State for commissioning it. I have heard what he has said about considering the recommendations in detail. I draw his attention to paragraph 75, which states:
“there are no reporting requirements for campaign spending outside regulated periods for either non-party campaigners or candidates. This means that there is no transparency around what is spent, or around the donations being used to fund this spending, outside of regulated periods.”
We go out of the regulated period again in six weeks’ time. Will the Secretary of State consider the urgency of that particular recommendation for dealing with the regulated period? More broadly, does he agree that it is our democratic duty to take the report seriously, and that political parties that do not take the report, and transparency and democracy, seriously have no role in this Parliament and no decency in representing their constituents?
Steve Reed
There are clear recommendations about non-party campaigns and candidates, and we will be making our response to those recommendations in due course. The only recommendations I am bringing into force immediately are those that I referred to in my statement.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I welcome the recommendations of the Rycroft report, particularly the cap on donations from overseas voters, but we all know that our domestic politics is still prey to big money influencing all the parties in this House, which warps our politics and moves it away from public discourse in favour of the interests of the wealthy. In fact, the last election saw one of the highest ever levels of spending in a general election, at close to £70 million. That is extremely unfair for the smaller parties and independents, so can I ask the Minister how we can promote fairer representation and a move away from domestic big-money politics?
Steve Reed
The purpose of the review, and therefore of my statement, is to address growing concerns about foreign influence on our elections, particularly the attempts by hostile states to get control of our elections and influence them in ways that will favour them rather than the British people.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I welcome the Rycroft report, especially the focus it puts on the threat of social media upturning our democracy. It was astonishing in the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee yesterday that the representative from X repeatedly stated that X was not politically biased and appeared to decouple himself from Elon Musk and the platform itself. Elon Musk has incited hatred in this country and backed very right-wing candidates and parties on his platform. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the recommendations on foreign financial influence extend to any Member of this House receiving any income from X or any other social media platform?
Steve Reed
The recommendations are very clear in their scope. I hope my hon. Friend will allow the Government to take the necessary time to respond to those recommendations in detail—there is a lot in them—and then to bring forward amendments to the legislation and take that through both Houses in the usual way.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
A former high-ranking member of Reform UK was convicted and sentenced to 10 and a half years in prison for accepting bribes to promote pro-Russian narratives, while some Members across the House have had direct foreign interference in their work in Parliament. Given that the Rycroft report highlights the fact that foreign interference in our politics is real and persistent, what additional steps can be taken to strengthen our democracy against foreign interference in political parties?
Steve Reed
The hon. Member is right to highlight the very high profile case of Nathan Gill, who was accepting bribes on behalf of Russia, a hostile foreign state, and effectively kowtowing to it rather than responding to the wishes of the British public. We cannot allow that to happen. That is why we are bringing forward the provisions in the Representation of the People Bill, and we will be bringing forward further amendments based on Philip Rycroft’s review that is before the House today.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
I thank Philip Rycroft for his review and for meeting me to discuss his report. I also thank the Government for the quick action that they are taking. On cryptocurrencies, what further action will the Government be taking to ensure that the influence does not move from politics into lobbying or, even worse, into think-tank organisations?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend makes an important point. There are recommendations in the review about precisely that, and we will come forward with our detailed response. I have accepted the review in general terms, but we will bring forward detailed responses to the individual recommendations and then amendments to the legislation so that we can put in place the necessary protections to ensure that it is the British people who take the decisions about who governs them, not people sitting in the Kremlin or in seats of government in other countries.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his positive statement and for the clear direction from the Government. Some four or five weeks ago, I asked him a question about Sinn Féin moneys. At that time, he said that he would come back to me, but he did not—this is not a criticism, by the way—and I now understand that the reason he did not was that this statement was coming today.
In the light of the statement, can I ask for some clarification? Accountability and transparency are tenets that have to go hand in hand with elections, and those ideals must become realities. Given that Sinn Féin has historically received millions in US-placed donations and maintains a unique cross-border structure, will the Minister ensure that the Rycroft review specifically examines the adequacy of safeguards against political funding originating from the Republic of Ireland and the United States of America, to ensure a level playing field for all parties within this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Steve Reed
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his deep interest in this entire matter. Our intention is to ensure that the safeguards we put in place are robust enough to ensure that no dirty or dark money can enter British politics in any way or from any source. I am always more than happy to continue to engage with him about any specific concerns he may have.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am completely disappointed with myself for not wishing the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) a happy birthday today. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] That is why his question was allowed to be a little bit longer than usual, but hopefully it will not be next time.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
I welcome this statement. The public must have confidence that political decisions are made in their interests, not those of wealthy donors. Nowhere is that more important than in relation to the housing crisis, where there are also significant concerns that vested interests are seeking to exert significant influence on policy making. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss my proposed amendment to the Representation of the People Bill to ban developers from donating to politics and restore trust in our planning system?
Steve Reed
I am more than happy to make sure that my hon. Friend gets an appropriate meeting. I also belatedly wish the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) a happy birthday.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
Section 10 of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 amended the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 so that, in addition to already needing to be on the electoral register, a donor would need to be domiciled in the UK for tax purposes. However, section 10 required a statutory instrument to activate it, but no such statutory instrument was ever laid before this House. Will the Secretary of State look at belatedly activating this measure to ensure that only those that live and pay tax in the UK can influence our democracy with their money?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point, and of course I am more than happy to look at that.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State’s announcement of a cap on donations from overseas electors and a moratorium on cryptocurrency donations from today is extremely welcome. What criminal penalties will be incurred for breaking these rules? After all, we need an effective deterrent to dissuade those who might seek to circumvent them.
Steve Reed
We will lay the details before the House so that Members on both sides have access to the relevant information. It was important that the provisions in these two circumstances were brought forward to today, because of the risk of a window for evasion had we not done that. That retrospective change will be subject to the legislation going through Parliament successfully.
Points of Order
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I mentioned earlier, the Scottish Parliament goes into recess today ahead of the election, yet the Minister has talked about seeking a legislative consent motion. This is an important issue, and I respect the work that has been done, but can I seek your guidance on how these measures can be brought forward in a timelier manner so that we can respect the democratic process of other parliamentary institutions within these islands?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. This is not a matter for the Chair, but those on the Treasury Bench will no doubt have heard exactly what he had to say and will, I hope, ensure that his comments are addressed and taken on board—
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
indicated assent.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I can see the Secretary of State looking at me and nodding. Let’s take that as a positive.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? We have just had a statement from the Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government on donations. Can you tell me whether the Secretary of State or the Department have given any indication that they propose to come to the House to give a statement and an opportunity for questions on local government reorganisation? I know that Mr Speaker was particularly concerned that a good deal of information has been placed in the media over the last 24 hours about decisions that have been made, and as yet no Members of this House have had the opportunity to scrutinise the Government on those matters.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member has put his point appropriately on the record. I have not been given any notice of such statements, but the Front Bench has no doubt heard his concerns and will respond accordingly.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This House passed the Humble Address so that there is full transparency on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the United States. That includes the due diligence undertaken by the Cabinet Office’s propriety and ethics team. Yet, in an answer to a written question, Cabinet Office Ministers have now admitted that the people advising on what is to be redacted or deemed in scope are the very same propriety and ethics team that undertook the due diligence. Is that not a massive conflict of interest? What advice can you provide to Ministers on mitigating those conflicts of interest in responding to the House, given that the advice on such matters would normally be provided by the very same propriety and ethics team?
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member will know that I am not responsible for the inner workings of the Cabinet Office—that is a matter for the Government. I would, however, say that I know the House awaits with interest further disclosure of material under the Humble Address. I gently encourage Members to wait and see what is released, and should they require further advice at that time, the Clerks will be available.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 9 February, I submitted a named day written question to the Cabinet Office asking if any taxpayer-funded Government payment would be made to Morgan McSweeney or Tim Allan, both of whom had just resigned in the wake of the Mandelson scandal. It was due for answer on 12 February, but the question was ignored.
I tried again to solicit an answer as to whether Morgan McSweeney or Tim Allan would, or will, receive a payout by asking a further written parliamentary question on 17 March, asking specifically when an answer to the original question would be provided. This written parliamentary question was due for answer on Monday. Again, the deadline came and went, and that question was ignored. Ignoring scrutiny at Prime Minister’s questions is routine for this Prime Minister, but it appears that the broader Government are also showing total contempt for their responsibilities to be open and transparent with Members of this House. Can I please seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on what recourse is available to Members whose written parliamentary questions are stonewalled by the Government?
Madam Deputy Speaker
It is of the utmost importance that Ministers take their responsibilities to this House seriously. I would always expect timely answers to written parliamentary questions. They should be within scope and within the deadline, obviously. The Treasury Front Bench will have heard his concerns. The hon. Member may also wish to raise this issue with the Procedure Committee, which is running an inquiry into written parliamentary questions.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy. I seek your advice. You and the rest of the House will be aware of the deployment of HMS Dragon to the eastern Mediterranean to deal with the conflict in Iran. Most people might not know, though, that HMS Dragon was removed from the Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 commitment to be retasked to go to the eastern Mediterranean. I have asked several questions of the Defence team. Most recently, on 9 March, I asked the Defence Secretary whether he could guarantee that we would be able to fulfil that NATO commitment and whether a British ship would deploy on those Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 commitments. He assured me that we will “fulfil our NATO commitments”. However, today it has been reported that the German frigate Sachsen will replace HMS Dragon on that NATO Maritime Group 1 tasking. I seek your advice on whether we can establish that the Defence Secretary comes back to the House to inform us exactly when that decision was taken and whether he inadvertently misled the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. The contents of Members’ speeches, including ministerial answers, are a matter for them and not for the Chair. However, he has put his point on the record, and I am sure that the Defence Secretary will no doubt have heard this point of order and will be quick to correct the record if necessary.
Bills Presented
Victims and Courts Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Victims and Courts Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 291 / Noes: 158 - Question accordingly agreed to.
15:15 - The House divided: - Ayes: 295 / Noes: 162 - Question accordingly agreed to.
15:26 - The House divided: - Ayes: 286 / Noes: 163 - Question accordingly agreed to.
15:38 - The House divided: - Ayes: 300 / Noes: 149 - Question accordingly agreed to.
15:48 - The House divided: - Ayes: 292 / Noes: 162 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 290 / Noes: 163 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I can inform the House that Lords amendments 4 and 7 engage the Commons’ financial privilege. If either of those Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving the Commons’ financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
After Clause 7
Access to free court transcripts for victims
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 7 and the Government motions to disagree.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am grateful for the opportunity to once again be speaking on the Victims and Courts Bill as it returns to this House. This is fundamentally a Bill for victims. At its core, the measures seek to ensure that victims are treated with dignity, compassion and respect throughout the entire justice process. The Bill will ensure that offenders are held to account by giving judges the power to impose prison sanctions on offenders who refuse to attend their own sentencing hearings—something that the families of Olivia Pratt-Korbel, Jan Mustafa, Zara Aleena and Sabina Nessa have campaigned tirelessly for. It places the welfare of children firmly at the centre by restricting the parental responsibility of the most serious offenders, including child sex offenders and those who have conceived a child through rape. The Bill also strengthens the power of the Victims’ Commissioner by giving them greater authority to act in individual cases that raise systemic issues and by requiring an independent assessment of compliance with the victims code.
I am grateful for the scrutiny of the Bill in the other place. The Lords amendments we are considering reflect a shared determination across both Houses to improve outcomes for victims. However, while the Government share that objective, we must ensure that the reforms are workable, proportionate and capable of being delivered effectively.
I turn to the seven non-Government amendments made in the other place. First, Lords amendments 1 and 3 relate to court transcripts. Through the Sentencing Act 2026, the Government have already introduced a major expansion to transcript provision, which will, for the first time ever, give all victims the ability to request free transcripts of Crown Court sentencing remarks directly relevant to their case from Spring 2027. That is a significant step forward for victims, improving access to clear information about how decisions are made and strengthening their ability to navigate the justice process. This is a significant operational undertaking. We must ensure that this major expansion for victims is delivered effectively and in a way that is operationally sustainable. We are working at pace to deliver this, and it is essential that we get it right so that victims receive this important information in a timely way. It will help them understand the sentence that has been passed and will support their recovery.
However, we recognise the strength of feeling around transcripts, particularly from victims, and I want to reference that strength of feeling in this House towards the subject, too. I want to be clear that the Government are approaching this with care and ambition to go further. Access to what was said in court matters deeply for victims’ understanding, confidence and sense of justice, and the steps that we are taking to expand the free provision of sentencing remarks represent real progress.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I welcome this Bill and this Government’s laser focus on supporting victims and survivors, which has been lacking in our courts system for a very long time. I hear what the Minister says about court transcripts. It is incredibly important for the victims and survivors I know to have a physical copy of sentencing remarks so that they can process them in their own time, so I am confused about why she is not accepting Lords amendments 1 and 3 at this point.
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome that comment, and I agree with my hon. Friend. The countless victims and survivors who I have spoken to talk about the need to have those remarks in writing and how valuable a court transcript would be in helping them to recover and process. Let me say at the Dispatch Box that the Government share the ambition to go further and to provide transcripts, but we need to do that in a workable, sustainable and effective way, so that no victim is let down by a process that is not ready or is not capable of meeting the challenge that this issue presents. We are willing to go further, and we will look to see what more we can do in the Lords.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for going further in making these transcripts available. Will she let us know what the next steps in that process will be? How quickly will we see real movement to allow people to have access to their sentencing remarks?
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome that question from my hon. Friend, and he is right. We need incremental progress on our shared ambition to go further on court transcripts. I am clear that this is not the end point, but part of the broader effort to improve access, transparency and support for victims.
I have been working with my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), who is a tireless campaigner on this issue, as are many other campaign groups, such as Open Justice. I pay tribute to them for all the work that they have done on getting free sentencing transcripts for everyone in the Crown court. We want to go further, with the experiences of victims at the heart of what we do. It is important that we consult with others in this place and outside it on what would be the most beneficial next step, particularly for court transcripts and cases that end in acquittal.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I was slightly concerned when I heard the Minister say that she was “working at pace”—that is the phrase that Ministers in the Ministry of Defence have used about the defence investment plan, which has been repeatedly postponed and still is not with us—so can she give a more precise timescale? Does that mean sometime in the next 12 months?
Alex Davies-Jones
I cannot speak for the Ministry of Defence, but I can speak for my own record here as the Minister and my own actions in government when it comes to delivering for victims. I am happy to put on record that we are working at pace to deliver this. The hon. Gentleman will see what measures come back in the Lords and what commitments we can make once we look at what is possible, practical, workable and effective.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Minister gives the fact that she needs to consult as a reason for turning down the Lords amendments. Is the usual approach not to consult before bringing the legislation, not to bring the legislation then consult afterwards?
Alex Davies-Jones
Perhaps I was not very clear. This is not about consulting with victims on what is required—we know what victims want, and I have spoken to many of them regarding court transcripts—but looking at what is possible right now. We are prioritising delivering sentencing remarks for free for all victims, and working with the judiciary to ensure that we get this right and accurate. That is the priority for the Government. As I have said, we are willing to go further on court transcripts; this is not the end. For example, we are looking at what would be the best next step for victims. Is acquittal the best thing to focus on right now? We need to get that right before we go further, and I will happily come back to this House with the Courts Minister on the next steps.
Lords amendment 1 would create a new entitlement for all victims of crime to receive transcripts of routes to verdict and of bail conditions and decisions relevant to their case, free of charge and within 14 days of a request—let us not forget that that is what is in the amendment. I will explain in more detail why that proposal would not provide significant benefits over the systems already in place. First, under the victims code, victims already have the right to be informed of bail outcomes and release conditions within five working days—a shorter timeframe than that proposed in the Lords amendment. We recognise the importance of this right and the benefits for victims in being able to access information in a timely or consistent way. We are exploring how responsibilities under the victims code are being met by the relevant service providers and how to better support them in the delivery of the code.
We are seeking views through the ongoing victims code consultation, which ends at the end of April, on whether the processes for providing bail information are working as intended. To strengthen them further, the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 will, once commenced, introduce a compliance framework requiring all criminal justice bodies to keep their delivery of the code under review. Taken together, these operational and legislative measures address the core concern around timely and sufficient provision of bail information far more effectively than introducing a statutory duty to provide transcripts of bail hearings.
Secondly, providing victims with routes to verdict would be unlikely to add significant value, which is why we need to discuss with victims what would be of most value to them. A route to verdict is typically a very short document—sometimes it is not even a document at all. Its purpose is not to explain the outcome of a case, but to guide members of the jury through a series of legal questions that they must consider privately when applying the law to the facts. Crucially, juries do not provide their answers to those questions or even give reasons for their verdict. Victims would therefore see only the questions that the jury was asked, not how they were answered, and they would gain no additional insight into the decision.
Lords amendment 3 would require the Crown court to publish sentencing remarks transcripts online and in public within 14 days of a request being made and to inform relevant victims of their right to request anonymity before publication. While the Government are fully committed to strengthening transparency—I make that commitment—the Lords amendment would create significant operational and financial pressures for victims at a very difficult time. Public release demands a higher standard of anonymisation to remove both direct and indirect identifiers of victims and witnesses. That is detailed, skilled work. Current AI-based tools cannot reliably carry out anonymisation for the complex and sensitive material heard in the criminal courts, and trained staff are still required to manually review each and every transcript. That means that even modest increases in publication would create disproportionate pressures on operational capacity.
Furthermore, requiring the court to make victims aware of their right to request anonymity, make appropriate redactions and publish the transcript online—all within 14 days of a sentencing remarks transcript request being made—would not be operationally viable at this time. As I have said, our immediate priority must be delivering the sentencing remarks expansion for victims properly and at pace. Adding substantial new duties at this stage would divert the very resources needed to deliver these important commitments for victims, which victims have asked us directly to provide.
Lords amendment 2 proposes the creation of an appendix to the victims code, setting out how the code applies to close relatives of British national victims of murder, manslaughter and infanticide outside the UK, where the victim was resident in England and Wales. The Government cannot support this Lords amendment, as it risks placing obligations on agencies to provide services to bereaved families that are impossible to deliver in practice and that in some places would go beyond what is in the victims code. It also risks confusing the existing legislative framework and therefore the workability of the code, and it could raise the expectations of victims.
The victims code already applies to some families bereaved by homicide abroad, namely where the offence is murder or manslaughter and the perpetrator is a British national or British resident. That is because, in those circumstances, the case can be prosecuted in England and Wales. Where offences cannot be prosecuted in the UK—for example, where the crime is committed overseas by a foreign national—most entitlements under the victims code do not apply. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), who is in his place, for all his work with the brilliant organisation Murdered Abroad and for representing the views of all the families here.
While I appreciate that the code does not capture the whole of the cohort covered by the Lords amendment, I give the hon. Member for Maidenhead and the House my absolute assurance that the Government recognise the particular challenges faced by all families bereaved by homicide abroad, including those navigating very complicated overseas criminal justice processes, often in different languages. We are committed to working with agencies to improve the support available to them in England and Wales.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I join the Minister in thanking the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) for his work on this issue. I also take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) for her work on the part of this Bill that ensures there are no parental rights for child sex offenders or those who conceived a child by committing rape, which is absolutely abhorrent. I thank the Minister for taking those things forward and for her work in ensuring that victims are at the centre of this Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
My hon. Friend is right. This is called the Victims and Courts Bill because it is a Bill for victims, built by victims and, sadly, by their experiences of how the criminal justice system has not supported them and has failed them. It is important for us to build on the Bill and ensure that we get it right and that it is workable, effective and delivers for victims in their everyday lives, as well as for future victims who will sadly be created by crime committed here or overseas.
Let me return to the victims of homicide abroad. In January this year, the Government published guidance that brings together clear and accessible information for families about the services that can support them. We have clarified the roles and responsibilities in further documentation online, which sets out exactly how the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Ministry of Justice and the chief coroner and the coroner service will work together when a British national is a victim of murder or manslaughter abroad. While every case is considered on its individual circumstances, this document seeks to ensure a consistent level of service for bereaved families.
Throughout the debates on this topic, we have listened carefully to the concerns raised and we are committed to addressing them. To improve the consistency of support offered by consular services, the FCDO has committed itself to reviewing and refreshing its training provision for all consular staff. We need to improve access to translated documents, and the Ministry of Justice will review how translation is provided in the course of delivering the new homicide service contract in 2027. To ensure there is an independent view of the approach taken by agencies that support this cohort, the FCDO’s senior official for global consular services will meet either the Victims’ Commissioner or a representative when particular issues arise that merit further discussion. I thank the Victims’ Commissioner, and her predecessor, for continuing to engage with the FCDO and other agencies to advocate for families.
While we remain committed to strengthening support for families bereaved by homicide abroad, Lords amendment 2 confuses the purpose of the code in terms of its intended application to crimes capable of prosecution in England and Wales. It also risks creating obligations on agencies that are impossible to deliver, given that many of these cases will be handled overseas and therefore be entirely outside their control. Instead, we are determined to address directly the concerns faced by bereaved families.
Lords amendments 4 and 7 would remove clause 12 from the Bill, which means that the Lord Chancellor would not have the power to set the rates of private prosecution costs recoverable from central funds. The Government therefore cannot support those amendments. Retaining the current arrangements for private prosecutions would preserve a system that is inconsistent and places an unnecessary burden on the courts. Currently, when private prosecutors apply for their costs to be paid from central funds, there is no prescribed rate. The court, or the Legal Aid Agency acting on its behalf, must work out in each individual case what level of reimbursement is “reasonably sufficient”. That lack of clarity leads to unnecessary disputes, appeals and delays in an already delayed court process. By introducing transparent, consistent rates, we will give prosecutors clarity and certainty about what they will be paid, thereby reducing the need for cost appeals. Valuable court time is taken up by the determination of costs because of the lack of prescribed rates, which imposes an unnecessary burden on the courts.
It is important to stress again that the majority of private prosecutions never result in a claim from central funds, and will be entirely unaffected by this measure. Most private prosecutors act responsibly, apply the code tests properly and pursue cases in the public interest. However, we cannot ignore the evidence that, in a small number of cases, the near certainty of recovering large costs from central funds may cause the pursuit of private prosecutions that are disproportionate or an unsuitable remedy to the presenting legal issues. We have seen examples in which the costs claimed bear little resemblance to the scale or seriousness of the case, such as a £90,000 claim in a fraud prosecution when the loss was only £5,000. That is not what the system was intended for.
Let me make it clear that clause 12 does not set any rates, and does not alter the long-established right to bring a private prosecution. That right remains protected under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, and will not be affected. Before any rates are set, there will be extensive engagement with stakeholders and a full public consultation. The Government remain open-minded about where the rates should ultimately be set, but the rates will reflect the complexity and seriousness of cases and will be shaped by the evidence that we gather.
A number of respected charities bring private prosecutions to protect the public and pursue wrongdoing, but it is important to note that charities represent only about 10% to 15% of private prosecutions that result in claims on central funds, and that they will continue to be able to bring private prosecutions. Nothing in the clause alters the fundamental right to bring a private prosecution: that right is long-standing and preserved in statute, and the Government have no intention of changing it.
Clause 12 is a measured and necessary first step towards reform. It will bring clarity to an unclear system, improve efficiency, reduce unnecessary burdens on the courts, and help to ensure that taxpayers’ money is used responsibly. It will do all that while safeguarding access to justice and maintaining, fully and unequivocally, the fundamental right to bring a private prosecution.
Sir Ashley Fox
The Minister will forgive me if I describe what she has announced as a whole load of waffle. The problem is that the 28-day period is too short, and she should consider some mechanism to allow it to be extended. Providing for training, notices and stuff on websites will not help many victims, who just need more time to consider their legal position. At this late stage, will she consider extending the 28-day period?
Alex Davies-Jones
I am afraid that the hon. Member must not have heard what I said before I came to non-legislative changes. The Government are committed to bringing forward legislative changes on that time limit and to consider out-of-time applications by families. We have listened directly to the families about what they want. We could have brought forward an amendment that simply extended the time limit, but the families told us directly that that was not what they wanted. I listened to victims, the Government listened to victims, and in this victims Bill we will do as the victims have asked.
We will continue to test on getting this right, because it is important that we get it right first time. We are confident that we will soon be able to update the House on a workable legislative solution. For those reasons, the Government cannot accept Lords amendments 5 and 6.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Justice Secretary.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
In a week when the Government have been reprimanded for letting foreign criminals out of prison without proper checks or safeguards, have been found to have done absolutely nothing as a firm that was due to build thousands of prison places went bust 18 months ago, and ended short-term sentences, allowing prolific shoplifters and other criminals to escape prison, it is beyond disappointing that they seek today to overturn perfectly sensible Lords amendments. The amendments would make the criminal justice system more transparent and give victims stronger rights to challenge unduly lenient sentences.
We must ask: why are this Government so afraid of the public? Why do Ministers not trust the people? Why do they want to keep injustice—from rape gangs, to serious criminals getting away with a few brief years in prison—out of the spotlight? [Interruption.] Labour Members sigh and moan when I raise the rape gangs. That is exactly the mentality that the country is sick of, and it lies behind the failure to prosecute those cases.
We support Lords amendment 2 on expanding the victims code for murder, manslaughter and infanticide abroad. We support Lords amendment 4 to remove clause 12 from the Bill, because that clause will deliver few savings while undermining access to justice. We support Lords amendments 5 and 6, which strengthen the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Amendment 5 introduces an exceptional circumstances clause that allows the deadline to be extended beyond 28 days, and amendment 6 requires the Justice Secretary to ensure that victims and their families are aware of their rights under the scheme. Those are welcome suggestions. I pay tribute to Katie Brett and the rest of Justice for Victims, and to Tracey Hanson, for their campaigning on this front. They have been consistent in making clear that they want meaningful change, not half measures.
Just last week, I wrote to the Attorney General about the case of Mohammed Abdulraziq, who dragged a five-year-old girl off the street so that he could sexually assault her. He was sentenced to only 11 years in prison, and in all probability, he will be out in just seven. Monsters like him need to be kept away from children. The Government’s opposition to these amendments weakens justice and reduces public protection. I heard what the Minister said about looking at legislation in future, and we will hold her to those words.
The failure to trust the people goes not just for the unduly lenient sentence scheme, but for wider transparency in the criminal justice system, and it is on that point that I will focus the rest of my remarks. We Conservatives do trust the people, so we support Lords amendment 1, which entitles victims to free transcripts of route-to-verdict and bail decisions, and Lords amendment 3, which requires the publication of Crown court transcripts of judges’ sentencing remarks, online and for free, within 14 days of a request made by any member of the public.
The Minister explained the Government’s position on those amendments, and amid the verbiage I could discern only excuses. She sounded like the driver of a broken-down train, who, with passengers stranded miles from the nearest station, was doing her best to assure everyone that the train was indeed moving. Of course everyone knows that there is no movement; the train that we are on is entirely stationary. This is an important lesson for the Minister and other members of the Government: the repetition of fiction does not make something fact. We can all see exactly what is and is not happening.
I want to explain why this is so important. Of course, we want to see how the provisions of the Sentencing Act are implemented, but it is simply not acceptable for victims to be charged as much as £7,000 for a transcript. It is vital that we allow transparency, to make it easier for victims, journalists and the wider public to see what is going on in our courts and detect patterns. We know from too many tragedies, and too many cover-ups, that sunlight is always the best disinfectant.
Let us consider the Courtsdesk scandal. When the Justice Secretary tried to shut down that vital, searchable archive of court hearings, he caused an outcry. Before Courtsdesk, official court listings matched reality just 4.2% of the time. Two thirds of courts routinely heard cases that the media never knew about. From crimes committed by illegal immigrants in asylum hotels and weak sentences for paedophiles, to people dragged through the courts for breaking lockdown rules years after the pandemic and offending by convicted criminals who should have been tagged but were not, Courtsdesk helped journalists to join the dots, securing justice for victims and exposing failures in policy. I still want to know why the Justice Secretary wanted to delete that archive, and why Ministers blamed Courtsdesk for a serious data breach, when documents released since show that the Ministry of Justice considered the breach low risk and not worthy of a referral to the Information Commissioner. I will give way if the Minister wishes to explain. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The normal protocol is that a Member wishes to intervene, but I appreciate the encouragement—and the Minister has risen to it, so well done, Mr Timothy.
Alex Davies-Jones
The shadow Secretary of State will know that Courtsdesk is a private company that provides a subscription-based specialist data platform aggregating magistrates court data and offering specialist services to journalists. The proposal did not stop data sharing with Courtsdesk at all, and it was not about reducing transparency. It was merely a commercial sensitivity proposal to take the archive offline temporarily while we determined new contracts. It was not about transparency.
Nick Timothy
I think the Minister has been taking lessons from the Prime Minister. She may as well have been reading the phonebook in answering the question. [Interruption.] Well, the answer that she just gave was completely unsatisfactory. There was an attempt to delete the archive.
Sir Ashley Fox
If there was no intention to delete the data, why did the Chair of the Justice Committee write to the Lord Chancellor asking him to stop the deletion of that data?
Nick Timothy
That is a good point. The Minister has her side of the argument, but on the other side is the Justice Committee, pretty much every journalist involved in crime and court reporting, the company involved and Opposition parties of all colours. I think we know what is going on. I was relieved that, after the Conservative campaign to save Courtsdesk, the Justice Secretary bottled it and backed down. He should do the same today by backing Lords amendments 1 and 3.
The lack of transparency in our criminal justice system explains some of the darkest moments in our history. The crimes of the rape gangs were despicable. They were racially and religiously aggravated, and victims were targeted because of their vulnerability. The criminals were not just the rapists but all those who colluded and were complicit in those depraved, sustained attacks: police officers, social workers, local officials and councillors. Some were guilty because they abused those poor girls themselves, some because they helped others to abuse them, and some because they had the chance to stop it but refused to do so. Some were motivated by malice, and some chose to tolerate evil because they did not want to challenge the official narrative about diversity and multiculturalism.
With the rape gangs, and with other acts of corruption and criminality, we know that the politics of communalism is so often lurking. In parts of our country, clan culture is corrupting our public institutions and the rule of law itself. As we saw in the west midlands recently, the authorities chose not only to turn a blind eye, but to make themselves the willing tools of those they should confront. If we want to confront all these things, and if we want to save our country from corruption and ruin, we need victims of crime, journalists, campaigners and the general public to be given the information that they need to expose the truth. We need the Government not to hinder this noble cause, but to use their power to ensure that justice is done. That is why we need far more transparency in the justice system, and why today we will vote in favour of Lords amendments 1 and 3.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in today’s debate. I first spoke on this Bill on Second Reading, when I said that victims in Bolton had waited far too long for a system that truly works for them. This Bill delivers critical reforms to protect victims and rebuild confidence in our justice system, from powers to tackle non-attendance at hearings to measures strengthening the rights of victims. It will help victims to get the justice they deserve, and I am pleased that this Labour Government are getting on with the changes that victims and campaigners have needed for far too long.
I am particularly pleased to support the measures in this Bill that strengthen victims’ rights to receive information. The dedicated victim helpline and the updated victim contact scheme will help end uncertainty and stop victims having to keep chasing for basic updates. I understand the intention behind Lords amendments 1 and 3, on court transcripts, which try to address the same basic problem: victims not getting clear enough information about decisions that affect them. Victims deserve clarity, and the process must be more transparent, but the Government have been consistent in saying that these amendments go further than is currently operationally feasible. If we create duties that the courts do not have the capacity to fill safely, victims will be let down once again. If we promise a process that cannot be delivered in practice, we are not building trust; we are undermining it.
This Bill marks an important step forward in strengthening the rights of victims, ensuring that offenders are held to account and rebuilding confidence in our justice system. For victims in Bolton who have waited far too long to be properly informed, supported and heard, this Bill will make a real difference, and I am proud to support it.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
This Bill returns to us from the other place, where my Liberal Democrat colleagues tabled a number of crucial amendments that come before us today, which concern changes to the unduly lenient sentence scheme, the victims code, access to free court transcripts and more. I am really pleased to hear the Minister support those amendments in principle, and to hear her commitment that she will take them away with her team to make sure that they are workable before bringing them back to this place. Of course, the Liberal Democrats will hold the Government to account on all those amendments and make sure that they are implemented as quickly as possible for the sake of victims.
On Lords amendment 1, I am proud that my colleagues in the other place have been building on the successes of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who has fought a long-running campaign for free court transcripts for victims. The amendment would give victims a right to receive court transcripts of the route to verdict, and of bail decisions relating to their particular case, free of charge. At present, such transcripts are available to victims only where a defendant has been convicted of an offence. We Liberal Democrats will vote for the amendment in order to build on this Bill and to make further much-needed progress by extending the current scheme. I urge all colleagues from across the House to join us in doing so.
On Lords amendments 5 and 7, we Liberal Democrats, led by Baroness Brinton in the other place, have sought to clarify and amend the unduly lenient sentence scheme. The scheme ensures that victims who feel that an offender’s sentence is unduly lenient can appeal to the court. However, in practice, many victims are completely unaware that this mechanism exists, and are often told about it after their short 28-day appeal window has closed. Some of these cases involve families of victims who have faced some of the most horrific crimes, including brutal murder cases, with harrowing details about what has happened to them or to members of their family laid out before them in court, in full, for the first time. Understandably, this can put them through severe emotional strain and trauma, and have other distressing effects.
For many families of victims, the last thing on their mind are procedures such as appeals. Once they reach a stage where they have processed their grief, the short 28-day window has sometimes already passed—and they may not have even been aware that they could appeal. To address this issue, the new clauses tabled by the Liberal Democrats seek to make allowances for the 28-day timeframe to be extended in exceptional circumstances, and to place much greater responsibility on criminal justice agencies to ensure that victims are fully aware of their rights to appeal and of how quickly they must do so. For example, greater awareness of victims’ rights in relation to the unduly lenient sentence scheme could form part of a judge’s sentencing remarks following a trial, rather than being left as an afterthought that might not be covered at all.
Lords amendment 2 relates to changes to the victims code. It would require the Secretary of State to outline how the rights in the victims code apply to the families of those killed as a result of murder, manslaughter or infanticide outside the UK. The amendment follows the outstanding work of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), who pushed for these changes at an earlier stage of the Bill’s passage. Although I understand that it would be unreasonable for us to mandate other countries to enforce the UK’s victims code, we are seeking to afford the families of such victims the same rights and to treat them as victims under the code. I am therefore very pleased that our colleagues in the other place have given this sensible and much-needed amendment a chance in this place once again.
I urge all colleagues to vote for all these excellent Lords amendments, which are incredibly important to victims and their families. I hope the Minister will come back to the House to confirm precisely when they can be brought forward by the Government in workable legislation. For the record, I commend the work of our colleagues, both in this House and in the other place, on these issues, which are so vital to victims’ rights and to our justice system as a whole.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
The Victims and Courts Bill is part of the Government’s wider reforms of our justice system that will, in the round, better protect victims and improve their access to justice, as well as that of defendants. I really welcome its measures to improve communications with victims, to reform non-disclosure agreements, to ensure that defendants appear at sentencing hearings and to restrict the parental rights of child sex offenders. Today, I will focus my remarks on Lords amendments 4 and 7, which are on the financing of private prosecutions.
The Bill amends the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 to provide a new power for the Lord Chancellor to prescribe the rates at which prosecutors acting in private prosecutions can recover expenses properly incurred by them from central funds. This proposal draws on a related recommendation of the Justice Committee, on which I serve. The rates would not be set by the Lord Chancellor, but would instead be consulted on and implemented through secondary legislation, so it is very important that the Government, through the Lord Chancellor, have the power to control the rates that can be claimed and paid. Lords amendment 4 seeks to leave out clause 12, thereby preventing that power from being accorded to the Lord Chancellor. In my view, the Lord Chancellor needs that power. After all, ours is a public justice system, albeit one that has long accommodated private prosecutions.
The current arrangements contribute to inequity in our justice system, which this Bill seeks to address more broadly. In recent decades, we have seen some landmark private prosecutions, such as the case brought by the parents of Stephen Lawrence, the cases brought by the RSPCA and other charities, and the cases brought by the Cyclists’ Defence Fund and others. Although we might argue that, in a properly functioning justice system, we would no longer need private prosecutions, we clearly do need them, and if we do still need them, we need to be able to exert proper control over the resources expended on them.
Steve Barclay
It would be easy for anyone watching the proceedings, with not many Members in the Chamber to discuss these Lords amendments, to think this is about some technical issue or minor point of debate, but the votes today really do matter. They matter to victims, who are currently charged often thousands of pounds for the transcripts of the court hearings in which they were involved. They matter for the transparency and openness of our legal system. They also matter to the public, because on this very issue over 200,000 people signed a public petition, which was debated in Westminster Hall on Monday this week. Although people may think these are just Lords amendments, this is an important set of votes.
I gently say to the Minister that her speech did sound a bit like an episode of “Yes Minister” in that her remarks were, “I fully support giving victims more rights, and that is why today I’m going to vote against every one of the amendments to do so.” As she was speaking, I wrote down some of her phrases. She said that this is “a Bill for victims”, as if the amendments made in the Lords are not meant to empower victims, when they clearly are. She said that she wants to “go further”. It is no wonder her own colleague, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), said she was “confused”, and she was not the only one confused by a Minister saying that she wants to go further by voting against amendments that would enable us to go further.
The Minister justifies that inconsistency by saying she needs to consult more, including with the judiciary, as if the Government have been ambushed by their own legislation. They control the timing of this Bill and they brought it to the House, but then they say, “Oh, actually, the timing’s not right, and we need more time to consult.” They themselves are legislating and they control the time, so if they needed to consult, they could have done that in a timely fashion.
The Minister said she accepts the challenge of the pressure that the 14-day period puts people under, especially given the interplay with the 28-day window for the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Just to explain that in lay terms, if people want to appeal a sentence that they feel is unduly lenient, they have to do so within 28 days. However, if they cannot get access to the transcript in a timely fashion, their ability to do that is severely constrained. The Government control the legislation and its timing of its introduction, yet they are going to ask Labour Members to vote against these amendments. Is it any wonder they keep U-turning, because they are saying one thing and then they are going to vote to do the opposite today on the basis that at some point in the future they may come round to doing what they say they want to do at the moment?
The Minister says that more cannot be done now, pointing to reasons of technical issues and constraints, while also saying that the Government are overcoming those constraints in relation to sentencing remarks. Again, there is no “can do”. There are lots of things in a court bundle ahead of a court hearing—witness statements, and a huge amount of other documentation—and vastly more information could be shared with victims in a timely way, yet such discussions do not seem to have taken place. It is no wonder that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) called what we are getting instead “waffle”. We have been told we are going to have guidance, work on awareness and—that Government catch-all—a code, as if that is a replacement for actually giving victims access to the transcripts they want.
The crux of the issue is that the Government are introducing this legislation, but those in the Lords have quite rightly scrutinised it and seen that there are constraints on the timescales. The Government do not dispute that; they accept that there is a good case for victims to have more access to transcripts. Indeed, on Monday in Westminster Hall, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), said:
“There is an issue of transparency regarding court transcripts”.—[Official Report, 23 March 2026; Vol. 783, c. 39WH.]
Is it not therefore bizarre that the Government will ask their own Back Benchers to vote against doing something about what they accept is a real issue for victims of crime?
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I welcome the progress that has been made on this Bill. It is right that we are taking steps to rebuild trust in a system that for too long has left victims feeling invisible and unheard. The measures to compel offenders to attend their sentencing hearings are welcome. No family should be denied the chance to see justice simply because an offender refuses to face what they have done. The protections for children, especially in cases of sexual violence, are long overdue.
I will speak specifically about Lords amendments 5 and 6, and about my constituent Katie Brett. Katie’s little sister, Sasha Marsden, was just 16 years old when she was brutally murdered, raped and set on fire. The sheer horror of that crime is beyond words. The pain her family lives with every single day is unimaginable to most of us, yet after enduring the traumatic trial and the devastation of their loss, Katie and her family were faced with another injustice: they had 28 days to challenge the sentence that they believed did not reflect the severity of the crime. What is worse, they were not even told that they had this right.
For the family of a victim, the trial of the perpetrator is always traumatising, but in such a case—Sasha’s family heard the brutal details of her murder for the first time at the trial—most of us would not be emotionally ready to fight another fight and to understand the complex legal processes within 28 days of hearing the sentence. That is 28 days to grieve, 28 days to understand the complex legal system and 28 days to find the strength to fight once more. This is not a meaningful right; this is a barrier.
Katie has shown extraordinary courage in turning her grief into action. Through her campaign for Sasha’s law, she is asking for something perfectly reasonable: more time for victims’ families to seek a review of sentences that they believe are unduly lenient. The Government are absolutely right to be looking at ways to improve communications with victims’ families to ensure that they know their right to appeal under the unduly lenient sentence scheme, but I must make this point to the Minister: 28 days is not enough, even if people are informed of their right to appeal. The period of 28 days is how long someone has to return a T-shirt.
The families deserve longer to consider whether they wish to appeal. I understand the Government’s concern that an end date must still be placed on this longer deadline, which is why Lords amendments 5 and 6 cannot be supported, but I urge them to listen to Katie and the many other families who have suffered at the hands of the status quo, and to ensure that the issue is revisited as the Bill continues its progress.
Offenders are afforded multiple opportunities to appeal, and they are given time, process and support. However, victims’ families are given just one chance, with very limited time for it. This cannot be right. It does not reflect the values that we say our justice system is built on and the values that the Labour Government were elected to put into action. If we are serious about putting victims at the heart of the justice system, we must ensure that their rights are real.
The Bill takes important steps forward, but it must not be the end of the conversation. It must be the beginning of doing better for Katie and Sasha, and for every family forced to navigate grief and injustice at the same time. Let us make sure that our justice system delivers not just outcomes, but humanity, fairness and the time that victims need to truly seek justice.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
I will speak to Lord’s amendment 2, which requires the Secretary of State to issue an appendix to the victims code setting out how the code applies to the families of British nationals who are the victims of murder, manslaughter or infanticide abroad. This is not a new argument in this Chamber. I tabled amendments on Report to make precisely this case, I secured an Adjournment debate last year, and I have raised questions with the Minister several times. I thank her for the work she has done with me and others on this topic.
It is also important to thank the charity Murdered Abroad, and specifically Eve Henderson who has been working on this issue for a long time, as well as the late Baroness Newlove who, in her time as Victims’ Commissioner, worked with Murdered Abroad and me to ensure that the amendments tabled to the Bill were workable in the view of the Victims’ Commissioner.
Murdered Abroad is a campaign made up of bereaved families who have turned their grief into a distinct call for change. Families who are part of Murdered Abroad all have one thing in common: a family member of theirs, a British citizen, was murdered while they were outside the UK. Their calls ask for one simple thing: equal treatment. They are asking for the structured statutory support that any family would receive if tragedy struck on British soil, because a British life lost is a British life, no matter where in the world that loss occurs.
Each year around 80 families receive the news that one of their loved ones has been murdered abroad. Sometimes that is via a police officer, but all too often it is from a journalist who has found out the news first and is asking for comment. When tragedy strikes, it sends any family into an unimaginable position, but when it happens outside the UK, families are left with so many other complications they must contend with. They must navigate foreign legal procedures, untranslated documents and distant court proceedings with patchy and often inconsistent support from their own Government, all at a time of trauma, vulnerability and mourning.
Matthew was sitting in a bar when two door staff rushed over and grabbed him. They were joined by two more, who threw him down a metal staircase. At the bottom, witnesses saw them kicking and hitting him. A UK post-mortem identified over 20 injuries on Matthew’s body. When his mother called the FCDO, she was told that he died of alcohol consumption. That same morning, newspapers in Greece ran the headline, “Teen Drinks Himself to Death”. Matthew’s mum had to fight tooth and nail to get a family liaison officer. She also had to fight tooth and nail for translation support to get documents in English. They ended up being paid for by Derbyshire police, because the FCDO would not pay for them.
Alison and Paul’s son Danny was killed in Amsterdam in 2022, aged just 22 years old. They explained how navigating lengthy and complex Dutch judicial procedures in foreign languages, while also having to arrange matters such as repatriation without any support, was an immense challenge. All the while, they were dealing with the trauma of their son having been killed. That loaded on to them and their daughter an untold amount of stress at a time when they needed support from our Government. In such circumstances, the Government should be supporting families in any way they can.
Let me be clear about what Lords amendment 2 does and does not do. It does not seek to interfere with foreign judicial systems and it does not place unworkable demands on the FCDO. What it does do, however, is establish a statutory baseline, ensuring that bereaved families have access to the support and guidance that any other family of a homicide victim would receive.
Lords amendment 2 inserts an appendix into the victims code which states that families must be provided with specific guidance explaining what support they can access. It explains that they must be given information by the British Government about how the foreign criminal justice process works—not getting involved in that process or interfering with it, but explaining what families can expect. It outlines that they should be given a dedicated family liaison officer to support the family at the worst time. Some police forces do that already, but many do not. We have heard that many police forces will tell families they are not entitled to a family liaison officer. Only immense pressure from families makes those police forces back down and give them the family liaison officer they need. When everything else in the world has gone wrong, it should not be up to these British families to have to push the police to give them the family liaison officer they should be entitled to.
The amendment outlines that the Government must provide translation services for such families. Far too many families tell me that they were told by the Government to use Google Translate to get death certificates translated into English. That is not acceptable—that is not something we can accept ever again. One family told me recently how they found out through Google Translate that their son’s organs had been removed from his body. It is not acceptable that Google Translate told them that. We cannot accept that and the Government need to go further to provide translation services for families.
The Government’s position, set out in a letter to Members on 23 March, is that the amendment would “raise expectations” that cannot be met and that it risks “confusing the legislative framework”. Those arguments are remarkable. We are talking about an appendix to the victims code, laying out what support families can expect from the British Government. The suggestion that setting out in statute what support a bereaved family can expect will somehow undermine the coherence of the entire victims code does not stand up to scrutiny. And it is not just me and the Liberal Democrats saying that. The Victims’ Commissioner must believe that too, because she was pleased that the Lords successfully voted for the amendment. I cannot understand how the amendment would raise expectations that cannot be met and confuse the legislative framework, and neither can the Victims’ Commissioner. I do not understand how the Government can think that.
The Minister points to guidance published in January 2026 as evidence of the Government’s commitment. I welcome that guidance, but guidance is guidance. Guidance is not the law. Guidance can be ignored. It has no real enforcement mechanism. If the Government genuinely believe that families deserve support, we must ask the question: why do they not say so in statute?
Last month, I met families from across the country whose loved ones were murdered abroad. Among that group were families who lost loved ones this year, after the new guidance had come into force. The guidance has not protected them. They have fallen through exactly the same gaps that were in the system before the guidance. The reason is clear: guidance is not statutory; it is a guide. It can be ignored and it too often is. What we need is a statutory appendix to the victims code setting out what support victims will receive, and how the Victims’ Commissioner and her team can support it. There is a lack of consistency. Some families are given a family liaison officer and some are told they cannot receive one. That is the problem we are looking at and we must do better.
I will ask one question of the Minister about transparency in the needs assessment carried out by the Victim Support homicide service. What criteria are used to decide on a family’s needs following homicide abroad? Neither the Victims’ Commissioner nor Murdered Abroad charity members are able to find out what results are coming through and what criteria are being used. That is why families so often feel that there is a lack of consistency and accountability.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate today. I will answer the questions of the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) first, as he spoke last, and they are fresh in my mind. I will endeavour to get him the information that he asks for. He may not have seen or be aware of the new draft victims code that is out for consultation at the moment, but on page 8, in black and white, are the provisions that will now apply to those who are bereaved due to homicide or manslaughter abroad. We are building on the victims code through the consultation, which is open until 30 April, and I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman’s views. As I said, we are determined to do more on translation as well, once the contract ends on the homicide service in 2027, so that we can support victims and bereaved family members so that they never have to go through something like the horrific examples cited by the hon. Gentleman.
I place on the record my sincere gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) for her unwavering campaigning on behalf of her constituent Katie Brett. I was very grateful to Katie for coming to the recent meeting on the unduly lenient sentence scheme that the Ministry of Justice convened with victims so that we could hear directly from her, as well as Tracey Hanson and others, on what would be most beneficial in terms of legislative changes—not just the statutory duty to be notified and specifying who would notify them, but on the time limit and how best it can be applied in circumstances like Katie’s, so that Sasha’s law can be properly looked at.
I turn to the points made by the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay). I understand that it might be difficult for him, given that when he was in government, the legislation that was passed was clearly not workable, sound or efficient on the ground. This Government take a different approach. Although we agree with the sentiment of a number of these amendments, we have to ensure that they are legally workable, sound, responsible and effective. That is what a responsible Government do, and that is what I am determined to do as the Minister responsible.
Steve Barclay
The point I was highlighting was the inherent contradictions in the Minister’s remarks. Even now, in her summing up, she has said that the Government are going to go further in 2027, but in her opening remarks she said that they cannot go further because there are technical impediments. The point is that there are inherent contradictions in the Government’s narrative.
Alex Davies-Jones
I will try to break it down more simply for the right hon. Gentleman, as he is clearly not listening—
Alex Davies-Jones
Patronising, but truthful, given that what I am saying is that the Government are determined to go further in the right way. We agree with the sentiment of the Lords amendments, but they are not workable and will not work in this legislation. Where practically possible, we will be bringing forward legislative changes and we will work with right hon. and hon. Members across the House to ensure that this happens, but that will not be in a way that would be a dereliction of duty and disrespectful to the victims whom this Government represent. The victims are at the forefront of this legislation, and we need to ensure that the Bill works in practice. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman was part of a Government who clearly did not do that.
I am also incredibly grateful to those who have supported the measures in the Bill, particularly the victims, who have waited far too long for change. They want a justice system that treats with them dignity, keeps them informed and ensures that offenders are properly held to account. The Bill delivers tangible improvements that can be implemented while sitting alongside wider reforms that will modernise our court process and put victims at the heart of the system.
Today, the House has the opportunity to support and protect victims and restore confidence in our justice system. I urge the House to support this Bill and to reject the Lords amendments.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Petitions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
Having tabled an early-day motion, presented a Bill and hosted a Westminster Hall debate on equine road safety, I am now pleased to be able to submit this petition on horse and rider road safety.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that horses and riders face significant risks on UK roads due to inadequate enforcement of passing distances and limited driver education.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to introduce legislation to make the minimum passing speeds and distances for horses in the Highway Code a legal requirement, to require equestrian safety to feature in all driving theory tests, and to introduce standards for the teaching of equestrian safety in driver education.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003174]
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
From October 2024 onwards, I did my best to engage fully and properly with the assisted dying debate that took place across England and Wales. I met campaigners on both sides of the debate in my constituency, and did my best to explain my conclusions to constituents at all times. Today I am presenting a petition signed by residents who tracked me down in the pouring rain while I was door-knocking in Keyworth a few weeks ago, such was their commitment to this cause. They wanted me to know that while they respect the need for scrutiny of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, they are concerned about the possibility that the Bill will not become law because the parliamentary Session is likely to end in the coming weeks, before the Bill has returned to this Chamber. They do not want to return to Second and Third Reading debates in future but, like many ordinary people, they would like to see laws change in this place, and they are finding the processes opaque and slow. Their trust in the system is waning. To that end, Hilary, Joe, Robert, Patricia, Eve, Karen and many other constituents who signed this petition asked whether I would formally put their concerns on the parliamentary record, which I am doing.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take such actions as are within its power to facilitate the progress of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Rushcliffe,
Declares that an assisted dying law should be enacted without further delay, following the House of Commons voting in favour of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in June 2025; and further declares that there is overwhelming public support for law change.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take such actions as are within its power to facilitate the progress of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I rise very deliberately today, on 25 March, as it is the UN’s International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade, and the very day on which a UN resolution formally declaring that slave trade is a crime against humanity is being debated. It is yet to be confirmed whether the UK will support that resolution.
Further to the online petition of the all-party parliamentary group for Afrikan reparations, which has received almost 2,000 signatures, I present a petition on behalf of British residents who are outraged that the Government have never issued an unequivocal apology for Britain’s central role in African chattel enslavement and colonialism. Expressions of sorrow and regret are not an apology; nor are they befitting the crimes committed or Britain’s role in one of the gravest crimes in human history. We cannot begin to address the legacy of this injustice without first having the courage to acknowledge it. Atonement must start with truth.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to issue a full and meaningful apology, on behalf of the UK government, for Britain’s role in African chattel enslavement and colonialism, and establish an All-Party Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry for Truth & Reparatory Justice.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom
Declares that the Houses of Parliament and the UK government have not yet apologised for Britain’s role in African chattel enslavement and colonialism; further declares that the “deep sorrow and regret for our nation’s role in the slave trade” as has been previously expressed by former Prime Minister Tony Blair, does not constitute a meaningful apology for the enslavement, trafficking, genocide and extensive colonial crimes that our country engaged in; further declares that an official apology in our country’s name and the establishment of an All-Party Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry for Truth & Reparatory Justice can be the beginning of action to address its legacy; and further declares that once an apology has been offered, the UK can begin to engage with those nations and communities affected on discussions of reparatory justice, which can extend beyond monetary payment.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to issue a full and meaningful apology, on behalf of the UK government, for Britain’s role in African chattel enslavement and colonialism, and establish an All-Party Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry for Truth & Reparatory Justice.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003179]
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I wish to present a petition, signed by 65 residents of Derwent Avenue, Thurne View and Eden Court in Didcot, relating to years of flooding on their street, and the perennial risk of flooding to their properties. I hope that Thames Water and the Government will take note.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Common urges the Government to ensure that Thames Water confirms that all possible measures will be put in place to mitigate against further sewage flood events from manhole 2201.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Derwent Avenue, Thurne View and Eden Court in Ladygrove in the constituency of Didcot and Wantage,
Declares that Thames Water must take all possible measures to mitigate against repeat sewage flood occurrences from manhole 2201.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that Thames Water confirms that all possible measures will be put in place to mitigate against further sewage flood events from manhole 2201.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003180]
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members from across the House agree that one of the best things about this job is working with people in our constituencies who see something that they want to change and do something about it. I hold in my hands a wonderful example of 256 residents who want to do exactly that for Walsall Road in Lichfield.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage Staffordshire County Council to place a 7.5 tonne weight limit upon the section of Walsall Road between its southerly junction with Limburg Avenue and its northerly junction with Friary Road and that ongoing section of Friary Road to its junction with Bowling Green Roundabout.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Lichfield,
Declares that Walsall Road, a residential C road, is being used as a shortcut by medium and heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) throughout the day and night, causing significant disturbance to residents; further declares that there is a purpose-built road for such vehicles, the A461, running parallel to Walsall Road and that despite clear signage indicating that HGVs should use the A461, drivers of these vehicles consistently choose to drive along Walsall Road; further declares that whereas the A461 has relatively few dwellings along the carriageway, well set back from the road, with wide verges, footpaths and a cycleway, Walsall Road is narrower, has dwellings almost continuously along the carriageway, close to the road, often with only a narrow footpath with useable width 90cm in places, and that as a result of all this, residents of Walsall Road suffer unnecessary noise day and night, the traffic is causing vibration damage to properties on the road, and pedestrians, including children walking on and crossing Walsall Road to reach Christ Church Primary School, are often little more than one metre from HGVs, many of which exceed the 30mph speed limit; and further declares that despite the nuisance and danger caused by this state of affairs, Staffordshire County Council Highways Department has not taken action to improve the situation for residents on the road in question.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage Staffordshire County Council to place a 7.5 tonne weight limit upon the section of Walsall Road between its southerly junction with Limburg Avenue and its northerly junction with Friary Road and that ongoing section of Friary Road to its junction with Bowling Green Roundabout.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003181]
Nuclear Test Veterans
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
I almost unable to be here today, because my mum, Una, has been critically ill in hospital. If you will indulge me for a few seconds, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to thank from the bottom of my heart the paramedics and respiratory nurses who saved my mum’s life on Friday night, and the team at the Countess of Chester hospital, who have been working around the clock to make her stable and give us the gift of a bit more time with her. She is now doing really well and is stable. She is watching this debate on her laptop, which my husband has managed to set up for her, and she told me last night that I had better get down here and do this debate—or else. Like most of the public, she is deeply angry about this issue, and she is right to be angry. It is one of the biggest scandals of our generation, involving decades of suffering, unimaginable loss and, ultimately, injustice inflicted on our own servicemen, their families and the communities affected by Britain’s nuclear testing programme.
I expressly thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes)—he has done far more than most—for his years of work and support on this issue, Lord Watson of Wyre Forest for his relentless work in the other place, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell), and so many other supportive Members who are here today. I also thank the nuclear test veterans campaign team: Alan Owen and LABRATS, John Morris and his lovely family, Steve Purse and his mum, and, most of all, journalist Susie Boniface, who has been relentless in her search for truth and justice. She has never wavered and never given up, and it is because of her groundbreaking search for the truth that I am standing here today to tell the House about the pivotal information that she has recently uncovered. I thank the Minister and the Defence Secretary for their work and support on this issue so far, and I hope that Susie’s recent work will now act as the catalyst for urgent Government action.
I also thank Mr Speaker for granting this important debate; I know that he has long supported the nuclear test veterans. Given the gravity of the recent developments that I am about to outline, I hope that he will look favourably on the request of my friend, the right hon. Member for South Holland and the Deepings, for a longer debate on this issue. So many Members have contacted us both in the past few days to say that they want to represent their constituents on this very important issue.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
I pay tribute to all those who served in our armed forces as part of the nuclear tests overseas, to those who suffered illness or died prematurely as a result of the tests, and to the bereaved families and family members who were born with rare disabilities as a result of the radiation that our nuclear test veterans faced. I am fortunate enough to have worked closely with some of the nuclear test veterans and families due to the Hillsborough law campaign, and I thank them for their incredible solidarity with the Hillsborough families and survivors. I thank my hon. Friend for her outstanding work in trying to gain truth and justice for the test veterans, who have been victims of a state cover-up. Will she join me, the nuclear test veterans and the LABRATS campaign in calling on the Government to deliver the Hillsborough law in full, without carve-outs for any state institutions, as a matter of urgency, so that we can get justice for our nuclear test veterans and their families?
Rebecca Long Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for his hard work and for his support of the Hillsborough law campaign over the years. He has done an inordinate amount of work to try to make justice for the victims a reality, and I know he continues that work on a daily basis. He is right: injustice is injustice. For that injustice to be rectified, we need full transparency. There cannot be any carve-outs of sensitive information or otherwise as part of the Hillsborough law, because that denies justice to those who need it most.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for the warm words that she offered. She gave me too much praise—this is a team effort. She is absolutely right to say that the veterans deserve the most praise. Our friendship in this place was formed through our joint commitment to those veterans and our shared outrage that, over successive Governments and for decades, information was withheld, withdrawn or even distorted. I know she will speak more about that in the short time we have today, but I hope that we get a longer debate. This matter deserves that sort of scrutiny from people from across this Chamber.
Rebecca Long Bailey
The right hon. Member is spot-on. I often refer to him as my partner in crime on this issue and a number of other issues in this House. It definitely demonstrates Parliament working at its very best when we come together on these injustices and fight for those who have been affected by them. He is spot-on that we need a longer debate in this House on this important issue.
The information I will talk about is a turning point—it is pivotal—and it should spur the Government into taking the necessary action to compensate the victims of this scandal and give them the inquiry they so much deserve. At best, there has been a systemic failure over the years, and at worst, there has been a cover-up, but now is the time to implement a full inquiry and uncover the real truth.
For 70 years, Governments of all colours and successive Administrations, through the Ministry of Defence and the Atomic Weapons Establishment, have maintained the single consistent line that radiation exposure at Christmas Island was negligible; any contamination was minimal, contained and harmless; and those who served there were not placed at any meaningful risk.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
Would my hon. Friend join me in commemorating the life and legacy of Alan Dowson? Until very recently, he was a councillor in my constituency. He was first elected in 1971, and served as a Labour councillor for most of the intervening years. He was 19 years old when he was on Christmas Island, and he was one of the veterans who observed—he spoke about this several times— how he could see the bones in his hands due to the level of light coming through them. He has campaigned on this issue for so many years, and I just wanted to get his name into the parliamentary record.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I express my full respect for my hon. Friend’s constituent, and I can only imagine what he suffered. Even the tales of people serving on Christmas Island seeing the bones in their hands would have a considerable psychological effect on them for the rest of their life, but it is what these men and their families suffered when they came home that was so brutal and so disturbing.
The men knew that they were exposed to radiation. Studies have shown that they were subjected to the same level of radiation as the clean-up workers at Chernobyl. They suffered cancer after cancer, and many of them died young. Those who were lucky enough to live longer faced miscarriages and a raft of medical problems. Worse, many of their children were born with defects or health issues due to the altered DNA.
Today we know that the claim that these men suffered no risk is wrong. That has been fundamentally undermined, thanks, as I have said, to Susie Boniface’s groundbreaking work. A previously undisclosed 2014 Atomic Weapons Establishment report, which was released only in February this year after months of resistance, reveals that radiation was in fact present across inhabited areas of Christmas Island. It was not just in isolated, uninhabited zones and not just in trace amounts, but in the sea, the fish, the lagoons, near water sources and, crucially, in the main camp where British personnel lived and worked.
Let me be clear about what this means: for decades, the veterans were told that no fallout had been recorded. Families grieving the loss of loved ones—young men such as Sapper Billy Morris, who died from leukaemia at just 18—were told that there was no link. The courts were told the same, Parliament was told the same and the public were told the same, but this data reveals a very different story. It shows elevated radiation levels in fish of up to seven times the background levels by some measures. It shows contamination in the very food that servicemen were eating regularly. It shows that drinking water sources were potentially exposed. It shows that monitoring systems were incomplete, inconsistent and, in some cases, entirely absent. Most damning of all, it shows that many of those living and working in these areas were not even issued with film badges to measure their exposure.
When Ministers stood at the Dispatch Box over the years and reassured the House that doses were indistinguishable from background radiation, what exactly were those reassurances based on, because the data was there? The authors of the 2014 report are unequivocal: the earlier reports from 1990 and 1993—the very documents relied on in court cases and for pension claims—were incomplete and inaccurate. They were incomplete and inaccurate, yet they were used as the very foundation for denying these men and their families justice. This is not just a technical discrepancy or a minor administrative oversight; at best, it is a systemic failure, but at worst, it is a cover-up.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I, too, pay tribute to the incredible amount of work done by Susie Boniface, and to Members across the House for this really important work. I was utterly astounded when I read the report and understood that, even though the reports were not available until much later, the evidence has been there since 1957. We have known for that length of time that there were elevated readings; I read that they were double the backgrounds levels, and the hon. Lady said they were seven times those levels. We knew that people had been exposed yet for one reason or another, whether through cover-up or the lack of a good filing system, that information has not come to light. I appreciate that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence have offered warm words of support, but frankly what we need right now is for our heroes—our British veterans—to get the support they need. Some are not going to live for much longer. We need a one-year rapid review right now, so they can get the justice they deserve. It has been far too long. Does the hon. Lady agree that this is a matter of immediate urgency?
Rebecca Long Bailey
The hon. Lady has been a doughty campaigner on behalf of her own party on this issue and I thank her for her work in this House. She is right. The veterans are not asking for special treatment; they are just asking for the truth and for justice. Many of these men, if they are lucky enough to still be alive, are in their 80s. Time is running out for them and they need justice now. That is why it is so important to have the urgent one-year inquiry. I will return to that point later.
I want us to look at the lived reality for those servicemen at Christmas Island. The men fished daily—that is known. They ate that fish, sometimes every day. They drank desalinated water drawn from a marine environment now known to have been contaminated. They worked in extreme heat, increasing their intake of water and food—as we do, when we get hot—and therefore increasing the pathways through which radioactive material could enter their bodies.
This is the critical point: ingested radiation is not the same as background exposure. It does not simply pass by. It lodges deep within the body. It decays slowly. It damages tissue. It alters DNA. Governments over the years have long relied on averages and on comparisons to natural background radiation, sunlight or medical imaging, but those comparisons are fundamentally flawed. You can step out of sunlight if it is too hot. You can leave a room that has radon gas in it. You can decline a medical scan if you are worried about it. But you cannot remove radioactive particles that have been ingested and embedded deep within your body. That distinction matters, but it has been completely ignored over the years.
What is equally troubling is not just the existence of this data, which has been around for decades, but the pattern of its concealment. This information could have been disclosed at multiple points: in the 1950s, during the inquests into early deaths; in the 1980s, when public concern first intensified; in the 1990 and 1993 reports; in proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights; in High Court cases; in pension appeals; and as recently as 2024, when veterans sought access to their medical records. At every stage, the same narrative was maintained. At every stage, the data was absent. The 2014 report itself warned that the information could
“challenge the validity of statements”
made by the Government and could potentially overturn previous judicial decisions. And yet instead of coming clean and that information being published, it was buried.
We have got to ask ourselves, why? Why was a report that raised “reasonable doubt” not disclosed to the very people whose lives depended on its findings? Why were veterans denied access to information that could have supported their claims for justice and compensation? Why were the courts allowed to rely on evidence that we now know to be fundamentally flawed? These are not abstract questions—they go right to the heart of trust between the state and those who serve it. The men and women in uniform sent to carry out dangerous duties do so on the understanding that their Government will act with honesty, transparency and integrity. That trust has been broken, and we now have a duty—not just a moral duty, but a political and legal duty—to put this right.
Let me be clear about what the Government must do next. First, there must be a full, independent public inquiry into the handling of radiation data from the nuclear testing programme—not a limited review or an internal investigation, but a full inquiry with the power to compel evidence and testimony. Secondly, all relevant documents must be declassified and placed in the public domain—no more partial disclosures and work in progress justifications; the public interest in transparency far outweighs any institutional discomfort. Thirdly, there must be a comprehensive review of all past legal cases and pension decisions that relied on the 1990 and 1993 reports. Where decisions were made on the basis of incomplete or inaccurate evidence, they must be revisited. Fourthly, and most importantly, there must be a fair and just compensation scheme for nuclear testing veterans and their families.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I am intervening, first, to send my love to my hon. Friend’s mum.
Secondly, in our debates over the years, we have always emphasised urgency because of the age of the victims. However, we also need to recognise and ensure that any inquiry recognises that this has gone down two generations now. We have met the families—the sons and daughters, the grandchildren—who have suffered extreme conditions as a result. It is just as my hon. Friend said; this has penetrated into the DNA of whole families. There is a sense of urgency, of course, but there must also be a recognition of the significance of this having affected three generations, as we have witnessed.
Rebecca Long Bailey
My mum will be very excited that my right hon. Friend has sent her his love—there will be pandemonium on ward 47 at the moment, I can tell you.
My right hon. Friend is right: there are certainly urgent issues that the Government must consider today, but beyond today, and beyond issuing an urgent and fast compensation scheme, a one-year inquiry and the other points I have referenced, there must also be a wider research project into the impact of the radiation on the descendants and the support they have needed from Governments over the years, because they have been completely neglected so far. We know from our constituency surgeries about the effects that have been felt right within families; it is quite upsetting and harrowing sometimes to hear those stories and to hear that they have received very little Government recognition for what they have suffered.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
There is obviously a terrible history going back a number of years of cancers and other illnesses caused by exposure in this case. I wonder whether my hon. Friend would forgive me for raising a similar but more contemporary situation: that of aircrew on military helicopters who are developing blood cancer. I have been struggling to get data from the MOD on numbers of cases and testing of helicopter emissions. We want to raise awareness for others now flying those helicopters, in particular the Sea King, because blood cancers, particularly myeloma, seem to be arising in young people when that is normally not the case at all. We want to encourage those people to seek testing for unusual symptoms such as blood clots and to request that the MOD dig deeper for that data.
Rebecca Long Bailey
My hon. Friend raises another very important issue that goes to the heart of today’s debate. The point is that the Government need to be in a good place on this; they need to acknowledge that mistakes were made historically, and to restore faith to all servicemen and women who put their lives at risk on a daily basis to keep us safe that, where it is found that their lives have been put at risk by the actions of the Government themselves, that will be made right, and they will get the support and care that they deserve. Hopefully that will be at the heart of the Minister’s response.
Finally, I have a number of brief questions for the Minister in relation to the 2014 report. First, on what date did the Atomic Weapons Establishment tell the Ministry of Defence of the report’s existence? Was the document ever produced to any judge? What steps are the Government now taking to inform the judges and courts concerned, and to inform war pensions in the future?
In the past six months, what impact assessments have been produced by the AWE or Ministry of Defence about costs, compensation and the number of people affected? What efforts have the AWE or the Ministry of Defence made to bring in the authors of the report, both of whom have since left the AWE, to discuss their findings? Who at the Ministry of Defence knew of the report at the time it was drafted, and did any Ministers know of the report?
What steps are the Government taking to look at the Athena database at Porton Down, which has confirmed it holds information relevant to nuclear veterans’ service and which has provided heavily redacted disclosures to freedom of information requests? What steps are under way in locating the research on radiation effects on UK service personnel, which the Ministry of Defence has confirmed is held by Technical Co-operation Programme, in an “allied country”?
When will the Defence Secretary and Prime Minister sit down with nuclear veterans and discuss their offer of a one-year special inquiry with capped costs to limit both the time and expense of ending this cover-up once and for all? Finally, on the Hillsborough law, can the Minister confirm that no information relating to nuclear testing veterans will be hidden behind national security concerns?
For too long, nuclear testing veterans have been forced to fight for recognition. For too long, they have been told there is no evidence to support their claims. For too long, they have had to carry the burden of proof themselves, when it is the state that held the evidence all along. That injustice cannot continue. We are the only nuclear power in the world not to compensate our nuclear testing veterans for their suffering.
This is not about rewriting history; it is about acknowledging it. It is about recognising that mistakes were made—serious mistakes—and those mistakes were compounded by decades of denial; it is about ensuring that those who serve this country are treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve; and it is about restoring faith in our institutions by demonstrating that, when confronted with the truth, we are willing to act on it.
The veterans and their families are not asking for special treatment. All they are asking for is fairness, honesty and justice. After 70 years, that is the very least we owe them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before I call the Minister, I am sure I speak for the whole House in sending our very best wishes to the hon. Member’s mum.
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) for securing this debate and for all her tireless work on behalf of our nuclear test veterans, and I want to extend my best wishes to her mum as well.
When we come to this House and when we speak, we have our intent, but it is very important that we acknowledge the impact of what we say, and I would just like to say very firmly on the record how deeply I feel about this issue and how committed I am to the nuclear test veterans and their fight for transparency—excuse me. They have had a very long fight, and I really recognise how difficult it has been for them, and I want them to understand that I am committed to them. I would also like to extend my thanks to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for his work.
Sir John Hayes
I rise principally so that the Minister can compose herself—her emotion and her commitment are evident. I have stood at the Dispatch Box over 19 years on both sides of this Chamber, and I know what it is like to be a Minister. I simply say to her, echoing the call of the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey), that this is a real opportunity. It is an opportunity to right a wrong. The Minister would stand proud, and she would do the Government proud, but, most importantly, she will do the veterans and the country proud, if she can right that wrong.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his hugely important and tireless work on this issue.
The whole country owes a profound and enduring debt of gratitude to this generation, who helped to pioneer this technology at the very dawn of the nuclear age, and their immense contribution remains as important to UK defence today as it was seven decades ago.
As a veteran who served in Afghanistan, nothing is more important to me than the welfare of those who make up our armed forces. I know that it would be important to me to feel that the MOD had done its duty by me to protect me and those I served with in the things we were asked to do. I was happy to do them in defence of this country, but it was important to feel that the MOD would none the less be there for me too. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and the rest of the Members in the House that I take these issues exceptionally seriously.
The Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister have been clear to the Department, and I continue to reinforce the message, that we should be operating on a principle of maximum transparency on this issue. I want to repeat and emphasise “maximum transparency”, because it is abundantly clear that, over many decades, some nuclear test veterans have felt mistreated, misunderstood and undervalued by successive Governments. That is something that we are addressing. Again, I repeat that I am a veteran and I am deeply passionate about this issue.
We published our veterans strategy last year, which outlines our ambitions for veterans in society: that they feel pride in their service, and that their lives and the challenges they face are better understood and valued. That is why, since we came to office, we have sought to build the relationship between the Government and the nuclear test veterans, because we want open dialogue and meaningful collaboration.
Helen Maguire
I totally feel the Minister’s empathy in this important speech. On collaboration, veterans have asked for a meeting with the Prime Minister, which has not yet been forthcoming. I wonder whether the Minister might be able to push a little further to try to get that meeting, because I know how important it is for the nuclear test veterans.
Louise Sandher-Jones
Absolutely. We are in constant dialogue with them about the right time to have that meeting. I am aware of its importance to the veterans.
The Secretary of State, as well as my predecessor as Minister for Veterans and People—the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns)—and I have met nuclear test veterans during this Parliament. Just today, I met representatives to discuss the Environmental Information Regulations report, and to hear their concerns and keep them updated on the work that we are doing. My officials also meet with nuclear test veteran representatives on a weekly basis. For example, in the last week alone, they have met with LABRATS and the Nuclear Community Charity Fund.
In addition, we have reviewed, and now twice extended, the criteria for the nuclear test medal to include the UK personnel who took part in atmospheric tests by the United States and those who observed tests by other nations. More than 5,000 veterans or their next of kin have received medals in recognition of their service. “An Oral History of British Nuclear Test Veterans” has also been recently completed. It is a vital document of veterans history, permanently preserving their testimony and legacy for future generations. It includes 41 interviews with test veterans to capture their experiences and how the nuclear programme has affected the rest of their lives. These measures are to improve our understanding and appreciation of the test veterans’ contributions to national security.
As I have made clear, the Government have committed to maximum transparency, and we recognise that swiftness of action is so important to this community after so many decades. That is why, in September 2025, we started the transfer of records from the Merlin database to the National Archives. These are historical, technical and scientific records relating to the UK’s nuclear testing programme. Over 16,300 of them are already listed and accessible on the National Archives website, and that work is ongoing.
In a bid to address wider concerns about records, my predecessor, the current Minister for the Armed Forces, launched an examination of the Department’s records in three key areas: the policy of blood and urine testing between 1952 and 1967; the information that was captured from those tests; and if records did exist, to find out what happened to them. My predecessor updated the House last year on progress, noting that tens of thousands of files have already been reviewed. I can tell the House today that this significant undertaking is now nearing completion, and I hope to share the findings in the very near future.
I will now turn to some of the specific issues raised about the recent release by the Atomic Weapons Establishment of a draft document in response to an information request concerning historical nuclear testing at Christmas Island. The release of that document aligns with the Government’s commitment to that transparency, which is very important to me and why I decided that the document had to be released. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, along with others, including LABRATS, have raised some very important questions about the document. They are incredibly important questions that must have answers. I can give a commitment to her and to them that I am determined to fully understand the implications of what is in the document and the handling of the document, and to take action if necessary.
I will be frank with the House that I do not have all the answers to those questions right now, and I do not wish to suggest anything that may then subsequently need updating should new information emerge—excuse me.
Sir John Hayes
I feel I am doing a service to the Government this afternoon. It is absolutely right that specific answers are given to the questions that were posed by the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey), who I congratulate on securing the debate. The key thing is that we have met successive Ministers—I first met the now Lord Beamish when he was a Member of this House—and they were, generally speaking, sympathetic, but they were not always given the information. In truth, had it not been for David Cameron, who gave the money to the charity when I was at the Cabinet Office, and Boris Johnson, who met my friend the hon. Member for Salford—she is not technically my hon. Friend but she is my friend—in Downing Street, we would not have got the medal, so it sometimes does take those personal interventions. From what the Minister has said already, I am sure that she is more than capable of cutting through the bureaucracy, the red tape and the obfuscation, in order to get to the heart of the matter.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I am very conscious of how long the nuclear test veterans have been fighting for this, and of how many Ministers they have met. I recognise that the onus is on us to deliver, not just to say words.
I repeat that I do not wish to suggest anything that may need updating should new information emerge. However, I give the House my assurances that work is being undertaken, and that I will stress the system as far as it needs to be stressed to get to the answers.
Let me explain what I can say today. Initial investigations show that parts of the Ministry of Defence were made aware of the report in 2014, as were Government legal representatives. It is not yet established whether Ministers were made aware at the time. These are incredibly important questions and they must be answered—I say that specifically about those points.
On the scientific implications of the document, I note that it suggests the recordings showed an increase in levels of radiation, but that the cause of them could not be fully determined at the time. I also note the findings of the Clare report, the 1993 AWE report, which summarised environmental monitoring of nuclear tests on Christmas Island in 1957-58. The Clare report identified
“very localised and just measurable, but radiologically insignificant, fall-out activity”.
None the less, there are questions raised on those specific points by this AWE document that must be answered.
On the implications for the 2016 war pension scheme tribunal, I note that the approach taken in the 2016 case was to make a baseline assumption that the veterans had been exposed to radiation but that the levels of exposure were not significant enough to cause the health effects complained of. Again, the document raises very important questions about this and we will find the answers to them.
As I have noted, hon. Members and others have raised a number of important questions both today and in correspondence. I would quickly like to address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, who quite rightly said that this is not necessarily the only issue of this nature. We have significant work in progress, and I hope to be able to update her soon on that and to reassure her that I am paying very close attention to those issues as well.
The Secretary of State and I have directed officials to investigate at pace, again always working with the principle of maximum transparency. I will update the House in full when I have further information on those points. I reiterate that hugely important questions have been asked in this House, including about the Hillsborough law—many people have worked so long for that law. Members know of my military background and will know that I understand how important it is that every part of our Government are rightly held to account.
To conclude, it is no exaggeration to say that the veterans who took part in these tests nearly 70 years ago played a hugely key role in preserving peace throughout the cold war, but it is important to recognise that their legacy has not ended. We know of the global security situation that we face today and, even in my time, what we have asked members of the armed forces to go and do. We are deeply thankful for everything those veterans have achieved and for everything that they have sacrificed. This Government are committed to working more closely with them and to listening to their concerns. That is also my personal commitment.
Our commitment to maximum transparency means that any new information will be released in a timely manner and that questions will be asked about that information. We will be as open as possible with the veterans and we will report back to Parliament as soon as we can. I will continue to welcome scrutiny from right hon. and hon. Members across this House, from veterans themselves, from their representatives, from the media and from all those who know how important our commitment is to serving our veterans.
Question put and agreed to.
Courts and Tribunals Bill (First sitting)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I ask Members to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea, coffee, soft drinks and sandwiches are not allowed, although water is permitted. There are a couple of procedural things to do before we hear from our witnesses. We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, and then consider a motion to enable the reporting and publication of written evidence to the Committee. There is also a motion to allow us to deliberate in private before the oral evidence session begins, to talk about how we are going to handle the session. Date Time Witness Wednesday 25 March Until no later than 9.55 am Rt Hon Sir Brian Leveson Wednesday 25 March Until no later than 10.35 am Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales; Professor Katrin Hohl, Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice, City St George’s, University of London; Dame Vera Baird KC Wednesday 25 March Until no later than 11.25 am Women’s Aid Federation of England; Jade Blue McCrossen-Nethercott; Charlotte Meijer; Morwenna Loughman Wednesday 25 March Until no later than 2.30 pm The Bar Council; Criminal Bar Association Wednesday 25 March Until no later than 3.00 pm Claire Davies KC, Leader of the South Eastern Circuit; Samantha Hillas KC, Leader of the Northern Circuit; Caroline Goodwin KC, Leader of the North Eastern Circuit Wednesday 25 March Until no later than 3.20 pm Claire Throssell Wednesday 25 March Until no later than 3.35 pm Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary Wednesday 25 March Until no later than 3.50 pm HM Courts and Tribunals Service Wednesday 25 March Until no later than 4.20 pm JUSTICE; Centre for Criminal Appeals (APPEAL); Institute for Government Wednesday 25 March Until no later than 4.40 pm Hon Doug Downey KC MPP, Attorney General of Ontario Wednesday 25 March Until no later than 4.55 pm Plan B. Earth Wednesday 25 March Until no later than 5.30 pm Hon Sir Richard Henriques; His Honour Clement Goldstone KC; RT Hon Lord Burnett of Maldon Wednesday 25 March Until no later than 5.50 pm Ministry of Justice
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Wednesday 25 March) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Wednesday 25 March;
(b) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 14 April;
(c) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 16 April;
(d) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 21 April;
(e) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 23 April;
(f) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 28 April;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
(3) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 4; Schedule 1; Clauses 5 to 7; Schedule 2; Clauses 8 to 18; Schedule 3; Clauses 19 and 20; new Clauses; new Schedules; Clauses 21 to 27; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(4) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 28 April.—(Sarah Sackman.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Sarah Sackman.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room, which is very useful for the Opposition and for the Government, as I am sure you all know. I said to the Minister before we started that my view is that the Government’s job is to get legislation through and the Opposition’s job is to scrutinise it, and I will protect both in that pursuit. My job as Chairman is to help both sides to achieve those aims, and it is entirely possible to do so.
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Sarah Sackman.)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill? No. If any Member has an interest that is relevant to their question or speech, they should declare it at the appropriate time.
Examination of Witness
Sir Brian Leveson gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Sir Brian Leveson. We must stick to the timings of the programme order that the Committee has agreed, so we have until 9.55 am for this panel. Will the witness please briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Sir Brian Leveson: My name is Brian Leveson. I was a practising criminal lawyer from 1970. I became a silk in 1986. I went on to the High Court bench in 2000, and the Court of Appeal in 2006. I was the senior presiding judge for England and Wales between 2007 and 2009, the inaugural chair of the Sentencing Council between 2010 and 2013, president of the Queen’s bench division from 2013, and latterly head of criminal justice. I retired at the compulsory age of 70 in 2019. I am now the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. I have spent the last 15 months seeking to review criminal justice, a subject which I rather thought I had left behind.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Q
Sir Brian Leveson: No, although I recognise that, in 2015, I looked at efficiency in criminal proceedings. Everybody says that was a wonderful time—no, it was not. I published a report that dealt with efficiency. It was not to incorporate anything that involved legislative change, but in chapter 10, “Out of Scope”, I discussed what Sir Robin Auld said in 2001. Anybody looking at that material would have seen that I was seriously concerned about the way in which criminal justice was proceeding and progressing, notwithstanding the backlog then because of an absence of police officers. What I visualised has actually come to pass.
Dr Mullan
Q
Sir Brian Leveson: Well, I have been visiting Crown courts for 50 years. I personally visited Liverpool Crown court, and I am sure I went to another Crown court, but my team went a large number of Crown courts. I was assisted by three advisers: Professor David Ormerod, who is I think the foremost criminal academic lawyer in the country; Chris Mayer, a former chief executive of HM Courts Service; and Shaun McNally, a former director of crime at HMCS and a former chief executive of the Legal Aid Agency. I had plenty of expertise. I did not need to visit courts; they did. I spoke to a lot of judges, though.
Dr Mullan
I do not want to assume what you may or may not know about Liverpool, but are you aware that Liverpool does not have a backlog in its courts?
Sir Brian Leveson: I am very aware of Liverpool: I am a Liverpudlian. I practised in Liverpool. I know all the judges in Liverpool extremely well. It would be a mistake to think that Liverpool is a microcosm of the country, for lots of reasons. Liverpool has a single Crown court. There are 20-odd courts in one building. It was opened in 1984—I was present. It has its problems, but it is still a very highly functioning court. There is one Crown Prosecution Service area. There is essentially one police force, although there is a second in Cheshire. There is one chief probation officer. Much more importantly, there is a small local Bar where everybody knows everybody else and they all get on with it. That is not the case in other parts of the country.
Dr Mullan
Q
Sir Brian Leveson: Yes, and I have made recommendations. It is critical that the systems join up: the police, the CPS, the defence community, the courts, the judiciary, and the prison and probation services. They all have their own budgets, their own problems and their own priorities. One of the recommendations I made in part 2 of my review—which is not considered in the Bill, obviously—was the creation of a criminal justice adviser whose only responsibility was co-ordinating the work of each of the agencies to try to make them work together. That is where it has worked in Liverpool. But doing that on its own would not be sufficient.
Dr Mullan
Q
“I have no doubt that the MoJ will want and need to conduct more detailed modelling, including through impact assessments of any recommendations taken forward.”
It is a common theme throughout the report that you say, repeatedly, that you expect that the Ministry of Justice will want to undertake more detailed modelling than the modelling you undertook. Are you aware of what, if any, more detailed modelling the MOJ did undertake?
Sir Brian Leveson: That is not my responsibility. What I wanted to say about modelling was this: it is bordering on the speculative to think that you can model all the changes to get one set of results. I am very conscious, for example, of the modelling in relation to the time saved by a bench division. You will know, and doubtless quote it at me in a moment, that the modellers suggest 20%, which I believe is pessimistic. Let me say why I think that is so, because it is very important that the Committee understands this.
How can modelling be undertaken in relation to systems that have never operated? The first question is, “What time would be saved?” The modellers—the analysts—looked to the court service: “How many minutes would be saved by not having to do this with a jury? How many by doing that, and the other?” They also spoke to some judges. I believe they came up with a figure that is far too pessimistic, as I said.
Let me explain why. The dynamic of a criminal trial conducted with a jury is very different from the dynamic of a trial conducted without a jury. Take family work, for example. The judge gets involved. If there is a jury, he finds no facts—every fact that anybody wants to elicit or develop, unless it is inadmissible, they can—but if a judge is conducting a trial, he or she will say, “Well now, what’s the issue in this case? Let’s get down to it,” and, “I’ve got that point; what’s the next point?” That changes the dynamic of the trial entirely.
Indeed, I have spoken to district judges who try rapes in the youth court and are also sex-ticketed recorders, so are trying rapes in the Crown court, and they say to me that trials in the Crown court are twice as long as for the same sort of acquaintance-type rape in the youth court. Canadian judges talk about 50%; I am concerned to achieve fair justice, and I need to speed that up because of the backlog.
Dr Mullan
On the right to elect, your report—we are not talking about further work that you are not responsible for—says:
“It has been assumed that disposals per day in the magistrates’ court are in line with the current average.”
So if we change the system, disposals will remain at the current rate. If we are trying more complex, more serious cases, is it reasonable to assume that the disposal time will be the same as for those currently seen for less serious cases?
Sir Brian Leveson: Why do you say they are more complex? They are not necessarily more complex at all.
Dr Mullan
If they are being given sentences of potentially up three years versus, for example, six months, you do not think that will have any impact on the time, complexity or seriousness of the cases?
Sir Brian Leveson: I am not suggesting it will not have any impact; I am suggesting that the time cases take is not necessarily governed by the nature of the charge or, indeed, the eventual sentence. In the 1970s, I could conduct two trials in a day; nobody ever conducts a trial in a day these days.
Dr Mullan
The most specific element of modelling that the MOJ undertook was something called a structured elicitation workshop, which found that the time saved would be between 10% and 30%. At the lower the end, that is half of the 20% estimate that you put forward. Would you accept that?
Sir Brian Leveson: No. I think that is wrong. As far as I am concerned, there will be a considerable time saving and, much more importantly, there will be a cultural shift. At the moment, if you can put your trial off until 2028, what is not to like?
Dr Mullan
Q
Sir Brian Leveson: I do not accept that characterisation at all. I believe that savings in a Crown court will be dramatic, for cultural and involvement reasons, in the same way that family judges get through cases more quickly. If you ask those who are opposed to any change what they think will happen as a result of change, they are going to be—
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
Q
Sir Brian Leveson: Yes. At the moment, there are undeniably defendants who are gaming the system. They are charged with a crime, they are told their trial will not be until 2028 or 2029, and they are happy to put it off.
I gave an example in a debate on this subject. I said that in 1970 I would say to defendants in around November, “Well, this is a very strong case. If you are guilty, you are much better admitting it. You get a discount for pleading guilty and you can explain it, which will contain litigation.” More than once defendants would say, “Well, Mr Leveson, I am guilty, and I will plead guilty, but I want to spend Christmas with my kids, so I will plead guilty in January.” Now they can say, “I would like to spend Christmas 2028 with my children.” That was an anecdote from me, but after the debate a defence solicitor from London came up to me and said, “That example you gave—I am having that conversation every day of the week.”
We need people to confront what they have done. I do not want anybody to plead guilty who is not guilty and has seen the evidence. I am not asking to change the guilty plea rate, but in the early days, you pleaded guilty on the first or the second occasion you appeared at the Crown court—now there are many examples of that happening on the fifth or the sixth occasion you are in the Crown court. Each one of those takes a considerable amount of time. That is what is sucking up part of the time.
There are lots of other challenges to the system, which if you have had what I do not say is the benefit or privilege of reading both parts 1 and 2 of my review, you will see that I try to elaborate on there. I am concerned that we need to change the dynamic so that people address allegations that are made against them at the first opportunity, rather than hoping that the victim will withdraw, the witnesses will forget or the case will just fade away. That is the point I am talking about with cultural change.
Sarah Sackman
Q
Sir Brian Leveson: No, I do not. I have spent my life trying to improve the efficiency of criminal courts, from the time that I was senior presiding judge in 2007. I have spent a lot of time trying to improve efficiency. It has deteriorated for all sorts of reasons, which I elaborate on in my review. It will be difficult to get that moving. It can be done. The money going into the system has been dramatically reduced over the years. The MOJ was not a protected Department, and has really suffered as a consequence. Do I believe that money and efficiency will do it? No, I do not, because that will not change the cultural dynamic.
Sarah Sackman
Q
Sir Brian Leveson: The reason why I started to think about that was that I have long been of the view that it would be valuable, as technology has improved, to record magistrates court proceedings—in other words, to have a record of what is said in the magistrates courts. Once one is doing that, there is no reason why one should not introduce the same sort of approach to appeals as the one used in the Crown court and the Court of Appeal criminal division.
I was particularly impressed—I use the word impressed, but I was concerned—by an argument that I heard that many minor sexual assaults that were dealt with in the magistrates courts or the youth courts, which could include rape, almost automatically went to appeal to the Crown court, on the basis that the victim would not turn up the second time and be prepared to go through the whole process again. That is a serious problem. To require victims to go through the experience of giving evidence and being cross-examined twice is unfair on them. Everybody needs to be able to move on with their lives, and that is victims and defendants as well.
Although I have talked about defendants gaming the system, I do not ignore defendants who are determined to pursue a not guilty plea because they do not feel they have done anything wrong, but whose lives are on hold for years until their trials happen. I had an example of a young man who was at university and charged with rape. His university career is long since gone, and he could not get a job because he had to tell potential employers, “I’m due to be tried for rape.” The system has to change. That is what I believe, but of course it is for you to decide whether it does.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Q
Sir Brian Leveson: That is easily answered: there are just too many of them. My view is that nobody should be a circuit judge unless they are capable of trying serious sexual crime—nobody. The empathy required to deal with victims is not just restricted to rape and serious sexual crimes. The make-up of cases going to the Crown court has changed over the last 10 years, so what might have been a good idea 10 or 15 years ago when there were fewer such cases does not cut it now. There are just too many cases, and that is why I did not recommend a specialist rape court.
Jess Brown-Fuller
Q
Sir Brian Leveson: That is an interesting question. I have long since believed that there needed to be radical change. The fact is that the backlog went up in the 12 months since I was appointed in December 2024—sorry, this will be a longish answer. You would have thought that everybody would be working like mad to demonstrate that efficiency could bring the backlog down over the year following my appointment. Not only did the backlog not go down, but it went up higher than the highest projection that the Ministry had.
I have always been of the view that efficiency alone would not do it, and you were going to have to look at legislative change. If you were going to look at legislative change, it was important that you all had the chance to consider that as soon as possible, so I was perfectly content to deal with policy first and efficiency afterwards, on the basis that by the time you got around to dealing with it, you would have both reports anyway and you could look at everything together; I hope you have.
The Chair
I want to get three more people in, so pithy questions and pithy answers, please.
Sir Brian Leveson: I am sorry.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
Q
On 17 March, we heard evidence on the Justice Committee from Tom Guest, the director of policy at the Crown Prosecution Service. He talked about the CPS being supportive of the structural reform that is proposed in the Bill. He said that we were “at a critical juncture” and that this is
“a generational opportunity for end-to-end reform. Our view is that we have gone far beyond the point where piecemeal or non-legislative solutions will suffice. They are definitely part of the solution, but they will not solve the problem. The status quo is failing victims, witnesses and defendants.”
Do you recognise that sentiment, and do you have any comments in relation to the view of the Crown Prosecution Service and its role to play in this structural reform?
Sir Brian Leveson: I do recognise the sentiment: it is exactly my own. I think the CPS has an enormous role to play. You will know from the report that I wrote that there are lots of areas in which improvement and co-ordination of activity is critical. IT changes have to made: there are 43 forces with 43 different IT systems, each of which the CPS have to negotiate with. Redaction is an enormous problem, as is file build. The relationship between the police and the CPS, and the inability of police defence lawyers to speak to CPS lawyers—all that needs to change, and that is why I suggested the adviser.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Q
Sir Brian Leveson: There are lots of reasons.
Joe Robertson
But jury trials are not the principal reason.
Sir Brian Leveson: No, no, I do not and have never blamed jury trials at all. The reason is that the complexity has changed. Pace, disclosure of unused material, special measures, bad character, hearsay and data—cell site data, which is now critical to almost every single prosecution, and data taken from phones—have all added to the complexity and length of trials. I am not criticising juries at all, and I welcome jury trials, but the threshold must now be adjusted if we are to get justice for everybody in good time.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions during this panel. Thank you very much for coming to give evidence, Sir Brian. We would have liked to have longer with you, but we have many witnesses to question. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you for coming and for giving evidence.
Sir Brian Leveson: You are very welcome, Sir John. If I can help in any other way, I will. I am happy to meet parliamentarians: I have offered to meet the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats, and I am happy to meet anybody to talk about this on a cross-party basis.
The Chair
There we go: that is a very generous offer. For hon. Members who signalled that they wanted to ask questions, my apologies, but from what Sir Brian just said, he will make himself available to meet you at will.
Sir Brian Leveson: I do not know about “at will”.
The Chair
Thank you very much, Sir Brian.
Examination of Witnesses
Claire Waxman, Professor Katrin Hohl and Dame Vera Baird gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Claire Waxman, Professor Katrin Hohl and Dame Vera Baird. It is good to see you and to have you back here, Vera, albeit in a different guise.
I will follow the same procedure as I did in the previous panel, but I want to get more Committee members in, as I know that Members on both sides of the Committee missed out. I ask Dr Mullan and the Minister to try to keep the Front-Bench questions tighter, so that we can get more participation from all parts of the Committee.
Dr Mullan
Q
Claire Waxman: Of course. My role is very much focused on listening directly to victim survivors and families bereaved by homicide, so any changes in legislation and proposals are sense-checked with them. I have been listening to victims since 2020, when the pandemic hit, and have seen the direct impact of the long delays, with cases now going well into 2030. There is a human cost to that. We often say, “Justice delayed is justice denied,” but justice is not abstract for victims. When we delay justice, what it really means for victims is a lack of security and safety, and an inability to process what has happened, to get closure and to move on with their lives; all those are denied. We trap victims in prolonged years of uncertainty, which compounds and prolongs their trauma. I have spoken at length publicly about what that looks like for victims.
You will hear from victims shortly, and a letter signed by 18 victims who have actually been in the criminal justice system and sustained long waits for justice was sent last week. I have spoken to victims, and they want this to end: they want a way out, and they are desperate. They are saying that if having a judge-only trial in a case will mean that they will come out of the system more quickly, they want to see timely justice. Without that, we are seeing a reduction in access to justice, an increase in victim attrition—and not just post-charge, as we have seen an increase of more than 5% in the last five years—and a third of trials breaking down because victims have withdrawn as they cannot sustain staying in the system.
We are also seeing it impact the pre-charge phase. Last year, as London’s Victims’ Commissioner, I published the London victim attrition review, finding that on average 40% of victims withdraw from the system, and that delays are playing a part in that—not just delays in investigation, but the thought of having to wait years to get into court.
Dr Mullan
Q
Claire Waxman: Yes, I am absolutely aware of it.
Dr Mullan
Q
Claire Waxman: That letter was actually around victims who have been criminalised, so it is a different issue; they are dealing with victims who are defendants in the system, not victims who are complainants.
Dr Mullan
Q
Claire Waxman: In that letter, the focus is on the criminalisation of victims, which is awful. The overlap of criminalisation and victimisation needs to be dealt with way earlier on in the system.
The Chair
Kieran, can we just ask a question and get the answer?
Claire Waxman: You would need to ask Welsh Women’s Aid. They have signed up to a slightly different tone of a letter, which is around the criminalisation of victims coming into the system as defendants. It is very different to the victims I listen to—
Sarah Sackman
Q
Professor Hohl: The measures in the Bill that address sexual offences broadly fall into two groups. The first group clarifies and tightens admissibility rules around sexual history evidence and previous reports of sexual violence that may be portrayed as so-called “victim bad character”, tightening that threshold to better protect victims from unnecessary, intrusive and unfounded lines of questioning. We very much welcome those.
There is also a set around special measures, which effectively clarify how they should apply. Those are also very welcome, and my understanding is that they are largely uncontroversial; they seem to be welcomed across the board.
Sarah Sackman
Q
Claire Waxman: Thank you. First of all, victims are not a homogeneous group, and they do not always agree on everything, but the majority of victims, who are so desperate to get out of these long waits, are looking to you—to Government and to parliamentarians—to provide that reassurance that hope is on the horizon. As Sir Brian laid out this morning, and in all his analysis work, we need some structural reform in order to take the pressure off the overburdened court system. That is what we need to be looking at to alleviate what victims have to experience.
That sector letter is talking about a really serious failing of our criminal justice system, but it is about the criminalisation of victims. They should not even be coming into court. We need to be dealing with that way earlier in the process. We need to be looking at diversion, better identification of victims and pushing them into trauma-informed responses and support.
I do not want to see victims coming into the system as defendants, but we cannot ignore the many victims I speak to—and there are victims who will speak to you directly today—who are in as complainants rather than as defendants. They are waiting years to give evidence. We know that when they wait years, there is a chance that they will withdraw; if they do not, the wait impacts the quality of their evidence. The impact of delays on memory will understandably affect their evidence. Inconsistencies naturally arise and that becomes very challenging for victims giving evidence years after the offence.
Jess Brown-Fuller
Q
“also stress important safeguards: tackling the lack of diversity on the bench, and ensuring judges are robustly trained in the dynamics of abuse and trauma.”
You know that over many years many different parliamentarians have tried to legislate to ensure that everyone in the judiciary has mandatory training on those important safeguards. You also know that we are always told that, because the judiciary is independent, we cannot legislate to mandate that training. What would you like to see in the Bill to ensure the important safeguards that victims have reflected to you?
Claire Waxman: I have made that point for years, regardless of these reforms. We have to improve and get reassurance around judicial training, including training on cultural competency, on understanding bias and prejudice and on the dynamics of abuse. We still see issues around coercive control, post-separation abuse and stalking. I need to be reassured that judges are being trained to the level that will give assurances to victims and to myself that they understand what is coming in front of them. We need reassurance from Government on that. I would suggest more investment in judicial training. We saw, over years—Vera will remember more than me when it happened—that the training on rape went down from three days to two days for judges. That was meant to be a temporary measure; I do not think it has gone back up. We need to make sure that we have good, robust training for judiciary and magistrates.
Jess Brown-Fuller
Q
Claire Waxman: People in the criminal justice system need to move ahead with the efficiency measures. We need to move ahead with that so that we can start to see some of the adjournments not happening, better listing and so on. Of course, it is a desperate state. Just yesterday I spoke to a male victim of child sex abuse. He has been in the system since 2021 and in the court system for two years. He thought that he was giving evidence in the coming weeks. That has been adjourned and he has been asked his availability for 2027, 2028 and 2029. He is going to withdraw. I think Sir Brian said it—looking at structural reform came first because we know that the efficiency measures are not going to bring the backlog down quickly enough. We need to do everything together as a package of measures and we need to move ahead.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
Good morning, all. I welcome your work and the support that you offer victims—all of you, in what you have been doing. I am sure there is cross-party support for that in the room this morning. Do you think the changes in the Bill will improve the confidence of victims that, when they report crimes, they will receive justice more swiftly than they currently do and, more importantly, that the changes will also encourage more brave victims to come forward and report crimes?
Claire Waxman: There are a lot of good measures in the Bill that, if delivered and implemented well and with important safeguards, should have positive impacts for victims. We are removing appropriate cases from the Crown court, easing the burden there, and limiting the right to elect for a Crown court trial. By the way, victims view that right as an injustice. They feel that power and control is being given to the defendant, knowing full well that there is a chance they will come out of the process or that their evidence will be impacted over the years. That is something that victims regularly talk to me about. The measures around the automatic right to appeal and to make the magistrates a court of record will open up transparency in the courts and hopefully stop victims having to be called back in for a rehearing. That has devastating impacts; you cannot overestimate what it does to a victim when they think that they have gone through the process of giving evidence, and then they have to come in again.
If all those things ease the pressure and burden on the Crown court, that will give reassurance and confidence to victims who are thinking about whether to stay in the process currently. The measures Katrin talked about—putting in important safeguards around the cross-examination of rape victims—are so important. Vera and I have worked on this since 2019, because of section 41, past sexual history, and issues around cross-examination and compensation claims. That is a financial motive used to undermine the credibility of victims. Victims come out of the system and often say, “I will never report again,” but they tell their friends and families about their experiences, and that deters people and erodes public trust and confidence.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
Q
Claire Waxman: That is impossible to answer. We need to see it happen. You need to come back to me and say if it is not going to reduce—
Rebecca Paul
Q
Claire Waxman: It is the case. The Crown court is overburdened. You have heard Sir Brian Leveson’s analysis; it cannot continue in the state it is in. If we do not take appropriate cases out of the Crown court, then what is the answer?
Rebecca Paul
Q
Claire Waxman: But I cannot imagine it. If you are taking cases out of the Crown court that cannot deal with the pressure, that will save time.
Rebecca Paul
That is what we will be analysing over the next few weeks—whether it will or not.
The Chair
We will limit ourselves to one question each at this stage so that everyone can get in. If there is more time, I will call people again.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
Q
Dame Vera Baird: It is absolutely imperative. There is no way of stopping the problems that my colleague Claire has so well expressed without stopping smaller cases going into the jury list. The state has not said that they need to be tried by jury. As you know, the state says all summary offences go to the magistrates court, as do all indictable offences where it is imperative to have a jury trial—they are very important; the public needs transparency. That is what has been fixed.
It is the cases in the middle, which are at a relatively lower level of crime, where there is a right that the guy charged with rape or murder does not have to pick where he is tried. There is a right to do that for relatively small cases, which is exercised sometimes —you have heard from Sir Brian—in a very self-interested way, which doesn’t surprise you, does it, really? If you can put the case off for three years, the witnesses might never come.
All of that is a problem, and it should be dealt with by bringing in a perfectly fair method of trial: a skilled judge, with or without two magistrates. Make no mistake about judges, there is a need to keep them well trained, of course there is. However, judges now do a lot of fact-finding, not only in criminal cases. Look at the case of Charlotte Nichols, who waited 1,088 days to get to court. She told the most convincing story—what a woman; she is brilliant—to the House of Commons about what happened to her. After 1,088 days, the man was acquitted of raping her. She then had the resource to sue, and she sued in the civil court. A judge believed her and awarded compensation, which she felt was redeeming. There are many cases now where jury trials fail complainants and, if they have the resource, they go to the civil courts, and the judges there are more amenable.
We must not muddle jury trial and fair trial. In many cases—in Australia, all over New Zealand and in most of Canada—there is a right for a jury trial-allocated defendant to opt out. More opt out of jury trials than remain in. Do you know why that is? It is because the acquittal rate is higher in judge-alone trials universally. A judge reasoning a case cannot just say, “Well, I don’t really believe that Baird woman—I didn’t like the look of her. I’m not going to follow what she says,” as juries can. You have to sit down and reason out why it is so. Are you being rational or not? That will be a great asset to fair trial in the middle tier where Sir Brian is going to allocate the most serious of cases, which, frankly, the state has never said need to go to jury. It is about having a punt on a jury trial.
Joe Robertson
Q
Dame Vera Baird: Is it your only point? The answer would be that judges are not as diverse as juries.
Joe Robertson
Q
Dame Vera Baird: Not in the slightest. I assume you know that 73% of people who are entitled to a jury trial do not elect it and choose to stay in the magistrates court. That is men, women and black people. Black people and women disproportionately elect trial because they clearly feel that they will get a fairer trial with a diverse jury, but who says that is right? On the day, if you were a sex offender with some nasty allegations, for instance, you would have a better chance of acquittal in front of a judge than you ever would in front of a jury. It is just an opportunity to try to pick the best trial for yourself, but it is a punt in the dark. It is a go on the wheel of fortune. Sometimes it will work and sometimes it will not.
Joe Robertson
Q
Dame Vera Baird: Seventy-three per cent of people offered jury trials do not take the offer up. Are you sure that the term “elect” is correct? Is it not “demand”?
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
Q
Dame Vera Baird: Is that not part of why this is very odd? We do not give a person alleged to have committed a very serious crime and whose life will be utterly transformed by what happens in the jury a right not to have a jury trial or to pick where he goes at all—and why would we?—but we do give that right to a small cohort of people on relatively small trials. Some of the trials are big, but the bigger ones will go into the judge court, not stay in the magistrates court. Why, when we have legislated for where these cases should be tried, do we allow that relatively small cohort to pick, in addition to the legislation the state has set out? The difference is between a magistrates court case coming in six months and a Crown court case coming in three or four years. That is the impact on the victim. For what?
As I have already said, the majority—73%—of people offered a jury trial do not take it up. There is no understanding anywhere—not at the Bar, I can tell you—that it is fairer than a judge-alone or magistrates trial would be. Everybody at the Bar has had cases where they were absolutely shocked when a conviction happened because they never thought it possible and cases where they have got people off when they never thought it possible—of course, they are very chipper about that. Ask them when they come later. There is absolutely no hallmark anywhere that says jury trial is the only fair way.
Judges find facts in all kinds of cases outside the criminal courts. Of course, they also do so in trials; they have to decide, “Is there enough factual evidence here even for a case that a jury can answer?” They are a pretty good substitute for a jury—if that is how you want to look at it—to deliver fair trial.
Dr Mullan
Q
“The Government’s proposed reforms will likely create significant operational disruption and practical challenges that pull resources from more effective measures to reduce the backlog. This would prolong the uncertainty that leads many survivors to withdraw support for the prosecution of their abuser.”
Do you accept that the letter does, in fact, also talk about the impact on victims of the jury trial changes?
Claire Waxman: If you read the letter, it focuses on the victim coming in as a defendant, but it is also—
Dr Mullan
Q
Claire Waxman: You have to read the whole context of the letter—you have pulled out one bit. The whole context of that letter really focuses on listening to women who are wrongly being criminalised, as opposed to victims.
Dr Mullan
Q
Dame Vera Baird: Yes, but she is on her own—
Dr Mullan
Oh dear!
Dame Vera Baird: Kieran, you are not listening to what Claire says—she is right. The women’s movement is very disappointed with the Bill because it does not tackle the issue of criminalisation of women. They think that dealing with delays in the list is a very poor substitute, and they will not have it. They want to stand up at last for a proper defence of coercively controlled women who are put into crime—goodness knows it has been long enough coming—but that does not appear in the Bill. The women’s movement is very upset about that, and in my view that has driven this. I do not doubt—
The Chair
Order.
Dame Vera Baird: No, it is not at all disrespectful. Natalie Fleet, who has also been abused, takes the opposite view. She does not want to be weaponised, Kieran, and that is a very sound point. None the less, her example is appalling, and nobody could doubt her. The man was acquitted, but a judge believed her, so what is your argument now? Judges are not fair.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
Q
To bring it back to victims—you referred to this, Claire—the Bill makes changes to the bad character evidence. Can you go into a bit more detail on what that is like from a victim’s perspective to have to go through a line of questioning about bad character evidence? Why is it so important that we are changing it?
Claire Waxman: These are important safeguards that need come in to better protect victims during the cross-examination process. I have to say that most victims I speak to who have gone through the cross-examination process—and this is not just rape victims—describe it as “brutal”. That is their word, not mine. They feel that it is often an experience to try to undermine their credibility at every point.
We have seen the use of past sexual behaviour or past sexual allegations to somehow undermine credibility. We have also seen it with compensation: as I said, it is a right under the victims code to be told about compensation, yet victims trying to access compensation is being weaponised and used as a way to undermine credibility. Many victims feel like they are the ones on trial, and they are being scrutinised. Putting in these important safeguards will help to improve that experience, so that they do not feel like they are under attack.
As I say, you are going to hear from victims shortly, one of whom has gone through that very experience, and I urge you all to listen to them. That is really important, because they are the ones with lived experience—they are living and breathing this delayed criminal justice system. Delays are not the only issue for victims; it is also about the treatment that they experience throughout the criminal justice system. Both need to be dealt with to really reduce victim attrition and improve victim satisfaction.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
Q
Dame Vera Baird: No, it is not. It has been, I am afraid, ramped up outside these rooms, with all these Churchillian speeches suggesting that jury trial is being taken away, full stop. That is completely untrue, as you rightly say.
Siân Berry
Q
Professor Hohl: One thing to remember here is that over 90% of domestic abuse cases are already heard in the magistrates court. VAWG comprises not just sexual violence; it includes domestic abuse, sexual violence and sexual offences. There are some that will be in the either-way category.
We have had a really emotive conversation this morning. One of the issues is judge-alone versus jury trials, and there is a lot of emotion on either side. When we look back at the actual research, there is mention that judges may have biases, and a judge-alone trial may disadvantage people. If that is the genuine concern, why are we happy to accept that for sentencing and admissibility? Why is it that in all the law we are making to guide admissibility of evidence, we trust a judge to separate between myth and stereotypes and facts, but not a jury? If we are genuine about it, we have to go a lot further around oversight and accountability in the judiciary. It would be odd to just worry about it on that specific issue.
I would also like the Committee to consider the evidence around juries. This is not to cast shade on juries but to pause and look at the research, which shows that juries, too, have biases, and there are worries about myths and misconceptions. The research on juries shows that these problems exist there, too. These issues exist with judges and juries. The remedy is not going to be either holding on to the status quo or not. The remedy will be something utterly outside of the discussion we are having that is about accountability and oversight.
Some of the measures in the Bill go that way—for example, recording creates transparency, and judges having to spell out the reasons for their verdict also goes towards that. The debate has moved a really long way away from what the research actually tells us, to quite an emotive batting to and fro. If there is space for the Committee to consider that wider evidence, I would recommend it is looked at.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Q
Professor Hohl: This is an unanswerable question. What is fairness? [Interruption.] Well, it is an answerable question, but not a black and white one. We have heard this morning about a separation between the speediness of justice and the fairness of justice, as if they were two different things, when all the research shows that, for both defendants and victims, the time taken is part of justice. To artificially separate them does not work.
The way we measure the fairness of the system is about due process, not about outcomes. We cannot measure fairness through conviction and acquittal rates. The way our system is set up is about due process. Due process is not taking place when the system is on its knees, so getting the system to function better, so that due process can take place, should lead to a fairer system—provided that the Bill functions as intended.
Joe Robertson
Q
Dame Vera Baird: Of course not, and I did not intend to say that. I have been trying to think, since we discussed it, about how I would feel if my experience were being used for a political cause, and it had been a very nasty experience. I might feel the same sort of—I do not know whether it is resentment or disappointment, or whether it is that it was inappropriate. I can well understand that, but many other victims do not agree that this will not help.
Women are waking up every morning, for three or four years, dreading the day when they will have to relive what happened to them in rape cases, or a man who has been very badly beaten up might wake every morning, worrying that he will have to relive it. It goes on and on like that, because there is a right to demand—as, I am afraid, I would phrase it—a trial for relatively small offences. I do not make little of them, but those will be in the queue. If Charlotte’s case is coming up next Monday, all the cases that have elected for trial before hers will be in the queue in front of it.
Dr Mullan
indicated dissent.
Dame Vera Baird: I see Kieran shaking his head, but there is no other way. There is a limited opportunity to give priority to cases. Obviously a very important point is whether the defendant is in custody. Most rape defendants are not in custody, because it is a “one word against the other” case, so they cannot be given any real priority for that reason. We end up very regularly with cases that took as long as Charlotte’s. That is really awful for a large number of victims. It also gives very little to the people who want this right: 64% of people who elect for trial plead guilty before they get to trial. You have to ask why they are electing for trial if they are going to plead guilty, but they have blocked up the jury list all of that time. This is about freeing up the jury list.
Jess Brown-Fuller
Q
The Chair
Can you respond briefly, please? I want to get Paulette in.
Claire Waxman: I can answer very quickly. It is a very good question, but unfortunately I think we have moved past the point at which we can pilot, because of where we are heading with the trajectory of the Crown court—the increase in the wait lists and how long victims are waiting. Modelling is very difficult, but we should not get stuck on percentages. The Government are saying around 20%, and the Institute for Government has now corrected its figures from 2% up to, I think, 9% or higher—to 15%. It is around the direction of travel and recognising that we have an overburdened Crown court. We need to move things out of the process.
Paulette Hamilton
Q
The Chair
We need two clear reasons in less than a minute, so fire away.
Professor Hohl: One is that the world is changed and the justice system has not updated when the size, nature and volume of cases has changed. Getting the system to cope with today’s demands would be one reason. The other reason is not addressed by the Bill and keeps being surfaced by the discussion: oversight, accountability, transparency and assurance to the public. We are in a space where the public do not trust authority that much any more, so we need more transparency. Things such as recording and reasoned verdicts would help with that. Those would be the reasons for reform—if you allow me to speak only on reasons for, not those against.
The Chair
Wonderful. That was remarkably brief and most welcome. Thank you so much for your participation. We have greatly benefited from your presence, so thank you for answering all our questions. We are very pleased to let you go and move on.
Dame Vera Baird: Thank you for the opportunity.
Examination of Witnesses
Farah Nazeer, Jade Blue McCrossen-Nethercott, Charlotte Meijer and Morwenna Loughman gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Women’s Aid, Jade Blue McCrossen-Nethercott, Charlotte Meijer and Morwenna Loughman. Once again, we must stick to the timings of the programme order. The Committee has agreed that this session will end at 11.25 am. I will ask the witnesses to introduce themselves briefly; I did not do so with the last panel for reasons of speed.
Farah Nazeer: Good morning. I am Farah Nazeer, chief executive officer of Women’s Aid.
Jade Blue McCrossen-Nethercott: Morning, I am Jade Blue. I am a victim of rape.
Charlotte Meijer: Hello, I am Charlotte. I am a victim of rape and coercive control, and I was seen in a magistrates court.
Morwenna Loughman: I am Morwenna Loughman. I am a victim of rape and actual bodily harm, and I was seen in a Crown court with a jury.
The Chair
Impressively brief. If we can have those kind of pithy answers—and pithy questions, by the way—we can get through our questions and cover as much ground as possible.
Dr Mullan
Q
Farah Nazeer: I am conscious that there are victim-survivors here as well, so I will be brief. In the Bill, we are pleased to see the repeal of the presumption of parental involvement. That is absolutely critical. We know that the vast majority of survivors of domestic abuse do not go into the criminal justice system. Only one in five women will ever report to the police, so they find themselves in the family courts. The repeal will make a huge difference to them.
We now need to see the culture around that change. We have had a pro-contact culture in the family courts for a very long time. We can see through our experience working with vast numbers of survivors every day that the vast majority of judges are not as aware as they should be of domestic abuse and coercive control—they are not trauma-informed. We need to see judges trained to be able to apply this effectively.
We also see that, across all those other safeguarding contexts for children, such as health and safety, police and schools, there is mandatory training required, and a framework and infrastructure. Strangely, there is not the same infrastructure here, where you are actually talking about children’s lives and wellbeing. I previously heard a comment about how we cannot mandate judges to have training, but perhaps you should be mandating, because you do so in every other safeguarding context.
For further context, the majority of people affected by domestic abuse are children; we have more children in our refuges across the country than we do adults. It is a huge safeguarding matter, and I would encourage the Committee to think about mandatory training for judges.
Dr Mullan
Q
Jade Blue McCrossen-Nethercott: I come from an angle of delay being a key factor. While my case was dropped 13 days before trial, from report to court it would have been 1,317 days, which is now becoming quite the norm. I regularly hear fellow victims advising on very similar situations, and how they feel about that and how it changes their perspective on wanting to navigate the justice process. If people are telling us that they would not necessarily come back into the system, for me, that is the clearest possible signal that change is not optional but very much overdue.
We published a letter last week in response to the Bar Council’s letter, just to try to centre lived experience in this conversation and debate, which felt like it had been predominantly missing. In statements of support, a couple of victims have described the process of waiting for court and the delays as “extreme harm”—that was from Victoria. Sarah advised that she felt “suffering, gaslighting and anxiety”.
Charlotte said that report to court was “total agony” and that we need to reduce the suffering. Jane advised that it felt like years on “eggshells, in limbo”. She said:
“Waiting years with no guarantee of getting justice is like torture.”
Charlotte—another Charlotte—advised of the delays that:
“They shape our lives, our ability to move forward, and our trust in justice itself.”
Those are important and strong statements from women describing that process. That is the angle that I come from.
Charlotte Meijer: We have also handed the letter over to one of your colleagues, so that the Committee can read it. I was seen in a magistrates court, so having the recording of magistrates courts that is in the Bill is incredibly important. That transparency, which I did not have, will really change victims’ lives, whether that is just to understand what happened in their trial or to hold people to account.
I did not have a good experience with my judge, but I am still pro my case being seen by a judge. I am so glad that my perpetrator chose that—although there is an issue with that in itself, as they should not be able to choose, and I am glad to see that being taken away. I am so glad I was seen in front of a judge, because to me a judge is educated in all aspects—or should be, as there is a definite need of training, as has been said—while 12 strangers off the street all have their own biases. We know that one in four men are generally perpetrators, so that could be three on the panel that is judging you and your case.
For me, having transparency really changes things. We talk about justice and the system being closed, so if we have more recording and transcripts, it will really help people. There is something that is not in the Bill that I would love to see; I have fought for the last three years for sentencing remarks to be made free, which we did earlier this year, but I believe that is not going to extend to magistrates courts. If they are now being recorded, my belief is that they should also be free in that way.
One thing that I think is also really important in this discussion, where there is so much pushback against more cases going to magistrates courts, is that coercive control essentially involves rape—it involves coercive sex—and yet it is seen in a magistrates court. When we talk about how only the worst crimes are being seen by juries, and they need to be seen by juries, what does that mean about all the other crimes, including domestic abuse and coercive control, that are being seen in magistrates courts? Are we saying that they are not getting fair trials as it is? We believe that they are, so why is there such pushback at the moment about more cases going to magistrates courts? Magistrates are laypeople as well, so there is still that accountability from the general public.
Dr Mullan
Q
Morwenna Loughman: Thank you for having us all here. I waited two and a half years for my rape trial to go ahead. It was delayed twice—each time, the day before we were due in court. The second time it was delayed, it was actually confirmed, and then five hours later, on email, we were told that it was not going ahead. He had lied his way out on bail and breached his bail conditions 23 times. During those two and a half years, I lost my job, I lost my home and I developed acute PTSD, a side effect of which was a repeated vomiting syndrome, which meant that I had to go to hospital to have my oesophagus repaired.
I am also here to speak about juries not being bastions of infallibility. The treatment of the jury that I experienced was one of attrition. In particular, the foreman came out at one point and asked the judge, “If she’d been raped so many times, why did she not leave earlier?”
I would also like to talk about the treatment of victims while they are on the stand. During cross-examination, I experienced pervasive and repeated use of rape myths and stereotypes in a way to deliberately mislead the jury against me.
Dr Mullan
I am really sorry for the experiences that you have had, and certainly for any role that we played in government in not better addressing these delays and the challenges that you faced. The consequences of that are really powerfully illustrated by the things that you have talked about, so thank you for sharing that. I really hear all the evidence that you have given.
Sarah Sackman
Q
Charlotte, I wanted to pick up on something that you said. You talked about transparency and about the benefit that the recording of proceedings in the magistrates court would have. We are committed, as part of these reforms, to recording all proceedings in the magistrates court. Can you describe and explain what difference you think that might have made in cases like yours?
Charlotte Meijer: Definitely. After I gave my evidence in my trial, I left. The gallery was not somewhere I could sit safely. It was a tiny bench. His best mate and his sister were sat there, so I could not really go and sit between them.
I had said to the CPS and the police that I might want to come and hear the verdict. I was not given that opportunity, unfortunately. I got a call from my independent sexual violence adviser to say that the verdict had been made and that he was found not guilty. From that day, I really wanted to understand what had happened. For me, it was a very clearcut case of coercive control. I cannot go into too much detail, because he was found not guilty, but there was a huge age difference and there was a power imbalance and so forth, so I never understood how he was found not guilty.
The judge also made some comments. She said that, because I waited eight months to report, I was unreliable, and that I had clearly spoken to other victims of domestic abuse, so I knew what to say. Those comments really stuck by me. For my healing, and for me to be able to move on, I just needed to understand what was said in court, so I went to ask for the transcripts, of which of course in the magistrates courts there are none. It is definitely twofold: I wanted to understand what happened for my healing, but I also still want to hold that judge to account, because the things she said are not true and should not be said by someone who should be in a position of power and education.
I also think there is an important argument to be made around transparency, because people do not feel that the system is transparent—and to be fair, if it is not recorded, it is not. If you cannot sit in the gallery, if no one can watch and if there are no transcripts, then it is not. It is important to have the ability to record everything so that people can listen back, whether that is for their healing or for their understanding, or to hold people to account. We need to be able to hold people who are in power to account.
Sarah Sackman
Q
As you have heard from previous witnesses, the primary thrust behind the Government’s measures in the Bill is to address the unacceptable delays that you have all described. However, we also have a responsibility to build back a better system. One choice that the Government made was to remove the right to elect, so that it is the court that allocates cases to the appropriate venue. We think that that makes things quicker and more efficient, but there is also a normative idea behind it that it is the court that should triage cases; you mentioned that in your remarks, Charlotte. What is your view on that reform? From a victim’s perspective, do you see sense in it, or not?
Charlotte Meijer: Definitely. Throughout the system, the victim is always on the back foot. You get told a day later—or, depending on the service that you receive, two days, three days, four days or a month later—what has gone on, but the perpetrator always knows exactly what goes on, because they have to be present and able to make decisions. Why is the perpetrator the one who can make these decisions? It makes it feel like they are in control, and that, as a victim, you are running behind to catch up.
That was exactly the case for me when I found out that he had selected a court. All of a sudden, I got a call to say, “Your perpetrator has picked a magistrates court, so that is now what will happen.” I had no choice in it. I had already had no choice for three years when he was controlling me; I had no choice for three years when he was raping me; and now I had no choice for two and a half or three years when I was in the system.
Jess Brown-Fuller
Q
Farah Nazeer: Thank you for the question. There are a few things around presumption that could make a big difference. One is training for the entirety of the court staff, because the stories that we hear and the experiences that we support women and children through are frankly appalling. The staff are not trauma-informed and there is no understanding of what a victim is going through. The courts are weaponised and survivors are brought back to the courts repeatedly. It is an appalling process. No policy area that you work on at Women’s Aid is a picnic, but this is the worst. People describe the trauma that they go through in the family courts as worse than the trauma that they endured through the abuse that they experienced.
One thing is for the court system to understand domestic abuse, understand sexual violence, understand coercive control and be trauma-informed. That means having processes in which a survivor knows what is happening, understands what the next steps are and is supported through the system, and having separate places where a survivor can be. Some of it is quite basic, but it is really important to improving the survivor experience.
Another thing is the regulation of experts. We often have unregulated experts coming into the family courts to provide expertise and advice to the judge on what is happening in a relationship. You would not have unregulated experts in any safeguarding context; it is absolutely wild that you would have that. One thing we really want to see is regulated experts: psychiatrists and psychologists who are regulated by the appropriate body, rather than, seemingly, people who are just not.
The last thing that I want to focus on is the concept of parental alienation, which is often invoked in family courts. It is a concept that is not evidenced and is not recognised in psychiatric or medical practice, but it is often invoked as a concept to defend against claims of domestic abuse. What needs to happen is a child’s safety being put at the heart of the decision by a regulated expert, by a trained judge. If you get that right, you immediately improve the experience for survivors and children, and you improve the safeguarding around survivors and children. Those three things are absolutely critical to changing the culture and the experience and to ensuring safety.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
Q
Morwenna Loughman: Absolutely. One thing that kept me going—I was so close to pulling out multiple times—was that I had this sense that he had done it before. In fact, what I was later told—it was not admissible, but under the Bill it would become admissible—was that he had broken his ex-partner’s leg repeatedly and raped her as well. His defence barrister stood in front of the judge, the jury and me, and said, “This man has never hurt a woman.” Given that this man was out on bail and repeatedly breaching his bail conditions, brutal is the word. I cannot overstate the impact that that has on victims. It was devastating. I did not look people in the eye for two years. I wore a hat everywhere I went so I could hide my face, because he could have been anywhere. I had to move out of my home. My home became a crime scene. I lost my job. It was daily torture. I echo what Natalie Fleet said the other week in the House of Commons: that the one thing worse than being raped is waiting four years or more to hear if people actually believe you.
Rebecca Paul
Q
We have focused a lot on jury trials, but there is a real opportunity here to think about what we need to deliver improvements in our judicial system, because the thing we all agree on here is that it is not working as it should. We might disagree on the best way to address that, but we do agree on the fact that change is needed in some form. What would you like to see in this Bill that is not there? What is needed to address some of the issues? Any of you who want to answer, please feel free to take the question.
Jade Blue McCrossen-Nethercott: It is a very big question. It is tricky, because I do not think that we can really ask for perfection; we are very much asking for a system that is bearable and has a bit of credibility about it. That just has to be centred, with lived experience at the forefront. So often, many victims, myself included, have said that it feels like it has gone so far to the defence side that it is no longer a justice balance. It has flipped so much on that side that I really want to urge you to consider that aspect: that it feels like the balance has gone in favour of the defence, essentially. In any decisions that you make about the Bill, just consider rebalancing that and ensuring that victims’ voices are centred in the decision-making process. If increasing magistrates to the three-year limit reduces the delays by even a small percentage, that can only be a positive thing. All those smaller elements will eventually snowball into more meaningful change across the entire sector. I could ramble on, so I will let someone else have a go.
Charlotte Meijer: I guess the other thing to add, which has been discussed a few times already, is the training of judges and magistrates. We have to find a way to do that—you would not let an untrained teacher into a school—because they are making decisions that mean life or death. After my not guilty verdict, I tried to kill myself, because nobody believed me, clearly. There is a huge impact. Things do need to change.
As I mentioned, I was a victim of rape. The rape did not go to court, because of many mistakes. The police offered to reinvestigate and I declined, because I knew what I would be going into and I did not want to go into that again, as it stands. A lot of that is about not just the courts, but the process leading up to it: the police and the CPS, and making sure that the police, the CPS and the courts are working together, which at the moment they are not. I am going through a three-year complaints process with the police, and they just blame each other. There needs to be accountability from start to end, because, while the Government have many different institutions that you deal with as a victim, you do not always understand it. You should not have to. I should not have to know that the CPS needs to do this and the police need to do that. It should be me coming in and other people understanding that journey for me and holding them to account.
There are no consequences if the victims’ rights we have at the moment are not adhered to. I was failed on at least seven points of the victims’ rights, but there is nothing that anyone can do. It has gone up to the ombudsman, and they said, “Yes, they failed”—great.
Matt Bishop
Q
Morwenna Loughman: I did not actually know that it was the defendant’s right to elect where their trial was heard, and that was a real shock to me. I echo what these extraordinary women on my right have said: it feels like a system that has been weighted against you, and there is no doubt that defendants are gaming the system. As it stands, I would absolutely not recommend this system to someone who finds themselves in my position.
I also agree with what Sir Brian Leveson said. A cultural reform needs to take place, because we are way past the mark of funding being enough. It needs a systemic, systematic, fundamental paradigm shift in how the system is run.
Jess Brown-Fuller
Q
There is an amendment that is going to the House of Commons today that is specifically about bail decisions and the route to verdict that juries are presented with before they go away to deliberate. Do you agree that sentencing remarks are only part of the journey that we need to be on, and that we need to be quite ambitious in ensuring victims have all the evidence in their own case, so they can start to move on and process?
Charlotte Meijer: Yes, absolutely. My campaign for all transcripts to be made available very quickly was shut down, so I have gone for little bits at a time. Sentencing remarks are an amazing change. At first, that was just for rape victims; now it is for all victims, which is great. However, if we look at RASSO cases, only 2% get a guilty verdict, so only 2% will get the free sentencing remarks. There needs to be something for the 98%.
The next thing that I have been campaigning for is the judge’s summing up, now the route to verdict, which is incredibly important. I am a not guilty verdict case, so I would not get my sentencing remarks either. It is about being able to understand. If we take that further, I believe the whole case should be available free, as it is in many other countries, or for a couple of pounds in administration costs. If we are taking it a bit at a time, the next bit would be, as you say, bail conditions and the route to verdict, to understand how someone got to that decision. That is all to aid people to understand what happened and process it a little better.
Amanda Hack
Q
Jade Blue McCrossen-Nethercott: I guess there is the hope of fewer adjournments and fewer last-minute changes, which we hear about quite a lot. Any measure that could increase capacity for these kinds of cases is a measure we could get behind. Just having that—being able to plan your life and have reassurances that it will be going ahead—is important.
In the past, one of us mentioned floating trials for rape cases, which is, quite frankly, just absurd. Being able to have dedicated time to ensure that these cases do not become floating trials and that there is capacity for them to be seen in a prompt and timely manner would be welcome.
Morwenna Loughman: The first time my trial was listed, unbeknown to me and the rest of my family, it was listed as a floating trial, which means that two or more cases—in this instance, rape cases—are scheduled for the same time, on the same date and in the same court, on the assumption that at least two of you will drop over the course because it is so harrowing and re-traumatising. That is why mine got delayed right at the last minute.
We have talked a lot about the education of judges, which is absolutely essential, but we must also consider the education of juries. As I have said, they are not bastions of infallibility. The man who raped me was convicted. He was found guilty, but not unanimously. He was sentenced to 15 years, which gives an indication as to the level of injury that I sustained.
Two members of the jury found him not guilty and acquitted him of all charges. It was a majority vote; there was no unanimity, and it took them three and a half days to deliberate, even though I had received 48 injuries and he was arrested on the scene. I could go on about the extenuating circumstances. In every sense, how did it take them three and a half days to not even conclusively decide that this man had raped me?
Charlotte Meijer: I will add to that. The removal in the Bill of the defendant’s right to elect will make the victim feel empowered, knowing that the perpetrator is not in control. As I have said, there is the recording of magistrates courts, and the Bill is our hope that the waiting time will go down. That is the core reason why we are doing this. The system cannot get any worse than it is, so the waiting going down will be a significant change.
Joe Robertson
Q
I turn specifically to the removal of the presumption that a child should have involvement from both parents. What do you say to the overwhelming body of evidence that for most children—not all, but most—it is in their best interests to have some contact with both parents?
Farah Nazeer: The point is about abusive relationships. If the court is set up to look at the welfare of the child primarily, if there is not a history of abuse or domestic abuse in that setting, that will invariably be the outcome. This is to protect those cases where there is abuse within the context of the relationship, so it is not a case of one thing or another thing; it clears the path so a court can look objectively at whether or not there is a safeguarding issue there for the child without the burden of the presumption of contact. You start with the welfare of the child.
Joe Robertson
Q
“the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration.”
That is already there. Section 1(3)(e) says that the court must have regard to harm that a child
“has suffered or is at risk of suffering”.
Those two provisions will instantly knock out any presumption that it is in the child’s best interest to have some involvement—that does not even mean contact—of both parents. I am just trying to understand why you think this change is needed, given that those provisions are already in the law.
Farah Nazeer: Primarily because those provisions have not saved the lives of the 63 children who have died since Women’s Aid has been working on this. In spite of known abuse, the court has granted unsafe contact, primarily to abusive fathers, and those children have died as a result.
Last year we published a report called “Nineteen More Child Homicides”. Those child homicides were as a result of known perpetrators having unsafe child contact in spite of the court hearing about abuse by those fathers, predominantly—18 were fathers, one was a mother—who then murdered their children. The previous report some four years before also saw 19 children murdered in exactly the same set of circumstances. The report before that saw significantly more children murdered. What this does is set a very clear bar that you start with the welfare of the child. This is a response to the failure of that culture. That is why it is so important.
Joe Robertson
Q
Farah Nazeer: Absolutely. The presumption is a really important first step because without the presumption, we will automatically default to the status quo. That is where the training and an understanding of domestic abuse and coercive control come in. As you can hear, we are not in a situation where safeguarding is applied consistently or domestic abuse or sexual violence are understood consistently. That is where the mandatory training piece has to come in to accompany the change to the law.
Linsey Farnsworth
Q
As a former Crown prosecutor, one aspect of the criminal justice system that concerned me was the appeals process from the magistrates court to the Crown court. As you all know, if somebody is convicted in the magistrates court, they have an automatic right to a retrial at the Crown court without having to give any reasons, regardless of whether there was a fair trial in the magistrates court or otherwise. If the victims and witnesses want to continue the process, they have to give evidence all over again through that appeal, otherwise the appeal is successful.
The Bill seeks to get rid of that automatic right and put the process more in line with the Crown court appeals process. There will have to be grounds to suggest that the original trial was unfair. As victims and survivors who have had access to the criminal justice system, what is your view on the current system of retrials and appeals from the magistrates court in terms of fairness to victims and the likelihood of victims attending to give evidence and being re-traumatised? I am also interested in whether the automatic right to appeal and have a retrial is used as coercive control in the current justice system. There is a lot to unpack there, I grant you.
Charlotte Meijer: There are a lot of questions there. From my experience, we will never know whether my perpetrator picked a magistrates court because he knew that, if he was found guilty, he could have then dragged me on to a Crown court case—we do not know.
It is absolutely terrifying because, as we all know, going through a trial for the first time is horrific—it is something that I never want to do in my life again. I had the ability to go to court again for rape, and I declined it; if there had been an appeal and I had to go again to a Crown court, I probably would have dropped out. It is not something that I would want to experience twice.
There is also a really interesting thing there. What does that say about our magistrates courts? Are we basically saying that they cannot do what they should be doing? I think that changing the system strengthens the trials and credibility of magistrates courts—they should be credible, given that 90% of cases go there. It also shows that it is the final choice; the decision will be made there, unless more evidence comes forward.
On what you said about fairness to the victim, there is obviously no right to appeal for a victim if there is a not guilty verdict. I know there is a tiny bit of legislation to say that, if there is a huge amount of new evidence, they could reopen a case. However, that barely happens. You are basically told no, so how come a perpetrator can just appeal without any reason? From victims’ perspectives, and from my perspective, it is an absolute no-brainer.
Paulette Hamilton
Q
Farah Nazeer: I think the repeal of the presumption is the cornerstone, because that gives the foundation on which the other measures rest. I think the first thing is mandatory training so that there is real understanding of coercive control and domestic abuse. I still speak to survivors daily who tell us that judges are saying, “Well, why didn’t you leave earlier? If it was that bad, why are you still there?” There is a real lack of understanding of coercive control, economic abuse and how coercive control can manifest in multiple different ways—the isolation, the withdrawal of technology and all the many things that make it impossible to leave. I think that mandatory training is really important.
The training also has to include a real understanding of the barriers that survivors face, particularly those with minoritised backgrounds, such as black women, women from minority backgrounds, deaf and disabled women and LGBTQ+ constituents. They face additional barriers and challenges in accessing justice, as well as in accessing empathy and understanding of their particular situations, which might have cultural implications, or mean different things in the domestic abuse context. We need really comprehensive training and understanding.
We also need unevidenced concepts like parental alienation to be banned from family courts, and we need actual regulated professionals—if they need to be brought in—to advise courts and judges in a way that the system and survivors can have confidence in. Right now, this is inconsistent and, in some cases, outright dangerous, as we can see from the many reports we have produced at Women’s Aid. I would say that those are the three most important things to ensure that we have a safe system.
The other piece that perhaps sits outside the provisions of the Bill is the specialist domestic abuse and sexual violence services that need to be there to support survivors through either the family court processes or the criminal court processes. Unless you have someone supporting survivors through those processes, they can be brutal. It is very hard to sustain the energy and commitment to return to those settings, time after time.
You build yourself up, as my fellow panellists have said, and then you are let down again. The experiences themselves are also deeply distressing. Without those specialist services there to support survivors, justice will not happen either way. It is really important that there is a recognition that specialist services are pivotal to ensuring that justice happens.
The Chair
I know that Kieran and Jess wanted to come back in. Kieran Mullan first—briefly, please.
Dr Mullan
Q
Morwenna Loughman: I was aware of it. He is actually appealing the length of sentence at the moment, but has not yet been granted leave to do so.
Dr Mullan
Q
Obviously, an increased sentencing length means that someone could be sentenced for three years in a magistrates court, without a right to appeal that sentence. This question is to all three of you. Do you think it is important to ensure that, even if we increase sentence lengths in the magistrates court, victims have the opportunity, in certain circumstances, to appeal sentences that they think are unduly lenient?
Charlotte Meijer: Yes.
Jade Blue McCrossen-Nethercott: Straight and to the point: yes.
Jess Brown-Fuller
Q
Morwenna Loughman: Yes.
Jess Brown-Fuller
You also spoke about the concept of floating cases. Were you told beforehand that your case had been listed as a floating case? The reason I ask is that the legislation does not address how many adjournments we have. There is no mechanism in the legislation—I am happy to be corrected by the Minister—to address how often cases are adjourned. Listing officers will continue to list floating cases because they know that so many victims drop out of the process, or the CPS comes back and says that it does not have enough evidence to convict, and so on.
Did you have an ISVA supporting you through the process? Were you communicated with well enough? Did you know that your case could fall at that final hurdle? The most important thing is what victims such as yourselves would like to see from that process to understand that your cases could get adjourned, were they listed as floating cases.
Morwenna Loughman: I was never told that that was a possibility. Again, that fundamental lack of understanding points to a system weighted against the victim and against the complainant. You are hermetically sealed off from a system that has been designed to dismiss and re-silence you because there is this sense that you need help, or might seek help, and to be told what to say on the stand. I would not have been there for any reason other than that I had been raped, but there was this sense that I needed to be kept at arm’s length from the system. If this Bill can change how the whole justice process is seen, that is absolutely what we should be fighting for.
Sarah Sackman
Q
Alex McIntyre
Q
As victim-survivors, how would you feel if the Government adopted the Opposition’s proposal, which is to only do two of those three things and leave one on the table that might speed up the delays in the criminal justice system? Do you think the Government would be going far enough if they left options on the table?
The Chair
Last word, witnesses—over to you.
Jade Blue McCrossen-Nethercott: I think we need to go full force. Now is the time for change. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to—I am not going to swear—get stuff done. If we do not do it now, it would be a missed opportunity. It is about centring lived experience: all these rippling changes being put forward will have trickling effects on the wider justice system, including support services. Centring victims’ voices in that is pivotal.
Charlotte Meijer: Agreed.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of our session. My task is a very pleasant one: to thank you. Thank you so much for coming. Your evidence has been invaluable to this Committee and really worth while. I will just add this. As Members of Parliament, we meet all kinds of constituents with the most life-changing challenges who face up to the most dreadful and awful things. Sometimes those people turn that to something positive, and that is what you have done. Thank you so much for coming today.
That brings us to the end of our morning session—
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chair
Hang on a minute! The Opposition are getting on the wrong side of me; that is very dangerous. That brings us to the end of our session. We will meet again at 2 pm this afternoon here in the Boothroyd Room.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Stephen Morgan.)
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
Voluntary Groups and Community Centres
(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
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for voluntary groups and community centres.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate, because voluntary organisations and community centres are central to our public life. I should declare that I am a trustee of the Sands End Arts and Community Centre in Fulham in my constituency. Community centres are the places people turn to when they need help, connection or simply somewhere to belong. Today, I would like to make the case that they deserve far greater recognition, protection and investment than they currently receive. I know that many colleagues are here today to celebrate the remarkable work that community centres are doing right across the country and how they go above and beyond for so many people, providing vital services that might simply otherwise not exist and that can be transformative for people’s lives.
Community centres can be described as the backbone of our local social infrastructure; by supporting vulnerable residents and preventing crises before they escalate, they relieve pressures on overstretched statutory services. They are the places where people go for affordable advice, for skills, for culture and simply for companionship, yet many are operating under intense and growing financial pressure that threatens their very existence. The gap between what is needed and what is provided is simply far too wide.
It is important to recognise that the Government have taken meaningful steps to improve the situation, for which I am grateful. Through the Pride in Place programme, for example, real investment is now flowing into local regeneration, putting power in the hands of residents and communities to shape the future of their areas.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech on the contribution that community centres make to our communities. Will he join me in commending Farnley Community Centre, which is putting on an Easter parade and giving out not only chocolate eggs to local residents, but applications for the neighbourhood board to spend our Pride in Place money? Is that not a great example of how innovative residents can be through community centres?
Ben Coleman
It is indeed, and I am grateful for the opportunity to recognise Farnley Community Centre, which is being innovative in encouraging people not only to get their egg, but to take part in a community discussion about how to spend the money that this Government have made available across the country to boost communities—that is an excellent idea.
Besides the Pride in Place programme, which Farnley Community Centre is so cleverly making use of and involving its community in, the replacement of the old right to bid with the strengthened community right to buy is very welcome. It will give local groups a genuine first right of refusal over assets of community value and help communities to hold on to the spaces that matter most to them. The Government also launched the civil society covenant in October 2025, which signals a renewed commitment to partnership and collaboration with the sector. High street rental auctions are helping to bring vacant properties back into use, turning empty units into attractive spaces for community life.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that for those places that have not yet had Pride in Place funding, bodies such as the National Lottery Community Fund, Sport England, the Arts Council and the National Lottery Heritage Fund are also great sources of funding and could be encouraged to do things in a simpler way? In Cornwall, our town councils are growing and taking on more responsibilities, as the unitary has shed them during austerity. Does he agree that town councils have had a really big role to play in helping communities and community centres?
Ben Coleman
Again, that is an excellent point from my hon. Friend. There is everything to be gained from local authorities looking at the plethora of support available to them, and equally from those providing support—whether it is Sport England, Arts Council or Heritage Lottery funding—being as simple as possible in enabling local authorities and organisations to make applications. I do not think anyone would have any objection to the red tape being reduced in any of these areas.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. Is it not the case that our community and voluntary organisations provide essential services in areas that Government simply cannot reach effectively? In my own constituency, we have the examples of uHub, Bangor food bank, and local community groups from working-class areas. Does the hon. Member agree that such groups must be recognised for the vital role they play in our community and properly supported?
Ben Coleman
I absolutely do, and I am sure the food bank and community groups in the hon. Member’s community welcome his support. That is absolutely in line with what I am saying—these are essential parts of our community. We have two food banks in my own constituency. It is a crying shame that food banks have now become part of the British way of life; if we look back to more than 14 years ago, there were hardly any in this country. It is an absolute indictment that that should be the case, but the fact that the hon. Member’s food bank is doing so well and supporting people has to be welcomed. The Government have taken hugely welcome steps, but I suppose one could say that they are still first steps, great steps though they are. We need to do so much more to repair the damage caused by years of funding cuts, set against a sharp rise in demand—they go together, sadly.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. On the point of under-investment over many years, he is making a really good case that community centres are places that bring people together and get them active and talking, resulting in improvements in mental and physical wellbeing. My constituency has some great facilities, including Greenhithe and Joydens Wood community centres and Bean village hall. However, the much-loved Swanscombe pavilion has closed and been left dormant, in dire need of investment, leaving a community without an important place to bring people together. Does my hon. Friend agree that local facilities are vital, and that we need long-term, patient investment to make them the community centres and centres of our local life that they can be?
Ben Coleman
I absolutely agree. I am sure that my hon. Friend has fought hard for the Swanscombe pavilion, and it is a great shame that it has closed. I am going to explore the reasons why these things happen in just a minute, but sometimes one thinks that local authorities could be a bit sharper in how they do things and understand the challenges facing us. Some of them are less competent than others—I have no idea whether that is the case in my hon. Friend’s part of the world, but I am sure he is fighting for his local centre.
In a sense, my hon. Friend’s intervention brings me to my next point about the situation not just in his constituency, but right across England. The financial position of community centres across England is stark: net spending on community centres and public halls has fallen by 38% in real terms since 2009, which is a profound erosion of the infrastructure that sustains the life of our communities. I am grateful to the House of Commons Library for providing me with that figure. The Ethical Property Foundation recently ran a survey, talking to community centres and local areas across the country about what was going on, and it has identified five interconnected challenges facing community centres. I think it is worth sharing them, because in the challenges lies the solution.
The first is the insecurity that exists around leasing—the single greatest threat to the sector that the Ethical Property Foundation has identified. Over half of community organisations expect to face lease-related difficulties in the future, because too many are operating on short leases. They have break clauses, unpredictable rent increases, and full repair obligations passed on to them without adequate support. That combination is not simply difficult for them to deal with; it is highly destabilising. Without security of tenure, organisations cannot plan, fundraise effectively or invest in the buildings their communities depend on. We have to realise that many of these organisations are not trying to grow—they are simply trying to stay in the buildings that they already occupy.
That leads me to the second challenge identified, which is access to capital funding. Community centres report that securing capital investment is incredibly difficult—success rates can be as low as one in 20 applications, and the administrative burden is considerable. The most significant barrier is often the lease itself, because many funders require between 15 and 25 years of tenure security before they will invest, and if that does not exist, the organisation does not get the investment. Without that, organisations are effectively locked out of the funding they need to repair, upgrade, or simply make safe their buildings.
The third challenge is the condition of the buildings themselves. Many community centres operate out of ageing, poorly maintained premises. The research by the Ethical Property Foundation shows that 58% of organisations expect difficulties manging their buildings in the coming year. That is driven by rising maintenance costs and a lack of specialist expertise. I have seen at first hand in my constituency that trustees and volunteers are being asked to act as de facto property managers, but they often do not have the skills or support required. That is not sustainable or fair, and it carries a real risk to the communities that these buildings serve.
The fourth challenge is landlord practices and local authority procedures—too often, local authorities compound these difficulties. They include short-term tenancies, delayed decisions, regeneration schemes that leave organisations in limbo and, in some cases, sudden evictions or unaffordable cost increases. The ability to evict a community organisation with minimal notice is an extraordinary power, and it should be exercised carefully, and not without clear criteria, proper justification and meaningful protections for the communities affected.
In the Chelsea part of my constituency, we have a charity called St Mary Abbots Rehabilitation and Training, or SMART for short. Since 1985, it has operated a warm and welcoming centre, supporting people affected by mental illness on their recovery journey. It offers a range of activities and training opportunities, and a popular café. Last summer, the council locked the SMART centre out of its premises without warning and put a dirty great padlock on the gate. There was no alternative provision, nor did the council offer any proper support. It talked about safety grounds, but serious questions remain about the evidence, the timelines and the mitigation offered. Addressing all that was an uphill struggle for SMART, and it felt as though it was in danger of going under. Although a temporary solution was eventually found and reimbursement was agreed in principle, that came only after a prolonged and damaging process during which services were disrupted and vulnerable people were left without support. That should not have happened—it did not need to happen.
Of course, for every bad example, there are many examples across the country of excellent partnership working between community centres and local authorities. That said, the baseline must be raised. Risk should not be transferred to community organisations without the security that they need to manage it.
That brings me to the fifth and final challenge identified by the Ethical Property Foundation—
Ben Coleman
Well, it is important to set these things out clearly. Underpinning all these things is the absence of a national framework. There is currently no consistent guidance for local authorities on how to support community centres that are managing publicly owned buildings. There are no clear standards on tenancy practices. There is nothing to help the charities do the job that the community needs them to do.
Community centres need longer, more secure leases and fair tenancy practices as the baseline, not as an exception. They need accessible capital funding with processes proportionate to the size and capacity of the organisations applying. They need expert legal, technical and professional support to manage buildings effectively, and a national framework that treats community centres as essential public infrastructure, not as commercial tenants to be managed at arm’s length.
I have three requests for the Minister, each of which is, I hope, practical, achievable and capable of making a real difference to community centres across the country—and may I say how much I appreciate the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) to hear them? First, will the Department for Culture, Media and Sport issue clear guidance to local authorities on the support that should be provided to voluntary organisations managing council buildings, covering both tenancy agreements and day-to-day property management? Too many groups are navigating those responsibilities without any consistent framework to fall back on. That must change.
Secondly, will the Department provide guidance on the circumstances in which a local authority acting as a landlord may issue insecure tenancies or tenancies at will? Thirdly and finally, will the Department publish guidance on the rationale and circumstances under which local authorities may remove community buildings? Communities deserve transparency when spaces that have served them for years are suddenly at risk of closure or disposal. Without clear criteria and a duty to justify such decisions, too many closures happen without scrutiny—as has taken place in my community—and too many communities are left without resource.
These targeted, proportionate requests for guidance and transparency would provide a foundation for a much more consistent, fairer approach to community infrastructure across England. Community centres across our country are a local gem—there is nothing else like them in our areas—and people’s lives are all the richer for them. The Government have the opportunity to give them the boost they need, and I hope they will seize it with both hands.
Several hon. Members rose—
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. We will come to the Front Bench spokespeople just before 10.30 am.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) for the opportunity to raise the invaluable work carried out by the voluntary sector in Northern Ireland and my constituency. I have a question not related to the debate: as the MP for Chelsea and Fulham, which team does he support?
I am thrilled to see the Minister in her place, as we all are. We always look forward to her helpful answers, and we thank her in advance. I also welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), and say well done to the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), who led the debate at 4.30 pm yesterday and is back this morning at 9.30 am.
I always maintain that the people of Northern Ireland are the most charitable, not just in financial giving per capita, but in giving their time and love. I say that honestly and sincerely, having lived in the Ards for all but four years of my life, which gives me a fair notion of how the people are. There is a reason we have the highest number of kinship placements in the UK and why we are world-renowned for our big heart.
I think about some of the things that have shaped us. We do not look back with fondness at the troubles of 30-plus years, but they shaped us in the way we look forward. Having been shaped by our past makes us think of the future we would like to see. That has given us the compassionate spirit to pull together as a community in difficult times. When I see people borrowing church halls to provide Christmas dinners on Christmas day, for example, hear of community volunteers handing out hygiene packs to elderly people in the pandemic, or see children enjoying free classes in local community groups, I know that the community is alive and well in the Ards and Strangford.
Mr Gregory Campbell
Does my hon. Friend agree that community centres across the UK step up when Governments do not intervene? There was an example in my constituency just last week. A community group stepped in to host a careers event for local schools because the community was under-represented in a public sector body. Next month, another group in Coleraine is doing likewise. Those are the vital functions that community centres and groups offer across the whole country.
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; it summed up the point I was trying to make about my constituency of Strangford, which is also true of my hon. Friend’s constituency of East Londonderry and all of Northern Ireland, where the community spirit lives and thrives.
In 2024-25, just under 46% of adults in Northern Ireland volunteered formally or informally. If those figures do not tell us about the people of Northern Ireland, nothing will. Those who formally volunteer in Northern Ireland frequently offer high levels of commitment, with 23% volunteering for eight to 16 hours in a four-week period. The average church volunteer in Northern Ireland contributes approximately 13 hours a month. Church and faith-based organisations are the most common type of volunteering in the region, with some 39% of all volunteers identifying that as their primary sector. For a medium-sized church with roughly 120 adults, for example, the annual value of volunteer time is estimated at just under £250,000.
I know that Northern Ireland is very much a faith-based country. We attend our churches and we worship our God in the way He indicates us to do. Through faith-based voluntary groups, the savings for the community, Government, councils and the Northern Ireland Assembly are significant. I look at the churches that put on the Boys’ Brigade, the Brownies and the Campaigners, and see the sheer volume of volunteer hours in place to provide children with a safe place to learn new skills and share in the love of God.
None of those community groups or churches is looking for a pat on the back. They are offering a service; they are doing something above and beyond what people need them to do—but they do it. They are not seeking any form of recognition for giving up their weekends to provide children and teenagers with somewhere safe to meet their friends and hang out. They do, however, need some support to keep the lights on.
I said I was pleased to see the Minister in her place; I know she has absolutely no responsibility for Northern Ireland, so I do not expect her to say what is going to happen there. I just ask that we try to work together across the United Kingdom to help each other. That is what I look for from most debates. We have things back home—our volunteer spirit is one example, with 46% of adults doing volunteer work—that I believe come off the back of our faith.
I am coming to an end, because I am conscious of others who want to speak. With the cost of energy rising, even those groups that are blessed to have their own facilities need more support to provide, not an all-singing, all-dancing programme—although I know they would like to—but warmth, light and insurance. That is where Government need to step in in a helpful way. The hoops that volunteers and churches have to jump through to receive a small amount of funding are sometimes off-putting. Those processes must be simplified and made easier to access.
In this energy crisis, we look to the Minister to consider provision of additional support for the voluntary sector to keep the lights on, keep the elderly and our kids safe, and keep the community knitted together. All that money—every penny—will be well spent.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) for securing this important debate. I have previously served as a trustee of small charities managing buildings, and I know the challenges faced by staff and trustees. In my constituency there are good examples of that situation, with the buildings at Slade Green and St Michael’s in Welling being owned by the council but run by trustees.
Across Bexleyheath and Crayford, we have a number of dedicated voluntary groups and charities that support communities and residents. For many they are a lifeline; they offer safe spaces for young people, allowing them to experience art, music and a variety of other services that schools and mainstream education do not always allow. They host family support services, run food banks and provide warm spaces during the winter, to name just a few things. But many voluntary groups and charities do not have a dedicated space, such as a community centre, that they can use to deliver their services to the community.
Over the last year I have been supporting a number of groups struggling with property issues. The 1st Erith Scouts group, based in Cheviot Close in Barnehurst, currently faces uncertainty, as the housing association that owns its land has submitted a planning application for housing with no planned replacement building for it. The 16th Erith Scouts group, based in Hurlingham Road in Bexleyheath, has been advised by the church that it plans to sell the land on which the hut is located. Those cases highlight the issues faced by voluntary groups, which need to protect and secure their own buildings in such situations.
Sendtivate is a group based in the constituency of the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), but it serves residents in both of our constituencies across the London borough of Bexley by supporting disabled children within the boundaries of the local authority. Sendtivate remains concerned as it has been informed that our local authority in Bexley will be disposing of the building it operates from, but there remains no long-term solution as to where it will be relocated.
One issue consistently raised with me relates to the future of the Parkside community centre site in Barnehurst. Our Conservative-controlled council in the London borough of Bexley had a lease arrangement where it allowed a charity to lease and manage the building, supporting a day nursery that my own children attended, a Brownies group, music groups and a fitness group, as well as being a hub for party hire and other activities. However, it appears the council’s condition survey of the building was a visual inspection and did not involve any intrusive inspections. It was then discovered, just over 18 months ago, that the roof was unsafe. The council, fearing the building would collapse, demolished the whole building.
I have been gobsmacked by the council’s position regarding the future of the site. Following representations from constituents, I contacted the council about the site’s future. The council’s position is that it will support the building of a new centre and will either lease or sell the site to the community group, but the group must fully fund the building of the new centre itself.
I am grateful to the 116 Barnehurst residents who completed my survey, which highlighted that 70% of respondents were unaware of the council’s plans not to directly build a new centre on the site; 85% of respondents’ households have previously used the centre; and 89% of respondents believe the council itself should build a new centre, rather than rely on a community group to fund the cost. We do not now have a local community centre in Barnehurst; residents have to drive to Slade Green and other centres, or attempt to find space in church halls that are a considerable walk from the site.
I therefore second what my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham has said. It would be hugely useful for residents if guidance could be published for local authorities to ensure that community buildings are available across the entirety of the borough. If guidance relating to the relationship between the local authority and the charities existed, it would ensure that residents have access to a local centre or hub and could access the centres. I would welcome the Department publishing guidance on the rationale for the circumstances in which community buildings can be removed by local authorities, which would be beneficial in the case of Parkside.
Like my hon. Friend, I know the Ethical Property Foundation well—I have known it for many years. I have had meetings on many occasions and have taken advice from it. It is a valuable organisation in the sector and gives advice to charities. I know it is concerned about tenancies at will and the position that they put groups in: it has seen in recent years that tenancies at will have become increasingly popular with local authorities, which results in voluntary groups and charities being given unstable tenancies.
Such tenancies offer flexibility on paper, but in reality they often create uncertainty for thousands of small voluntary groups and charities. Under a tenancy at will, groups can be asked to leave with little or no notice, as has been said. In many circumstances, charities are locked out without warning, resulting in activities being cancelled and voluntary groups unable to provide the services the communities rely on.
I therefore support my hon. Friend’s three asks, and I ask that guidance be published regarding tenancies and support. Doing so would mean that voluntary groups have increased agency over their future and are not left in the dark.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) for securing this vital debate on voluntary groups and community centres.
Supporting voluntary groups and community centres must include supporting how people actually get to them. In rural areas like mine, that means community transport, which is an essential service in rural Wales. It is what keeps voluntary groups and community centres going. It enables people to attend lunch clubs, reach community hubs, volunteer their time and stay connected to the places they live in. It is also vital for ensuring that people across Powys can reach their healthcare appointments. In towns and villages throughout Powys and the Swansea valley, people rely on those services every single day. Without them, many, particularly older residents, are simply cut off.
In my constituency, we are fortunate to have a network of dedicated, community-led schemes doing incredible work. Services such as Hay and district dial-a-ride, Rhayader and district dial-a-ride, Brecon and Crickhowell dial-a-ride and Llanwrtyd Wells community transport provide vital lifelines. Alongside them, organisations such as Steer community transport in the Swansea valley, Rhayader and district community support and the Ystradgynlais community car scheme help people remain independent and connected.
Those services are under real pressure. They are often volunteer led, operating on tight budgets and now facing rising fuel costs that they struggle to absorb. Unlike commercial operators, they cannot just increase the prices, because the people who rely on them often cannot afford it. Increasingly, they are asked to do more than just provide transport. As pressures on social care grow, community transport providers are stepping in to offer reassurance and informal support, and helping people navigate services, going well beyond their funded remit.
Demand for such services is rising, especially as public transport options reduce and more people face isolation, particularly in rural areas, but funding has not kept pace. In one local scheme alone, nearly 5,000 journeys were provided last year, covering more than 30,000 miles. Yet services are still being asked to do more with less, and the consequences are stark. If community transport begins to struggle, people do not just lose a lift; they lose access to their community, their support networks and, in many cases, their independence and ability to get to healthcare appointments.
We should recognise that many volunteer drivers use their own vehicles, and that current mileage rates do not fully reflect the real cost of fuel and maintenance, making it harder to recruit and retain the people the services depend on. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ mileage rate has not increased since 2011, and is set at 45p a mile. If we are serious about supporting voluntary groups and community centres, we must be serious about supporting the transport networks that make them viable. Clair Swales, the chief executive officer of PAVO—the Powys Association of Voluntary Organisations—told me of her real concerns about the future of such services if the mileage rate is not increased, particularly given the fuel shock we are experiencing at the moment.
We must recognise that community transport is essential infrastructure. It should not be an afterthought. Ensuring that it receives the support it needs to keep going is also important for making sure that our residents can receive healthcare treatment. Without it, our warm words about community support risk meaning very little in practice.
Finally, I pay tribute to the volunteers who keep these schemes running—quietly, selflessly and often without recognition. Without them, none of this would be possible.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey.
I approach this debate from a position of experience, because I have seen volunteering and community centres from many levels: user, volunteer, trustee, community councillor, local councillor and leader of Stirling council. I am not talking about community spaces in theory; I am speaking from the reality of trying to make them work.
First, if we are still thinking about community centres as we did in the 1960s and 1970s, we have already fallen behind. Too often, the model is a tired hall that is underused, expensive to maintain and slowly declining. I saw that myself as leader of Stirling council. One facility in my area was operating at about 8% capacity and heading towards closure. People chose not to use it, the building deteriorated and the cycle simply fed itself. That is what happens when we fail to maintain or adapt. This is not just about capital investment; it is about activity, purpose and making spaces that people actually want to use.
When we have been willing to think differently, we have seen what is possible. Take Braehead community garden in my constituency: what started as a project to grow fruit and vegetables and tackle food waste has become, in effect, an outdoor community centre covering about 2.5 acres. It brings people together, whether they are keen gardeners or, like me, they simply enjoy being there without doing much gardening at all.
Its success also shows that these spaces need ongoing support to be sustained. We see that same evolution in our libraries. Places such as Bannockburn, Cowie and my local library, the wonderful Mayfield centre, have moved far beyond books. They are now hubs for technology, innovation and community life, offering everything from digital access and flexible workspaces to makers’ spaces and shared resources that reflect how people live today.
We should apply that same thinking to community centres. There are strong examples of that in my constituency. Facilities such as Barrwood, run by the Scouts, combine a traditional indoor space with outdoor activity, woodland and even kayaking. That is what modern community infrastructure can look like. But here is the reality: innovation at local level can go only so far when the system above is holding it back. Speaking as a former council leader, local government in Scotland has been consistently constrained by the Scottish Government. Funding is tight, flexibility is limited and, too often, there is not just a lack of understanding but an element of disdain for what is happening on the ground.
We see the consequences of that in Bannockburn enterprise hub, a council-owned building repurposed to support enterprise and community use—exactly what we should be encouraging. Yet under the current SNP council in Stirling, staffing is being removed and replaced with a keyholder model. Issues are not being picked up, addressed or, frankly, taken seriously. That is not how community assets are sustained; it is how they are allowed to decline.
That brings me to a bigger point. We still treat these services as non-statutory, optional extras that can be cut when budgets are tight. They are not optional; they are preventive. They support wellbeing and hold communities together. Perhaps it is time that we said that clearly and acted on it. The role these spaces play in addressing issues of mental health, community cohesion and resilience could be formally recognised. These spaces are not an added extra; they are fundamental to the coherence of our communities, and that must be recognised across our public services—not just as a problem for local councils to patch and repair, but as a fundamental need that should be incorporated into the thinking of our health service, our planning system and our approach to wider community resilience.
We should be moving towards recognising community spaces, outdoor provision and voluntary sector partnerships as social statutory services, not ones we fund when we can but ones we prioritise because we understand their value. I say to the Minister: support local authorities to think differently, but also give them the flexibility, the backing and the respect to deliver. The traditional model for community centres often looks to a decaying past, not a thriving future. Sometimes, we have to find out where the centre of the community is and go there, rather than hope that the community feel grateful for the centre we tell them they can have. We should also ensure that public toilets are included in our thinking about essential community spaces.
Finally, I thank all the volunteers who keep not just our community centres but our communities running, including those I recently spoke to in Killearn at the wonderful Parkinson’s dance class. Perhaps unusually, I also thank our local authority workers for all they do for our communities. They are working under horrendously tight budgets, and they are doing a great job in very difficult circumstances. This Government are delivering positive change in so many areas; let us ensure that our community centres are not just surviving, but thriving.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) for securing this debate on a subject he is very passionate and knowledgeable about. He is a fellow bassoon player—I hope I am right in saying that—and music ensembles are another brilliant example of community groups. I also know that, like me, he supports the wider cause of music education, which could not take place easily without community spaces.
At the heart of every thriving community are its voluntary organisations. They are essential for fostering social cohesion and community spirit, and for enabling support and solidarity when people need it most. Across Great Britain, there are around 21,000 community centres and halls, and in 2022 we were home to 166,000 voluntary organisations. That is no accident. It reflects their importance and the undeniable need for the role they play in strengthening our communities. Voluntary organisations act as vital bridges between individuals, particularly those who may feel isolated or without strong family connections. The groups that people find at these local hubs can effectively become their family. The organisations also serve as a safety net, catching people who fall outside Government or other public support.
With over 1.8 million people currently on NHS mental health waiting lists, some community centres have stepped up to run suicide prevention projects and mental health peer support groups, filling gaps that statutory services cannot reach. However, because of decades of real-terms funding cuts, a cost of living squeeze on donations, rising operational costs and the Government’s decision to increase employer national insurance contributions without exempting voluntary organisations, pressure on these organisations has piled up. Community centres are vital for tackling the loneliness epidemic in our country, which is why the Liberal Democrats launched our plan to introduce a new wave of third spaces, called hobby hubs, to help to rebuild in-person connection. The initiative would support existing community spaces to expand the services they offer and reach even more people who need them.
In my constituency, I am fortunate to have many outstanding community services, but I want to highlight two in particular. The Hive in Peasedown St John is a powerful example of the vital support that community centres offer, including a community fridge, a citizens advice bureau, family support, financial guidance, a youth worker for local people and access to the Peasedown community library.
Another organisation, Southside, runs community hub groups across north-east Somerset, including a regular group that I visited in Writhlington last year. Its after-school sessions are run entirely by volunteers who entertain children with painting, dancing and outdoor activities, while parents are able to sit down with a cup of tea, something many have not had a chance to do all day. The groups create space for parents to discuss the challenges they are facing, and volunteers are trained to support those experiencing domestic abuse and refer parents to other services, if needed.
Centres such as The Hive and Southside face several key challenges. Securing funding is time-consuming and difficult. Leases are very tricky to negotiate, and I was happy to help The Hive with that issue. Buildings are costly to run and hard to maintain, and many centres operate in isolation without the networks or resources they need.
I will quickly depart from my speech to mention Volunteer It Yourself, which is so good that I am mentioning it even though it is not in my constituency. I was pleased to meet that organisation yesterday, and I was going to write to introduce it to the Minister, but I am glad to do it in person now. It is an excellent organisation that works around the country to identify community centres and places that are important to local communities, and it invites local young people who are not in employment, education or training to come along to refurbish them. Those spaces could be community centres or sports grounds, and Volunteer It Yourself is about to announce a project with the Music Venue Trust to refurbish music venues. That is a fantastic way of solving two problems: refurbishing places that may not otherwise be refurbished and getting young people into education and training. It has a live project in Deptford, which it invited me down to visit, and I would happily take a cross-party group of interested MPs for a couple of hours to see what those young people are up to.
The crisis facing voluntary and community organisations is severe, and we stand to lose the organisations that feed the hungry, support the isolated, counsel the bereaved and reach those in crisis when statutory services cannot. That is unacceptable. Community centres and voluntary groups are indispensable to the strength and resilience of our communities. I hope the Minister will encourage the Government to consider Lib Dem proposals to expand community events, reduce loneliness and protect these centres from closure so that they can continue their crucial work in fostering community cohesion.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms McVey. For transparency reasons, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and note that I am the honorary president of a local Royal British Legion branch and patron of the Bexley Neighbourhood Watch Association.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) for securing this debate. I am also grateful for the contributions from all Members this morning. They have been varied, but as a former councillor myself, I recognise many of them. Across the United Kingdom, our communities are supported by an estimated 166,000 voluntary organisations. The majority are small organisations that are close to the ground, but which often have the biggest impact on people’s lives. Throughout my time as the shadow Minister, I have had the immense pleasure of meeting a variety of these groups; I am sure I will meet many more after this debate.
As a Member proudly representing my home community of Old Bexley and Sidcup, I have the immense privilege of working with many fantastic groups which include the Brownies, Guides, Scouts, faith-based groups, amateur sports clubs, u3a Sidcup, the Friends of Danson Park, Friends of Foots Cray Meadows, Discover Welling, and many more that I will get into trouble for not mentioning. Bexley is also home to a number of fantastic community centres that continue to serve our communities throughout the year, from the various clubs and youth zone at Blackfen community library to the wide variety of clubs that use our church halls, or even the amateur wrestling group at Falconwood community centre. Bexley’s community hubs have everything on offer and are supported by over £1 million of investment by Bexley’s Conservative council.
Returning to the national picture, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations represents more than 17,000 charities, social enterprises, community groups and organisations. I understand that 92% of its members are charities with an income of less than £1 million; most have an income of less than £30,000. In response to the Chancellor’s first Budget in 2024, it said that the changes the Government had brought in would:
“intensify the ‘triple squeeze’ charities face from increasing costs, reduced funding, and higher demand.”
In fact, the NCVO wrote to the Chancellor to urge her to reimburse charities for those costs, as she committed to do for public sector organisations. That has not happened, and the 2025 spending review provided no respite from the increased pressures caused by this Chancellor. When Labour Members and Ministers say that they support civil society—and I have no doubt that many of them do have that passion in their community—the voluntary sector is right to ask why, as we have heard from Labour Members, it is being hit with higher employment costs at the very moment when it is trying to recruit staff, keep buildings open and meet rising demand, when it already provides more than £14 billion of public services on behalf of both central and local government. In a very stark contrast to this Government, the previous Conservative Government knew very well that communities need practical support—not just warm words read out by Ministers in this place.
That is why, in the face of the coronavirus pandemic, we Conservatives pledged £750 million to make sure that voluntary, community and social enterprises could continue their vital work of supporting the country. In my community of Bexley, I saw this work in action first hand, with an army of community champion volunteers coming forward to support the elderly and those most in need across the community. Bexley was also one of the first areas in the country to launch a dedicated pot of funding, which supported pubs, amateur sports clubs and other groups that contribute so much to our way of life.
The last Conservative Government went further, beyond the coronavirus outbreak, and in 2021 we established a £150 million community ownership fund to help communities to take ownership of assets at risk of closure and, with voluntary and community organisations, bid for match funding for the purchase and renovation of local community assets. That is exactly the kind of support that helps save a pub, village hall or clubhouse, or a variety of other community buildings, before they are lost forever. This Government closed that fund.
The youth investment fund was established in 2022 and received more than £300 million of capital and revenue grants from the previous Conservative Government. However, for all the warm words from this Government, The Guardian reported last year that they have spent less on youth work than the Conservatives did. In 2023, the previous Conservative Government announced a community organisations cost of living fund, with a further £76 million for charities and community organisations carrying out vital work to help vulnerable groups. You guessed it, Ms McVey: this Government closed that fund as well.
While we were in office, the Conservative party backed our voluntary groups, whereas this Government keep piling on the pressure and leaving many across the country at breaking point. That is by no means an exhaustive list of the support we provided, but almost £1.3 billion in funding and support over just the last four years from the previous Conservative Government is now at risk, thanks to the decisions taken by this Government. We have all heard from our local groups that since the election life is tougher than it used to be, and that they are facing a triple squeeze thanks to this Government’s actions. Costs increased—thanks to the Chancellor. Funding reduced—thanks to the Chancellor. Facing even higher demand—thanks to the Chancellor.
Our voluntary sector across the nation, and the local organisations that all Members meet, deserve better than this Government and Chancellor. If this Government and the Minister are serious about supporting voluntary organisations, why is her Chancellor increasing their taxes? Why is the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero stopping cheap energy that could help to alleviate the cost pressures they are facing to keep the lights on? Who in this Government is actually on the side of voluntary organisations?
In closing, I look forward to hearing the Minister, who I have a lot of respect for, explaining what her Department is doing to champion these vital groups within Government. What conversations have Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport had with the Treasury regarding the additional costs that charities and voluntary groups are facing across the country? Surely, even the most tribal Labour MPs must see that their Government have made life harder for voluntary organisations and community groups across the country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank everyone who contributed to this important debate. I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) for securing the debate. He is a great representative for the voluntary sector, having held many voluntary roles in the past and maintaining his role as a trustee for a local community centre in addition to his duties as the local MP.
We have had some brilliant contributions today, highlighting just how important voluntary groups and centres are in the role they play up and down the country. I am not sure that the speech from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), reflected the tone of the debate. He gave what he said was not an extensive list—I would argue that it was a selective one—but I will touch on some of his points as I progress with my contribution.
First, I will address some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham. Some of his questions and asks fall to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but I will ensure that he gets answers. I will respond to some of his questions now, but for the more technical ones I will ensure that he speaks to the relevant Minister.
My hon. Friend spoke about security of tenure. As a Government, we are introducing a new community right to buy, giving communities the first opportunity to purchase an asset of community value when put up for sale. We also have the common ground award, which will invest up to £10,000 of capital funding into voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations. He asked about tenancy issues, and particularly about local government guidance, all of which fall to MCHLG. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) and others also asked about that, so I will write to Members and suggest to my counterpart that she meet with them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) gave a very entertaining speech, which touched on a number of issues. He made some important points about community radio. When I was media Minister, I went to visit a number of community radio stations. He spoke about the local covenant partnership. That is about championing collaborative commissioning models, which answers some of his points.
The hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) spoke about loneliness. Yesterday, DCMS was pleased to relaunch the tackling loneliness hub. I will send him some details on that. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), who shared some interesting examples; I would be pleased to discuss them further with her.
I am sure that hon. Members across the House will agree that the work that voluntary organisations and community centres do every single day is incredibly valuable to those who access them. We do not take their work for granted. Indeed, in my Barnsley South constituency, we are lucky to have so many brilliant examples of community centres and voluntary organisations. The shadow Minister gave a very extensive list; I am not sure I will do as well as he did, but I will mention a few: Barnsley Samaritans, Age UK, the YMCA, and local groups such as the Barnsley Foodbank Partnership, the Future Arts Centre at the Barnsley Civic, and BIADS, of which I am proud to be a patron. There are many others across the borough of Barnsley. We also have access to community centres such as the Darfield community centre and the Birdwell community centre. Yesterday, I was delighted to visit the new Parkside one, which is coupled with a sports centre and a more than £4 million investment into Barnsley South.
I know just how important these spaces and organisations are to local people. Community centres are often the site for important milestone events. Whether it be birthday parties, weddings or something else entirely, some of the most treasured memories in people’s lives have taken place in these spaces. That is why the Government are pleased to recognise and celebrate the contribution that they make. I take the opportunity to offer thanks to all those brilliant volunteers who contribute to the running of community centres and get involved with voluntary work each day.
The volunteers who keep these important services running are some of the most talented and driven in our society, and we know they need support. Over the past year, a huge 54% of adults—around 24.8 million people—volunteered at least once, with 33% of adults volunteering at least once a month. Whether that is formal volunteering through established organisations or informally within local communities, it is clear that people across the country are willing to help each other out, giving up their time for the good of others, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke so passionately about. He is absolutely right about the importance of working together. I was pleased to visit a voluntary group when I was in Northern Ireland—I think it was called the Ravine project—and I would be delighted to visit more such groups when I next visit Northern Ireland.
Indeed, I am pleased to visit voluntary groups up and down the country, because this Government want to encourage volunteering. We want to get as many people as possible involved, so that positive change can continue to be delivered across communities by communities. As the Minister for Civil Society, as I have just mentioned, I have had the privilege of visiting some brilliant organisations across the country. They include the National Association for Voluntary and Community Action, which shared with me the work it does to encourage people of all ages to get involved in volunteering in a variety of ways. I was particularly pleased to speak to the young volunteers and hear how their experience has helped them to form new social connections.
I was also pleased to meet Ruff and Ruby—a King’s Award-winning youth charity carrying out important work in Stoke-on-Trent, with a new app that connects young people to resources, education, employment, volunteering and suicide prevention—and the brand new Bedworth physical activity hub, which I visited just last week with my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor). That hub serves as an easy-to-access, supportive environment in which people from the community can achieve their health and fitness goals, as well as providing a space for them to connect with their neighbours. During my time there, it became obvious that that hub is a perfect example of how such a centre can become vital for meeting the needs of the community.
It was also a delight to meet a range of charitable organisations at events hosted by the York Centre for Voluntary Services a few weeks ago. I heard about its city-wide volunteering strategy, a five-year plan co-created by charities and the council, making time for volunteering accessible to everyone. At DCMS, we are pleased to pledge support for the Big Help Out this year, which is a national celebration to raise awareness of the impact that volunteering can have. This year, the Big Help Out will be delivered by the Eden Project in Cornwall, which I will be visiting tomorrow to celebrate its 25-year anniversary. I remember when it opened, which makes me feel a little bit old.
The Government have already established our ambition to recognise the value of civil society through the civil society covenant, as a number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham, mentioned. The Prime Minister made it clear at the civil society summit in July 2025 that civil society has a home at the heart of Government, and we have established the Civil Society Council, chaired by Kate Lee. That council gives voluntary organisations, such as the brilliant ones that have been mentioned throughout this debate, a voice at the heart of Government, bringing together leaders from charities, social enterprises, philanthropy, faith organisations, community organisations and the youth sector.
The Government also recognise the need to reduce the administrative burden on voluntary organisations. It was great to hear the Chancellor introduce a new VAT relief for charities in the Budget, which establishes that business donations of goods to charities for onward distribution or use in their services will not be subject to VAT. This is in addition to the VAT relief that charities already benefit from, which is estimated to be worth £1 billion for the sector each year. I was delighted to attend a roundtable on this topic, hosted by Amazon and chaired by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Gordon Brown. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to him for all the work he has done on this issue. This important measure is set to significantly boost the supply of essential items to charities and will come into effect from 1 April this year.
We recognise how important community spaces are for developing social networks, encouraging community participation and promoting civic pride. This Government are committed to giving community groups the ability to own and manage assets for the benefit of the wider community. As I referenced earlier, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill will introduce a new community right to buy, giving communities the first opportunity to purchase an asset of community value when it is put up for sale by the owner.
Of course, this is not an issue that we are going to fix overnight, but it is something that the Government are passionate about, as proven by the many colleagues across the House who have enjoyed—enjoyed? I am sure they have—and contributed to this important debate, and I look forward to continuing to work with them.
Ben Coleman
I have very much enjoyed this debate. Hon. Members have given wonderful examples of what is going on in their constituencies and their engagement with voluntary activities. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said that 46% of people in Northern Ireland volunteer. That is a hell of a number—it is very impressive, and I appreciate hearing that.
It was very interesting to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) illustrate the problems that we are talking about. He spoke of the importance of engaging properly with the local community. The local council failed to maintain the Parkside community centre in Barnehurst for so many years, and then their immediate solution was to shut it down, despite the fact that so many residents wanted it to stay open. That appears to be a dereliction of duty, and I appreciated hearing the details of that.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) about the value of listening to residents in deciding what the community needs. That is absolutely crucial.
My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) said that community groups were an essential partner in prevention. He reminds me that I must listen to his radio show—and maybe eat a bacon butty—[Interruption.] It was a shameless plug.
Ben Coleman
And meet his mother. I would like to bring the listenership up to two; a 100% increase after this debate would not be a bad outcome.
It was interesting to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) talk about how local government in Scotland has been constrained by the actions of the Scottish Government. That is having a serious impact on the voluntary sector.
The hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) reminded me—this is a little secret, which has now been shared—that we are fellow bassoon players, although I have not played since school. That reminds me of the damage that Margaret Thatcher did when she abolished the Inner London Education Authority and decimated musical education across the city. It has still not fully recovered, despite our efforts to improve things.
The speech of the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) was very interesting, particularly given that he completely avoided the issue that I raised of the damage that austerity under the Conservative Government did. We had years of funding cuts, and of course a very sharp rise in demand for voluntary services. We are grappling with that as we try to repair the immense damage to this country after so many years.
It was good to hear the Minister set out in such detail the many things that the Government are trying to do to repair the damage. We cannot pretend that it does not exist. The examples that everybody has given show the huge challenge to the community and voluntary sector and community centres. I very much appreciate the Minister’s determination to ensure that the Government do more. I will very happily take her up on the offer—if it turns into one—of a meeting with Ministers at MHCLG. That would be excellent and I thank her for that.
After hearing everyone’s examples and experiences in their communities, I want to close by thanking our community centres and the volunteers in them for their immense work. Our communities are richer in many ways—even if not financially—and definitely happier and better supported thanks to them. I hope the changes that I have called for can be made to give them a boost and the stability that they need.
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
If Members will allow me, I would like to congratulate my local rugby club, Lymm rugby club, which last week got the King’s award for voluntary service.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for voluntary groups and community centres.
NHS Continuing Healthcare
(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
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered NHS continuing healthcare.
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. The continuing healthcare—CHC—system should represent the very best of our national health service, offering 24-hour, round-the-clock care for approximately 50,000 of the country’s most vulnerable adults, but at the moment the reality is quite the opposite, exposing some of the system’s innermost failures.
For those who may be unaware, continuing healthcare is a package of care arranged and fully funded by the NHS for adults with significant ongoing health needs. Crucially, eligibility is based not on diagnosis, but on whether a person has a “primary health need”. If they qualify, the NHS covers all their care costs; if they do not, they are left to navigate a complex and means-tested social care system, often at catastrophic personal cost to their carers and family.
CHC was created to protect those with the most severe and complex needs, but today it often does the opposite: it confuses, delays and denies. CHC is a lifeline for people with the most complex, severe and often life-limiting conditions, making it all the more crippling when funding is stripped at short notice without a clear reason, and yet there is a body of evidence, which is growing year on year, to suggest that the system is unfair, inconsistent and often inaccessible to those who need it most.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. I spoke to him beforehand, as I always try to be helpful in my contributions. He may only now be aware that in 2023, the High Court in Northern Ireland determined that the previous Northern Ireland continuing healthcare policy breached obligations regarding equality for older people—some of the very things that he is referring to. As a result, the Department of Health in Northern Ireland is in the process of reviewing and developing new, fairer guidance. Does he agree that, UK-wide, this must be tailored care, with an understanding that one size simply cannot fit all?
Ayoub Khan
I totally agree about the need for parity of service across the United Kingdom. That must be not only the right thing, but the only thing to do.
A recent report from the Nuffield Trust describes CHC as an “all or nothing” affair for applicants that creates a cliff edge between carers getting full NHS funding and paying out of pocket to care for loved ones. But although chance certainly plays a role in determining who gets funding and who does not, there is also a sinister practice at play—one that violates the very principles of our health service and inflicts unnecessary hardship on families across the country. That is the ever more common practice of revoking funding, and making vulnerable people appeal and fight for the right to retain the funding they should have had all along. We see the same pattern emerging with benefit claimants and home-to-school transport for 16 to 18-year-olds with special educational needs and disabilities. In the vast majority of cases, after all the time and energy wasted by applicants and assessors, the decision is overturned.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
The hon. Member is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that, during these very difficult times, families want to give their loved ones who are not well all their attention, but these situations are usually so adversarial, involving lengthy legal processes that cost local authorities hundreds of thousands of pounds, only for the decision to be overturned and the family to win in the end?
Ayoub Khan
I absolutely agree. There is an unnecessary burden on families to start off with, and when the appeal process can take months and it is difficult for families to secure representation—they may end up representing themselves—that causes them further anxiety. I agree that there needs to be a review of the whole system, because it is a further bottleneck in an already very stressful situation for families. I will come to an example of a family I am trying to assist in that regard.
In many cases, decisions are overturned and the status quo is restored. We must be honest about what is driving this. It is the same culture of cuts and austerity, sweeping across this Government and the previous one, that is to blame for the crisis. Independent analysis shows that CHC spending decreased by 42% in 2024 compared with previous years, even as need continued to grow. That is not because people are suddenly less ill, but because access is being constrained.
Investigations have also revealed that private companies are being contracted to review CHC eligibility and, in some cases, to reduce care packages, raising serious ethical concerns about profit being tied to cuts in vital care provision. A system where decisions are not always driven by clinical need but by cost containment will inevitably fail to protect and care for some of our most vulnerable individuals.
My constituent Daniel has experienced the injustice of the CHC process at first hand. He suffers from severe learning difficulties, autism, anxiety and behaviour of distress, and is cared for by his elderly parents, Linda and Dave. In order to receive the proper care, Daniel is supported every day by six personal assistants, all of whom are being paid thanks to CHC funding. After an annual review in January last year, it was confirmed that his condition had not changed and therefore his funding ought to continue, and yet, since a spontaneous and unwarranted review of the decision, Daniel’s eligibility has been under excessive and unreasonable scrutiny. The reassessment directly contravened the national framework for CHC, which states that a full reassessment must be arranged only if there is
“clear evidence of a change in needs to such an extent that it may impact on the individual’s eligibility”.
The saga was concluded two weeks ago when, despite providing no clinical rationale for the “significant change” in Daniel’s medical needs, the care board revoked his funding, leaving his parents to foot the bill for his care. For more than a year, Linda and Dave have carried on their fight against the care board’s impropriety, which has understandably come at a great financial, emotional and personal toll, all while continuing to care for Daniel. Unfortunately, Daniel’s story is neither exceptional nor surprising. It shows how many of those reliant on Government support are being stripped of it in the blink of an eye.
The stories of Daniel and so many others show exactly what is wrong with the system. Since 2017, despite an ageing population and increasing complexity of need, the number of people eligible for CHC has fallen by more than 9%. Over the same period, the proportion of people found eligible after a full assessment has dropped dramatically, from around 31% to just 18.6%. That means that more people are being assessed, but fewer are receiving support.
For families, that often means a gruelling process, characterised by a mire of lengthy assessments, appeals, delays and uncertainty, at the most difficult time of their lives. Confusion, exhaustion and distress are mainstays of that process. Even for those who are fortunate enough to be granted CHC funding, it can be withdrawn upon review, leaving families in a state of permanent anxiety that they could be plunged back into crisis at any moment.
Behind every statistic is a family caring for a loved one with dementia, a neurological condition or even a severe disability—a family forced to give up work, drain their savings or even sell their home, all while navigating a system that is rigged against them from the start.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I wholeheartedly agree with him, in particular about his constituents who had the support that their child needed for many years, had an annual review that reconfirmed that that support was necessary, and then suddenly, out of the blue, faced a challenge by some new body or process. Does he agree that there should be a clear, transparent process that is easy to understand by families who go through it, that there should be clear checks and balances to ensure that families receive a fair hearing, and that, when support is agreed and secured, it should be maintained until the next formal review is required and the criteria and conditions have changed?
Ayoub Khan
I wholeheartedly agree. One of the difficulties in Daniel’s case was that an assessment found that there was no material change in the level of support that he required, but a reassessment was conducted subsequently, and the funding was then withdrawn. I met Daniel, and I felt so sorry for his parents, who are now struggling because of the withdrawal of the funding. It is shocking that someone can sit somewhere and make a desk-based reassessment of someone’s condition and then strip them of funding. I am confident that the family will ultimately secure funding, but the stress that they are going through is simply unacceptable.
I urge the Minister to review Daniel’s case. I recall writing to him on this very matter in July last year. He replied that the operational delivery of CHC is the responsibility of integrated care boards. Care boards do indeed have delegated autonomy to make funding decisions, but they must follow national guidance, and the Government have the power to act when those duties are breached. I would welcome the Minister’s reflecting on his stance on this matter. At the very least, will he meet me, Linda and Dave so that he can gain insight into how the system is failing people like Daniel? Caring for our loved ones should not be subject to a cliff edge or an all-or-nothing gamble. If we want to build an NHS fit for the future—one that delivers care closer to home and puts patients first—then fixing CHC must be a core part of that mission.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is truly a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris—for now, anyway.
I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for securing this important debate, and I express my gratitude to other Members who have contributed to it. By working together, we can improve the lives of people living with some of the highest needs. I also want to acknowledge and thank families, loved ones and other unpaid carers, and of course the health and social care staff who provide committed and compassionate care every day.
Every one of us has constituents living with highly complex needs that arise from a wide variety of illnesses, disabilities or accidents. It is of course great news that significant medical advances have led to increases in the average life expectancy in the UK both for the general population and for those with significant health challenges, but we need to recognise that that has placed additional pressure on our health and care system, and there is no doubt that it can create challenges in accessing the right care and support in the right place at the right time. We value the opportunity to hear about personal experiences from everyone who is here today, so that we can continue to improve services for the people who need them most.
A key ambition of the Government’s 10-year health plan is to support people to live independent and dignified lives in their communities. NHS continuing healthcare provides critical support to some individuals with the highest needs, offering a fully funded package of health and social care to meet their needs. This supports our 10-year health plan ambition by helping individuals to live more independently outside hospital and to be closer to home and to loved ones.
The last Labour Government introduced NHS continuing healthcare, which, despite the challenges set out today, is supporting thousands of people across the country with their care needs. We also set out our statutory guidance, the first national framework to ensure a consistent approach. In the year ending March 2025, over 164,000 people across England were found to be eligible for NHS continuing healthcare—an increase from the 160,000 eligible individuals in 2017. Every one of those individuals should receive an appropriate package of care that meets their assessed health and care needs. Our statutory guidance is designed to support integrated care boards to provide the most appropriate care for every eligible individual, ensuring that they are placed at the centre of the assessment and care planning process.
NHS England oversees integrated care boards in delivering their functions and undertakes regular and ongoing assurance work, including commissioning work, to promote effective implementation of NHS continuing healthcare. I know that integrated care boards across the country are working hard to streamline administrative processes and find efficiencies so that more people can access the care they need sooner.
Iqbal Mohamed
It is the responsibility of ICBs to administer and provide this support, but does the Minister share my concern and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) that the involvement of private contractors in eligibility reviews may not be appropriate? The ICB may feel that responsibility lies with the private contractor to guide it, rather than owning its decisions.
Stephen Kinnock
Of course, we want to see consistency and quality right across the board, regardless of who is actually delivering the work. If there are specific issues around private contractors that the hon. Gentleman can flag to me, perhaps he could write to me; we would be very happy to look into them.
We have committed to reduce the running costs of integrated care boards and to redirect that funding to frontline services. To deliver that, our 10-year health plan sets out that integrated care boards must focus on their role as strategic commissioners, ensuring the best possible value in securing local services that improve population health and reduce inequalities. However, NHS England has been clear that, although transformation is required, it must be carried out with clear safeguards in place to protect frontline responsibilities. Legal duties in relation to NHS continuing healthcare must continue to be met. This means that running-cost reductions should aim to make administrative and corporate functions more efficient. They are not there to change funding for direct care or statutory duties.
I acknowledge that integrated care boards have worked intensively to strengthen their plans for 2025-26, focusing on areas where efficiencies and savings can be made. I thank NHS England for working with integrated care boards to monitor spend against these plans. The Department is working closely with NHS England on how responsibilities will be delivered from April 2027 onwards, when—subject to the will of Parliament—NHS England will be abolished. Until those changes are made, the Department and NHS England will continue to carry out their respective statutory functions. In the interim, teams are increasingly working together closely under an interim joint leadership team, including on NHS continuing healthcare.
Fundamentally, addressing some of the issues that hon. Members have discussed today will require wider reform of the social care system. That is why Baroness Casey is chairing an independent commission into adult social care. The commission has a clear mandate to undertake the most comprehensive review of adult social care in a generation. With Baroness Casey as its chair, it will cut through the political stalemate, identify what the country needs and wants from adult social care, and support the Government in establishing a system that works.
Baroness Casey has made it clear that she will not wait until the end of the commission to recommend action where she sees fit to do so. Hon. Members may have seen her speech at the Nuffield Trust summit on 5 March. I thank her for setting out recommendations for immediate action on adult social care, which focused on three key areas: safeguarding, dementia and motor neurone disease. We will not waste time in taking those recommendations forward. We look forward to reviewing Baroness Casey’s phase 1 report, which is due later this year and will set out further recommendations to address immediate priorities for adult social care in this Parliament, laying the groundwork for long-term reform and setting us on the path to delivering a national care service.
In her recent speech, Baroness Casey rightly raised challenges with NHS continuing healthcare. We are carefully considering her reflections. I acknowledge existing tensions between integrated care boards and local authorities regarding NHS continuing healthcare eligibility decisions. Those decisions hinge on whether the support required by an individual is above the limits of what the local authority can provide. Integrated care boards must consult with the relevant local authority before making any decision about an individual’s eligibility for NHS continuing healthcare, putting individuals at the heart of the decision-making process.
However, I acknowledge that, in practice, it is not always straightforward to determine clearly who is responsible for meeting an individual’s needs, so we are working with NHS England to better join up support between the NHS and local authorities, exploring areas where good joint working is helping to improve outcomes for people accessing NHS continuing healthcare. Through the development of our neighbourhood health services, local authorities and integrated care boards are encouraged to consider how services can be reconfigured to focus more on prevention and early intervention, embedding new ways of working to set the direction of travel for future years.
I want all individuals who are eligible for NHS continuing healthcare to receive support in a timely manner, and I want the assessment process to be as smooth, clear and transparent as it possibly can be. We know that eligibility rates can vary from year to year, and across regions and integrated care boards. That variation often exists for good reasons, including differences or changes in the health needs of local populations or individuals over time. To check that the variation is warranted and justified, NHS England continues to monitor eligibility rates by undertaking detailed work to compare eligibility and referral rates between integrated care boards. When it identifies unwarranted variation between integrated care boards with similar demographics, it follows up and seeks to ensure coherence and consistency.
My Department is also engaging with local areas to explore current work on eligibility disputes, and how they address those challenges. There are no quick fixes, but we remain committed to supporting the sector to improve outcomes for individuals. I want to stress that while disputes between organisations are being resolved, individuals must never be left without the appropriate care and support.
There is a robust dispute resolution process in place for when a full assessment for NHS continuing healthcare has been undertaken and the person or people concerned disagree with the outcome. First, an individual or their representative can ask for a local review from the relevant integrated care board. All integrated care boards should have developed a local resolution process that is fair, transparent and includes timescales. Where it has not been possible to resolve the matter locally, an individual may apply to NHS England for an independent review panel to review the decision. Finally, if the original decision is upheld and there is still a challenge, the individual can make a complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.
I was very sorry to hear from the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr of the difficulties that his constituents are experiencing, and I thank him for sharing the details of Daniel’s case. I would of course be happy to receive further representations from the hon. Member. Perhaps he could start by setting out in a letter what the issues are, and then we can make sure that appropriate action is taken.
I also know that concerns have been raised about the relatively low number of individuals who are ultimately found eligible for NHS continuing healthcare after they have been referred for full assessment. The threshold for initial referral by GPs, social workers and others is deliberately set low to ensure that anyone who may be eligible is fully assessed. For that reason, many individuals will not go on to receive NHS continuing healthcare. However, an assessment is also a gateway to other forms of NHS-funded support, such as NHS-funded nursing care and joint packages of care between local authorities and integrated care boards. My Department and NHS England continue to work with partners, including the CHC Alliance, Dementia UK, the Nuffield Trust and other sector bodies. We want to support integrated care boards in delivering national policy and guidance, including on how we can achieve better join-up between the NHS and local authorities.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr again on securing this important debate—and I thank all those who intervened in it—so that we can continue to focus on improving services for the people who need them most. I know that this is a very challenging and emotive topic for many families who are going through extremely difficult times, and I absolutely accept that sometimes controversial decisions are made. We need to ensure that in every one of those controversial cases there is transparency, clarity and coherence. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman and with Members across the House to ensure that, collectively, we achieve that goal.
Question put and agreed to.
Proposed Visitor Levy
(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
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the proposed visitor levy in England.
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford. It is also great to see the Minister in her place; we have a very highly regarded Minister to respond to the debate. She is a Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Minister, but she will be responding on behalf of the entire Government, as Ministers always are when responding to debates in Parliament.
This subject touches on a number of Departments: the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is the sponsoring Department for tourism, but the debate is also relevant to the Department for Business and Trade, because of the trade considerations and export earnings; the Department for Transport, for obvious reasons; the Department for Work and Pensions, as tourism is one of the biggest employers in the country; the Home Office, which issues the visas; the Foreign Office, which is responsible for our international relations and soft power; the Cabinet Office, which owns the GREAT campaign; and, of course, the Treasury, which takes an overall view of taxation and is responsible for ensuring economic growth.
The proposed visitor levy is another measure that was not in the Labour manifesto—indeed, up until very recently, Ministers were actively saying that they would not introduce it. There has been limited debate on it and, although there has been a consultation, it was on how, not whether, the levy should be implemented. There are many different aspects to think about. There are the effects on the cost of living—it would push more people to take holidays abroad rather than staying at home—and the effects on youth unemployment and local economies. I am sure colleagues across the Chamber will make a number of those points; they are relatively straightforward points to land. I will focus on one that is not quite as easy to land, but that I think is just as important: the role of inbound international tourism into our country, the contribution that makes to the economy and the necessity not to hamper that.
There is a natural inclination among humankind to want to see more of the world. As societies, and the world as a whole, get richer, one thing we can guarantee is that travel and tourism will grow—in fact, they grow faster. For every 1% of world GDP growth, we see between 1.5% and 2% of growth in world tourism. Travel and tourism become an ever-enlarging part of the world economy, and—this is relevant at a time when we often worry about structural changes coming to labour markets—they are largely, although not entirely, AI-proof. Travel is also just a good thing. It brings people together for everything from family reunions to forging new business relationships and partnerships. Travel is good for the soul: people can discover new places, people and experiences, and there is opportunity to unwind and to see the world differently—literally—and as a result are able to think differently.
Domestic tourism is good for all those reasons. Of course, it is also very important for individual colleagues’ constituencies and their local economies.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Is the issue not also about the way the economy is balanced? The truth is that some areas of the country, including Hartlepool, will struggle to bring people in with their tourism offer compared with others. A tax such as this actually drives money and investment away from areas that need it most. Is that not why such a holiday tax is bad for constituencies such as Hartlepool?
Damian Hinds
That is one of a number of worries I have about this proposal; I am grateful to the hon. Member for putting it in such a rational and straightforward way.
I was coming on to say that international inbound tourism scores even more highly because, counterintuitively, tourism into this country is an export. In classical Keynesian economics—if I may appeal to the Government side of the House in that way—it is an injection into the circular flow of the economy. It is not spend that is displaced from some other activity; it is a net increase in economic activity in our country, which means that it is a net creator of jobs.
For the Exchequer, tourism is particularly attractive because tourists are on average very low users of public services. However, while they are here, they spend money not just on their travel and accommodation, but on their food and beverages, their purchases and activities, and on all those things they are paying tax and contributing to the Exchequer.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is important to reflect that in the United Kingdom tourists face a VAT rate of 20% on their spend, whereas in Germany it is only 7% and in Spain, France and Italy it is 10%. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Labour Government need to reverse their job-killing national insurance contribution hikes, which have had a massive impact on our hospitality industry up and down the country, including in my constituency?
Damian Hinds
I do agree; the hon. Member makes some very good points about national insurance contributions, which I will go on to talk about further. He also makes some very good points about looking at the set of taxes as a whole—we cannot just look at a bed tax or a tourism tax without thinking about all the other taxes. However, if I may, I promise him that I will come on to those matters later.
Inbound tourism is something that we are rather good at as a country. How could we not be, when we have great cities such as London, Manchester, Edinburgh, York, Bath and Brighton, as well as the lakes, the Peaks, the moors, the dales and the beautiful South Downs, part of which I have the privilege of representing? There is also our literary heritage, not least Alton and the village of Chawton in East Hampshire, the home of Jane Austen. Britain is also the birthplace of more sports than most of us could name if we were prompted to do so in 60 seconds. There is also the draw of screen “on location” sites, as we have recently seen in the “Starring Great Britain” campaign, west end theatre, live music and much more.
There is also the small matter of the English language—and believe it or not, even the weather actually acts in our favour. The fact that so much more of our inbound tourist infrastructure is indoor means that our tourist season is much longer, and we have considerably less seasonality in our tourist numbers, than many of our competitor nations.
All those things help to explain our success. We are the seventh or eighth biggest country in the world by tourist arrivals, but we are even higher—third in the world, in fact—for tourist receipts. Of course, that is particularly driven by London, which is a very high-value market, but overall, tourism is our third largest services sector by export earnings, and comparable to goods sectors such as automotive and pharmaceutical.
We do inbound tourism well, then; but tourism is also a competitive market and the reality is that we are not doing as well as we used to. We are doing well, but worse. Over the last 30 years, the UK’s market share of world tourism has tumbled. It has come down by something like half.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I will just pick up on that point about competitiveness and competitive advantage. Is it not the case that those much-visited cities—Paris, Rome, many cities in Spain and others throughout Europe—have measures such as this proposed levy, yet they have not seen decreases in tourism? How is that a competitive advantage point for us? Is it not actually the case that tourists want the culture, events, activities and even investments in policing that this sort of measure could fund?
Damian Hinds
I do not know if the hon. Gentleman heard the earlier intervention by the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), who made the point—quite rightly—that we cannot look at a single tax in isolation. I will come on to discuss that point, and I will invite the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) to look at the maths on what happens when we add up all the taxes together and compare the cities that he has just mentioned with cities in this country.
We have lost market share, and it turns out that reaching the big target that the Government now have, to reach 50 million arrivals in the next few years, will involve—believe it or not—us losing more market share. Therefore, the great big ambition is for us to lose share of the global market for tourism. We should be much more ambitious than that.
Governments of all sorts and all flavours have acknowledged the importance of tourism, verbally and in writing. I will not go through all the sector deals and so on that there have been through the years. We now have, or at least anticipate, the visitor economy growth strategy from the current Government. However, I do not think—and I am not making a party political point here, because this applies to multiple Governments—that any Government in this country in my lifetime have ever given attention to this sector commensurate with its importance and potential.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
The visitor levy became law in Scotland in September 2024, allowing Scottish local authorities to apply a 5% charge on overnight stays. It is due to be implemented next year in my constituency and is estimated to bring in £1.7 million annually. Last month, I met Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Destination Group to hear their concerns about the tourist trade. While I suspect the right hon. Member disagrees with a levy, does he agree that, if a levy is to be introduced, it should clearly be invested in a manner that benefits and strengthens the local tourist economy, in consultation with trade—not just to fill a black hole in council budgets?
Damian Hinds
The hon. Gentleman is a wise man, and he anticipates a point I will come to very shortly.
Under the previous Government, candidly, there were increases to air passenger duty, rises in visa charges, the introduction of the electronic travel authorisation at a price of £10, and of course the loss of VAT-free shopping for tourists. The new Government are not just carrying on with those things, but adding cumulatively to those costs at a significantly greater rate. They are doubling the price of the ETA, which will now be £80 for a family of four. In fact, ETAs and visas are now both considerably above European price levels—considerably so, in the case of visas. On ETAs, unlike others, we do not give even a discount, let alone an exemption, for children or for people over 70. The Government have also cut the marketing budget for VisitBritain by 41%.
On top of all that, they now propose to bring in a bed tax. What is that bed tax? We do not know. It could be many things. It could be per room or per person. It could be a fixed percentage of the room rate, a fixed amount or tiered fixed amount. If it is a tiered or fixed amount, what amount? In truth, however, whatever amount is set initially is probably pretty irrelevant. Let us not forget that air passenger duty started at a rate of £5 and £10 and now ranges between £15 and well over £200. Will children be discounted or exempt?
The consultation talks about giving powers to a mayor; what about places that do not have a mayor? What will the scope be? Will it include sleeping in a tent? Will it include holiday camps, static caravans, scout camps, school trips, pilgrimages, hostels, homestays or sleeper trains? We do not know the answers to any of these questions right now.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Joe Powell
I wanted to add one important category that he did not list, which is short-term lets and Airbnbs.
Joe Powell
He will know that in my constituency there is a very high concentration of Airbnbs—I have not read his speech in advance—which have contributed to antisocial behaviour, rubbish put out on the wrong day, and even breaches of leases, which can cause fire safety and insurance issues. I welcome the introduction of this levy, partly because it will help to collect a contribution from the short-term lets in my constituency.
Damian Hinds
Mr Efford, that really was my next sentence, because there are questions about short-term lets, and about second homes in Cornwall and so on. On the short lets issue—whether rents are being pushed up is sometimes another concern with short lets—this levy is not going to solve that problem. The Government will need to do something structurally different if they want to address those short lets questions.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
UKHospitality talks about this tax being
“the wrong policy at the worst time”.
One of my worries is that entrepreneurs in the tourist industry in North Yorkshire and elsewhere are on their knees due to post-covid issues, national insurance, rates and a whole range of factors. Would my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever the merits of this policy, the levy must be paused until those businesses are back on their feet and start investing again?
Damian Hinds
I do agree. My right hon. Friend and I have been in multiple debates in the main Chamber talking about exactly those issues, both for tourism and for the wider hospitality sector.
There are some arguments in favour of an overnight visitor levy, some of which have come up already. The main one is summed up in the sentence,
“Visitor levies provide local government with a financial incentive to grow the visitor economy.”
That has truth to it, and there is definitely an argument for making hospitality more hospitable through more investment in the visitor economy—in facilities, events, policing and so on. The sector needs more money going into sales and marketing if we are to realise our potential, so there might be an argument for this measure if the money were truly ringfenced—if it were only being spent on truly incremental items. Even then, we would still get the problem where hotels over quite a wide area pay it but the events, attractions, extra policing and so on all take place somewhere else. That might apply in Hartlepool, for example, as has been mentioned. It will certainly be the case in London—a hotel in Brent Cross is not going to feel the benefit of some extra things being put on in theatreland in the west end.
Of course, though, the money will not be ringfenced. Even if it is nominally ringfenced in year one, do we honestly believe that in year five it will still be ringfenced? Of course it will not.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
As ever, my right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. One of the concerns that businesses have is that this policy was not in the Government’s manifesto, so they are now trying to prepare for something that has come as a surprise. There has been no consultation on this levy, so by introducing it now the Government are making a very difficult situation even worse. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is not the best way to help businesses thrive?
Damian Hinds
I certainly do. On the issue of incrementality—I suspect other colleagues will make this point during the debate—there is only one way to guarantee that the money will truly be ringfenced and used for incremental activity, sales and marketing spend, which is to write it into primary legislation. In these debates, people often have a list of five or six questions to put to the Minister. I do not have five or six questions; my one question is whether she will write into primary legislation that the money must be ringfenced.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am arguing against this levy in principle. I think we should be making it more attractive to come to this country. However, if it is to happen, will the Government write into primary legislation the thing that I am sure they will say verbally to a lot of colleagues, including Labour MPs in seaside towns and parts of the country that need inward investment? I am sure they will say, “This will all be for extra stuff.” Let us see that in a piece of legislation before this Parliament. In the absence of that, I am sure that what will happen—maybe not in year one, but in year three or five—is that central Government allocations of funding to local authorities will be made on the basis that they could have implemented an overnight visitor levy. In practice, it will become impossible for a mayor in any one area to say, “I’m not going to impose that levy,” because the budget will assume it.
I now turn to the arguments against the levy, some of which we have heard already from colleagues from multiple parties. This is a sector already dealing with big cost increases from national insurance contributions. For businesses that rely heavily on flexible labour, dealing with the Employment Rights Act 2025 is genuinely difficult—and then there are business rates, which we have not yet talked about. Yes, there has been a reprieve for pubs, but there are two things we need to know about that: first, it is only for pubs, and secondly, it is only a temporary reprieve. It does not help cafés, restaurants or many other parts of the hospitality sector; in particular, it does not help hotels.
As you know, Mr Efford, there has been a change in the structure of business rates with the higher multiplier level. The Government keep describing this higher multiplier as a way of ensuring that online retailers are helping to pay for lower rates bills for other businesses. To keep us within the bounds of parliamentary language, let us call that “creative framing”. According to my calculation—by the way, it is very difficult to get an answer out of the Treasury—some 91% of the businesses and buildings that are subject to that higher multiplier for business rates are not to do with online retailing. Many hotels are among them; again by my own estimation, 1,100 hotels will be paying that higher multiplier for business rates.
The levy applies to everybody but, turning to the additional costs of international travel, air passenger duty is already the world’s highest departure tax. ETAs are a new cost for tourism in this country. In fact, after—strangely—Bhutan, the UK is in the highest category for total cost when we look at all the taxes, charges and policy costs imposed on tourists. That means that although we score very highly on international comparisons of attractiveness, we score 113th out of 119 for price competitiveness for tourists. Some will say—some have said already—“All these other countries have a bed tax.” Yes, they do, but they do not have a VAT rate of 20%, which is the crucial point. Typically, VAT rates are about 10% across European countries. Amsterdam is the exception: it has just put up its VAT rate on hotels to 21%, but it seems that it is trying to reduce the number of tourists coming in, so that is not an example we want to follow. The one thing that has kept us just about competitive is not having a bed tax on top of all those other taxes.
To conclude—as you will be pleased to hear, Mr Efford—the levy is a bad idea from the point of view of the cost of living; it would add over £100 to a typical holiday for a family of four. It hits a sector that has already been hammered by national insurance contributions and business rates—a sector that is absolutely vital for employment, particularly for tackling youth unemployment, that is all about small business and that is important for seaside communities. I ask the Minister, and the Government, to think of the growth opportunity and about what international tourism can do for us. It is a growing global market that is largely AI-proof and plays to our strengths.
The Government say that they want economic growth, and this is a sector that can deliver it. I estimate that keeping on the path of the world growth rate for tourism rather than being below it would be worth between 0.2 and 0.3 percentage points extra in our economic growth every year. We have the capacity: it is true that some places, and certainly some individual attractions, are very busy, but it is not true for the country as a whole. Even in London, our biggest market, hotel penetration—the ratio of hotel rooms to the resident population—is still below that of Rome, Amsterdam or Madrid, for example. We score highly on cultural aspects, but low on value, which means that we are losing share to countries that take tourism very seriously and are actively trying to grow it. We can reverse that position—but not if we price ourselves out of contention.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for bringing forward this debate.
I have long campaigned for a visitor levy. York itself sees 1.7 million overnight stays—6.2 million visitors to our city—and as a result we recognise the cost of tourism to our local authority. Whether it is about tidying our streets, putting infrastructure in place, cleaning our city or making additional provisions, the pressure of tourism on our public services is being paid for by local residents. There is an equation where local residents feel that they pay into the system and tourism gains, but that tourists are not making their contribution. I listened carefully to the right hon. Member; he talked about the money, the taxation and the benefit that goes into the national funding pot from the taxation system but is not being invested in local communities.
Sir Julian Smith
I am a big supporter of the hon. Lady, and I do not want to attack her personally, but we have a big issue in York and North Yorkshire. The Mayor is proposing this tax, which will clobber my constituents’ businesses in North Yorkshire. It may be a benefit for York, but it will cause a massive problem for rural North Yorkshire.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Order. Before you respond to that intervention, there are 10 Members on their feet and we have only just over half an hour for Back-Bench speeches, so that is roughly three and a half minutes each. Please bear in mind when you are speaking that the people behind you will have a three and a half minute limit—or less, if you speak for too long.
Rachael Maskell
I was coming to the point the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) raises, because I believe that the levy should be collected by local authorities. If the mayor collects it, it should be hypothecated to local areas so that they can determine the spend of that resource. Certainly I would propose that half the money be spent directly on tourism, through work with the industry, but there is also the opportunity to invest back into our communities and in local projects.
I would put in place exemptions for children; I think that would be appropriate. I would exempt certain forms of accommodation, camping and hostel accommodation, because we know that those are used for budget holidays. Of course we need to respect the cultural need of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people for overnight stays in different areas, but I certainly would include in a levy scheme short-term holiday lets. I just met the Minister to raise again the issue of short-term holiday lets, and the proper licensing system that we need in that respect.
I believe that this should be a flat-rate levy. I have always said that the price of a cup of coffee could be the benchmark—people would not think twice about going and getting an extra coffee. If it were something like £4, we would bring £6.8 million into our city and that would help our local economy. We will struggle to support our tourism industry otherwise, so I would encourage that factor.
We could use the money to promote the local tourism offer, from which the industry would gain, and could gain substantially. I am talking about putting on events, ensuring that we have better facilities and better infrastructure in our city, and supporting our bid to become a UNESCO world heritage site. All that would benefit not just York, but North Yorkshire and the wider region. It could include putting on projects such as Wild in Art and so on, to draw in even more tourism. I believe that a measure such as that could be seen as an investment in our future.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing this incredibly important debate. Numerous constituents have contacted me about the proposals, which are causing great concern for the hospitality sector and tourist and charity groups across Keighley and Ilkley.
In February I met Toby Hammond, the lead volunteer for West Yorkshire Scouts. He first got in touch with me following comments made by Chief Scout Dwayne Fields about the impacts that the proposed tourist tax would have on youth groups such as the Scouts, Brownies and Girl Guides. For months, Toby has been campaigning tirelessly to seek an exemption from the proposed tourist tax for under-18s and volunteer groups. He has written to four metro mayors, 14 Members of Parliament and 159 local councillors, and amassed 64,000 views on social media posts to do with this campaign. I have no doubt that it was because of his efforts and others’ that West Yorkshire has now secured a full exemption from any future visitor levy for Scouts, Girl Guides and Brownies, as confirmed last night via a tweet by the Mayor of West Yorkshire on X.
Given those efforts, how must it have felt for Toby and other Scout, Brownie and Girl Guide leaders across West Yorkshire to be dismissed merely as scaremongers by Mayor of West Yorkshire Tracy Brabin? They have been raising these issues for months, but the mayor’s office refused to publicly back an exemption for Scouts and Girl Guides until late last night via a tweet on X. It seems that the West Yorkshire mayoralty jumped before it was pushed. I sincerely hope that the Minister will join me in encouraging all metro mayors across the country to guarantee an exemption for under-18s and charity groups from any additional levy on overnight stays, to avoid a postcode lottery scenario for volunteer-led groups.
On postcode lotteries, I have definitely won the lottery in representing Keighley and Ilkley, because it is a wonderful place with incredible attractions such as Cliffe Castle, East Riddlesden Hall, the moorlands and Brontë country—Ilkley and Haworth—which attract thousands of visitors a year. However, it is not London, Paris or Milan and therefore does not need to keep up with its so-called international counterparts, which is how one West Yorkshire Labour MP has tried to justify proposals for this levy to her constituents. The vast majority of people staying overnight in our area are British workers, families and young people, which means that it is not really a tourist tax at all. It is another tax on British people, which could cost an average family going on holiday in England an extra £100, meaning fewer nights spent overnight in accommodation in constituencies such as mine—in Keighley and Ilkley. I fear that once these funds are collected, there will be no ringfencing associated with the tax coming from places such as Ilkley and Haworth; it will simply go into the West Yorkshire pot to be spent elsewhere.
Quite frankly, there are no winners with this tax: our young people, businesses and constituents will see increased costs, and some businesses may never recover. Does the Minister agree that the businesses, Scout leaders and tourist groups that have shared their concerns about this tax with me are not scaremongers but good, hard-working people with genuine concerns about what a visitor levy could mean for them and their livelihoods?
Several hon. Members rose—
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
I am applying an informal three and a half minute time limit. If Members can keep to that, it would help me; otherwise, I will have to impose the limit rigidly.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I am incredibly proud to represent the centre of the capital; Ronnie Scott’s, Abbey Road, Tate Britain and all the best museums are right here in the centre of London. Every year, 25 million tourists visit Westminster, spending £1.7 billion to support businesses and residents across London.
This debate has not focused enough on the essential principles of devolution and the role that different organisations play in supporting the tourism industry. We need to hear, again, that nine out of 10 of the most visited tourist destinations in Europe implement a tourist tax. I have listened to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore)—although I have to disagree with the hon. Member, because I do think that Brontë country is an international destination, as I am sure many of his constituents will agree—but Hampshire, Hartlepool, Hillingdon and Haworth will not have the same needs as Hyde Park. That is the fundamental principle that we need to focus on today.
I firmly support introducing an overnight visitor levy. It is the right thing to do to enable localities to accurately reflect the particular needs of their neighbourhoods. Taking a local and regional approach means that we have to look carefully at what London might need specifically. Unlike in combined authorities outside London, London borough leaders do not have a formal say in decision making about budgets at the Greater London Authority, so it would be the only major city in the country where local authorities would not have joint decision making over the levy mechanisms. I therefore support the mandation of a 50:50 split, allowing local authorities to keep part of the receipts and enabling boroughs such as Westminster to invest in the vital services that keep the heart of London a world-leading tourist destination. That could include investment in the public realm as well as investment in growth measures—
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Order. There is a Division. I am told to expect six votes, so I must suspend the sitting for about an hour and 15 minutes. If there are fewer, we can come back more quickly. Please come back as soon as the votes are finished.
Rachel Blake
As I was saying, what is right for Hampshire, Hartlepool, Hillingdon and Howarth is not necessarily right for Hyde Park. That is why devolving the power to implement this overnight visitor levy is the right way to go.
I ask the Minister to consider the arguments in favour of mandating a 50:50 split in London; unlike combined authorities outside London, we are the only major city in the country where local authorities do not have a joint decision-making mechanism. In 2023-24, Westminster city council spent £31 million on street cleaning—more than four times the amount per head of the average London borough—demonstrating the significance that inner-London boroughs place on keeping our streets clean and ready for tourists. Other visitor and commuter services total £18.3 million a year, so allowing local authorities to keep half of these receipts would be right for all the London boroughs that provide tourist attractions for our world-leading tourism destination. It is already standard practice for revenues to be ringfenced locally, including in Paris, New York and Amsterdam.
I also ask the Minister to think through the implications for the registration system introduced for short-term lets. In some parts of Westminster, up to 30% of homes are now used as short-term lets. Doubling the density of short-term lets is associated with an 8% growth in per-bedroom rental prices—or £4,500 per year. Short-term lets should be paying this levy, and the levy should be implemented in a way that makes sure we can gather data on who is letting out their home on a short-term basis. That should be factored into the design of any scheme. I am grateful for the chance to discuss these topics in this setting.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. North Norfolk has many things to be proud of, and our half-a-billion-pound tourism industry is high on that list. However, that can bring its challenges: a seasonal economy leads to insecure employment and makes it hard for businesses to plan for the future. We also know that an oversaturation of second homes and holiday lets in some areas has carved the soul out of communities. We have to take steps to balance that out.
That is why I remain firmly open to seeing how a visitor contribution levy could bring more money to North Norfolk. If levied at a similar rate to Wales, it could raise more than £2 million a year for my area. That could make a huge difference if it was invested into the towns and villages that are the tourism hotspots, by supporting our tourism businesses and by investing in skills and apprenticeships for our young people.
Much of the devil of such a policy will, however, be in the detail, so I am pleased that it is devolved to local areas to decide for themselves. I am keen to see the evidence from the policy in Wales to understand, for example, whether this can work and how it could be applied to Norfolk.
It will be vital for any income to be fully reinvested in the communities where it is gathered. Local Lib Dems fought similar battles with the Conservatives over the second home levy, to prevent them from taking the vast majority of that tax increase to plaster over their financial mismanagement of Norfolk county council and leaving us with less than 10p in the pound. The strong leadership of the Lib Dem district council ensured that North Norfolk got its fair share. Getting local investment is a red line for me in supporting any future visitor levy in our area.
I am also quite shocked by the posturing of local Conservatives, who have said that this would be the death of the tourism industry. They seem to be struggling with the fundamentals of geography and human behaviour: the Norfolk broads cannot be picked up and moved somewhere else with a different tax bracket; Blakeney’s grey seals—which make up 90% of England’s population—will not swim up the coast to somewhere cheaper; and Cromer pier is not going to be sawn off and reattached to a different coastal town.
It is frankly quite offensive to North Norfolk to suggest that a mere £1 a day extra is the difference that would make tourists think, “Well, Norfolk’s really not all that; we’ll go somewhere else instead.” Have those opposing this measure thought that a €7 fee in Barcelona makes the Sagrada Família a bit too pricey? Maybe Gaudí was not that good after all. The broads, the pier, the seals, the shops, the museums, the historic houses and our natural environment: that is our Sagrada Família, our wonder of the world. If people think so little of our area that they want to stand here today and tell tourists that it is not worth £1 a night, they do North Norfolk down.
There are many discussions still to have about this policy, and I look forward to engaging with residents and stakeholders. If we do this, we must get it right, co-designed with our tourism industry. If the proposal is not right for North Norfolk, I will not support it—it is as simple as that. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a serving Norfolk county councillor.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your leadership, Mr Efford. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for hospitality and tourism, and as an MP for Blackpool—a town built on tourism—it is important that I share my insight on the proposed visitor levies or tourist taxes, formed by the close work I have done with the industry at both local and national level.
The tourism pound has an impact far beyond accommodation providers. It supports our local pubs, restaurants, cafés, attractions, cultural venues, the high street and transport networks. However, businesses across the country tell us that rising costs and an unfair tax system are holding them back. Granted, the UK cannot compete with the weather in other European countries—although it is always sunny in Blackpool—but even when we can compete, we are barely placing in the race.
The UK currently ranks 113th in the world for tourism price competitiveness. We apply 20% VAT on accommodation, compared with just 7% in Germany and 10% in France, Italy and Spain. A couple staying one night in a three-star UK hotel already pay around £26 in direct tax, compared with an EU average of just over £16. Even a modest levy of £2 a night would widen that gap further.
While many of those countries have visitor levies, they are paired with lower VAT rates, making their overall offer more competitive. If the Government consider introducing such levies, I urge them to review the case for reducing VAT in hospitality and tourism, in line with our European partners.
Fears about the impact of visitor levies are proliferating within the tourism and hospitality sector. If this policy is to be implemented, it must be done in the right way and take businesses’ concerns into consideration. For example, a levy would introduce new administrative requirements, such as updating booking systems and collecting charges—a burden that will hit small, independent businesses, especially guest houses in Blackpool, particularly hard.
Levies would need to be implemented consistently and with clear reassurances that the revenue would cover administrative costs and stay local to benefit the areas generating it. Levies must also benefit local areas more broadly. The squeeze on local government funding, in particular, has had a significant impact on tourism, as councils such as my own are less able to invest in infrastructure to support the visitor economy.
By introducing a visitor levy, the Government have said they aim to give local leaders greater control over funding, particularly in high-traffic tourist areas such as my constituency. That is a welcome principle: the Government are right to recognise the importance of local decision making, ensuring that those with the best understanding of their region can tailor investment and develop their tourism economy as they see fit. However, a visitor levy must not be used to justify the withdrawal of existing Government support, a reassurance I ask Ministers to provide to me, the industry and local authorities. Revenue from any potential levy should be retained locally and kept outside core spending power to provide additional support for activities that directly benefit tourism, such as major events, cultural and heritage assets, and transport services.
From our brilliant airshow to the illuminations, Blackpool prides itself on large-scale, free events that bring hordes of tourists to our coast in search of a family and budget-friendly trip. Yet the value of overnight stays, along with average visitor spend, is falling against a backdrop of enhanced competition, a tourism offer in need of refreshing, and the ongoing challenge of identifying a sustainable funding model.
Local leaders are best placed to identify the infrastructure, cultural assets and improvements that spur growth, and the Government must consult meaningfully with them on their proposals. Equally, it is critical that local leaders engage with businesses and their communities throughout the process. Alongside that, we cannot ignore the wider pressures facing the sector. I and colleagues have called for reforms of business rates, a fairer approach to employer national insurance contributions, and a reduction in VAT for hospitality and tourism. Those issues remain central to the sector’s long-term viability.
In Blackpool, there is an ambition to expand the current enterprise zone along the promenade for hospitality and tourism businesses. I am grateful to Ministers for meeting me to discuss this idea, which has the potential to create jobs and unlock growth and investment along the golden mile in my constituency. Like local leaders, I recognise that a tourist tax has some potential to support the industry and our local economies, but only if it is designed with fairness, consistency and meaningful engagement. If it is not, it risks placing further strain on a sector that is already under pressure.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for leading the debate.
Tourist infrastructure is an incredibly important issue in my constituency; I know the motion is about the visitor levy in England, but I want to reflect my constituency and the concerns there. I think the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have set the scene incredibly well. I may have a slightly different opinion from others in the Chamber—I apologise for not always thinking alike—but I have to reflect the opinions of my constituents.
I hear the concerns in relation to tourism levies, which could harm areas that rely on tourism and burden them with additional charges. For context, I represent a beautiful constituency, which is as equally coastal as it is rural. I am aware of numerous Airbnbs along our peninsula, which hundreds of people come to stay in each year. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that to keep our tourism sites alive we must keep the price down. What is being proposed will have a clear impact on the tourism opportunities on the mainland. For us back home, it sends a cloud over tourism that a levy may, at some point, come our way.
I, like everybody else, understand that the value of money in my hand is important. I am, after all, an Ulster Scot and for us, every pound is a prisoner. That is a fact of life, and I always want to see value for money. I am also inclined to go for what I would refer to as affordable options. I believe that, in today’s age, many people are like me and the price of staycations and holidays is already, in some cases, extortionate. It may be a small fee, but people do not want to be asked to pay more just to stay in a certain area.
There is an even bigger issue back home when we look at the comparison between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, because any levies would have an impact on both sides of the border. Adding a levy back home would make Northern Ireland relatively more expensive and push visitors to stay in the south. The potential impact of a levy on us in Northern Ireland would be the same as what the right hon. Gentleman has referred to here.
If something of this nature were ever to be introduced, clarity would be needed about where the money would be used. That question has been raised in almost every contribution. Local councils and authorities must provide clear road maps, and if people staying are asked to pay an additional fee, it should go towards the tourism sector in that specific area, not to other council services that do not benefit the industry.
The levy would not impact large chain hotels, but I worry about the family B&Bs. The right hon. Gentleman, when he set the scene, specifically pushed that issue hard. Nobody can deny that the levy would have a detrimental effect. Those B&Bs might not want to pass the additional fee on to their consumer, but they might find that they cannot sustain their business because people do not want to stay somewhere where they have to pay more.
I recognise the potential benefits that a visitor levy could bring in supporting local services and infrastructure, but we must proceed with caution. We need caution, we need a review and we need understanding before we go anywhere.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing the debate.
South Shields is a beautiful coastal town that really comes alive in the summer months. The overall borough of South Tyneside has nearly 6 million visitors each year, adding millions to our local economy. Sandhaven beach in South Shields is a Sunday Times beach of the year and the famous Great North Run has its finishing line on our Leas. When tourists visit us, they get the best hospitality that the UK has to offer, the cosiest of places to stay, and a welcome like no other. We are naturally a friendly bunch who love our little part of the north-east and are proud to call it our home.
Given the context of rising energy costs, high business rates, employer national insurance contributions, minimum wage increases and high VAT, a tourist tax is the wrong tax at the wrong time. I understand that some of those issues are beyond the Government’s control. I know all too well that the decline in communities like mine, which suffered under the last Tory Government, will not be reversed overnight. I understand that national insurance contributions were necessary to fund key public services and I absolutely support the national minimum wage; its introduction under the previous Labour Government transformed my life.
I have been vocal, however—and I continue to be, along with colleagues—about working with the Government on a business rates reduction across all hospitality and a VAT cut. As a sector, hospitality is being hit hardest by the accumulation of those costs. Despite those ongoing discussions, the new, unexpected development of a tourism tax has felt like a kick in the guts for me and my local businesses. It is one burden too many for us, and it will result in job losses and more boarded-up businesses in the centre of my town.
That extra burden is very likely to tip hotels, B&Bs and small providers over the edge, and will be felt most acutely by low-income visitors. It feels as though the tax is simply a quick win to divert more money into regional coffers, but with drastic long-term consequences and adverse impacts locally. It feels like short-termism at its worst and does not feel very strategic. UKHospitality modelling estimates that the tax will lead to 33,000 job losses, just short of £2 million in lost tourism spending and a reduction in tax receipts to the Treasury of £688 million.
Hospitality is the largest employer in South Shields. We also have high levels of unemployment, which is rising for those aged between 18 and 24. The tax seems at odds with the Government’s aims for growth, youth employment and reviving local economies such as mine. That is why it was never in our manifesto. Just last year, the Government were continuing to rule the tax out. I believe that the legislation that will enable the tax is currently going through the House of Lords in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. I implore my hon. Friend the Minister to revert to last year’s sensible position, because I have yet to meet a single business, trade body, operator or member of the wider public, especially in South Shields, who supports the proposal.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. As everyone knows, Tiverton and Minehead is the most beautiful constituency in the country, and I am privileged to represent a part of the country that sits firmly in the tourist belt and has such rich heritage. In my constituency, tourism is not an abstract construct—it is the lifeblood of our local economy. On Exmoor alone, the visitor economy supports around two thirds of all employment. We have 8.4 million visitor days a year, generating economic activity of £682 million.
In principle, I am a firm believer in localising power and placing decisions as close as possible to the communities affected. Therefore, the idea of giving local authorities the ability to introduce a visitor levy is not something I instinctively oppose. However, we must be honest about the context. Hospitality businesses are operating in the most extraordinarily challenging climate. Many are already swamped by red tape and administrative burdens, and introducing a new levy now risks imposing yet another layer of cost and complexity. Businesses will have to update systems, retrain staff and absorb the administrative load. For many small operators, that is not a trivial undertaking.
There have been references to European countries, but the fact remains that visitor levies across Europe typically sit alongside much lower VAT rates. If we want to maintain our competitive edge, the Government must think long and hard about this issue and get the balance right. If they wedded the tax to a VAT slash, as proposed by my party, they would have my ear, but only on the basis that it was a hypothecated tax for the sole benefit of my constituents.
If the Government are determined to press ahead, I seek very clear assurances on behalf of the people I represent. Any revenues raised must be ringfenced, without condition, for reinvestment in the local visitor economy—and, crucially, within the immediate geography in which they are generated. They must not be absorbed into broader local authority budgets unless clearly aligned to defined visitor economy strategy. Otherwise, any levy becomes an additional tax, not a growth tool.
There are further concerns; the removal of rurality from funding formulae has already disadvantaged large, sparsely populated constituencies such as mine, which spans two counties. The rural premium is real and it is significant. Areas without mayoral structures could be left at a disadvantage. Unless that is addressed before implementation, the gap will only widen.
Crucially, we must ask whether any levy would genuinely support the local economy, or whether the risks to the hospitality sector would outweigh the benefits. Visitor spending does not stop at the hotel door. It sustains pubs, shops, attractions and transport. Any reduction in visitor numbers could ripple across the entire local economy.
I place on record my positive recognition of the Somerset & Exmoor local visitor economy partnership, which is already doing vital work to strengthen and co-ordinate our tourism offer. Any levy must complement, not undermine, such efforts.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing the debate.
As Liberals, we strongly believe that power should be handed down to the lowest level and that we should give local areas the tools and ability to shape their own future. In principle, I would therefore support giving combined authorities the powers to introduce an overnight visitor levy—but, in this economic climate, that does not mean that we necessarily should. Let us be clear: hamstringing regional mayors with inadequate funding and then handing them the power to tax is not devolution—it is simply passing the buck.
Across North Yorkshire, from Whitby to Harrogate, from the dales to the moors, tourism is not a luxury, but a lifeline for many communities. Hotel owners in my constituency tell me that if the money comes back into the local visitor economy, they can make it work. That is a reasonable position—but they also say they have been promised investment before, and that is where the scepticism lies.
Tourism is a vital part of the economy of many local areas, supporting jobs, local businesses and community services. One topic that has not been talked about much today is the support from town and parish councils with the hard graft of organising events, supporting culture and bringing people into our communities. That is why I am supporting both Harrogate’s and Knaresborough’s bids to be towns of culture. The problem is that there is no requirement to involve them in that tourism strategy, or even necessarily on what a visitor levy may look like. That is a glaring omission.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) cannot be here today, but she has told me about the work that her town council is doing in organising such events as the world-renowned Shakespeare birthday parade, which attracts visitors from across the UK and beyond. Under these proposals, the council could be expected to deliver the footfall to the town and the economy, but denied a say on the charge. That simply cannot be right.
If we are serious about devolution, local must mean local—not just mayors in their ivory towers, feathering their own pet projects and their nests. We should be including voices from town halls, parish councils and the communities they represent. That principle must extend to how any money raised from a visitor levy is spent. I have heard clearly from my own town councillors in Harrogate, Josie Caven and Graham Dixon, that if the mayoral tourist tax is introduced, people expect to see the basics done properly. Some of that revenue should go to funding services that tourists use—for instance, the cleaning, fixing, painting and refurbishing of parks and public toilets. If people are asked to pay more, they will expect to see where the money goes. If people cannot see where it goes, they will not believe a word about why it has been raised in the first place.
Crucially, people want to have an input and a proper say. That is why, in communities across the country, local Liberal Democrats are on the ground, working hard for their communities. They know much better than some of these regional mayors how any levy should be spent. For instance, across the other side of the Pennines in Stockport, local Lib Dem champion Niki Meerman is campaigning to bring a pavilion back into use at Bredbury rec. The local Lib Dem team in Offerton, led by Councillor Will Dawson and Councillor Dan Oliver, along with other local champions such as Jamie Hirst, wants to make sure the community gets the leisure facilities that have long been promised. Jason Jones is working to bring back Woodbank Hall into use. Those are not vanity projects. These are the things that make communities work.
Tom Gordon
They may well be focus articles too. The local community champions that we have on the ground are making the point that if money is raised locally, it should be shaped locally, spent locally and seen locally. That applies across England.
Councillor Hannah Kitching in Barnsley put it to me very clearly: if South Yorkshire ends up with a tourist tax, people will expect to see real investment in public transport—connecting the whole region, not just parts of it. That means expanding such things as the Supertram network beyond Sheffield and Rotherham, so that growth is shared from the visitor economy and not concentrated.
In my constituency, I have heard real concerns from businesses that a tourist tax has the potential to suck up money and take away from Harrogate and Knaresborough, rather than adding value to our community. If we are going to end up with yet another tax imposed by another Labour politician, it should at least fund the issues that will drive tourism and growth in our local area, for instance my long-standing campaign to dual the line between Knaresborough and York or the community campaign to get a restoration package for Knaresborough castle. Those things would bring people to the area and add, rather than taking away. They would not just be cases of tax and spend for the sake of it; they would deliver visible, tangible improvements that local residents and tourists alike would actually use.
Let us be honest about the context we are in. Hospitality businesses are already under pressure from every direction. Costs are up, business rates are rising and the Government are making it harder to employ the very people the sector depends on. A sector cannot be taxed into growth, especially when it is already struggling to stay afloat. When Ministers or mayors say, “It’s only a pound or two a night,” that might sound small to us, but it does not feel small to a family booking a week away or a small hotel running on tight margins. In a domestic tourism market such as ours, price sensitivity is not a detail; it is everything.
As it stands, the proposal’s fundamental flaw is that we would not necessarily end up taxing tourists; we would tax staying. Day-trippers, who often add strain to local infrastructure pay nothing, but those who stay overnight, supporting local jobs and businesses, pay more. We risk sending the signal, “Come for the day, but don’t stay the night.”
North Yorkshire is the size of a small country, so who are we really taxing? More often than not, it will not be international tourists, but people from our own region: a family from Harrogate staying in Whitby or a couple from York spending a weekend in the dales. That leads to the concerns that this would not be a tourist tax in North Yorkshire, but a tax on our own communities enjoying their own county.
The issues of fairness extend even further. Scout leaders have raised real concerns about whether they would be impacted. Are we seriously considering a policy that would put a price on a Scout camp, a school trip or young carers receiving residential respite weekends? We should be removing barriers for young people, who have already had a rough deal from this Government, not adding to them.
Perhaps the biggest question is: why now? The reality is that this has not been driven by a tourism strategy; it has been driven by funding gaps. The Mayor of York and North Yorkshire, David Skaith, is operating with far less funding than many other devolved mayoralties, despite covering a vast rural geography. Instead of fixing that, we are handing over a simple new power to tax. When the Government will not fund regions properly, they give them a new tax and call it empowerment. Let us call it what it is: a workaround for underfunding, not a plan for growth.
If Ministers are serious about this policy, three things must be clear. First, every penny must be reinvested into the local community it was raised in, and towns such as Harrogate and Knaresborough should not be used as cash cows for other places. Secondly, businesses should have a genuine say—not just a consultation exercise, but a seat at the table. Thirdly, there must be clear exemptions for young people, charities and community groups. Without those safeguards, this is not a visitor levy; it is simply another pressure on an already stretched sector.
Tourism in North Yorkshire is not just about places; it is about people and the welcome that they offer. That is what brings people back time and again. Yes, let us empower local areas and give them the tools, but let us not pretend that this policy is fully thought through, or that it would deliver the fair deal that our communities deserve.
Before I finish, I have questions for the Minister, some of which we have heard already. Will this levy apply to short-term lets, such as Airbnbs? If not, how is that fair? What exemptions will there be for Scouts, charities, young people and unpaid carers? What formal role, if any, will town and parish councils have in this scheme? How can we ensure that their voices are heard by these mayors? How will the Government guarantee that the money raised is not just spent locally, but spent with genuine input from local communities? If we get this wrong, we risk pushing our tourism and hospitality sector over the edge, and cutting off our own nose to spite our face.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing the debate and speaking so wisely, enthusiastically and knowledgeably about the sector in his opening remarks; to the relief of everybody, that means that I will not speak as long as I originally thought I would.
I have to start with a basic question to the Minister: what do the Labour Government have against the tourism industry? I mean that in all seriousness because, since the Chancellor’s first Budget, we have seen more than 200,000 job losses, and more than half of them have been in the tourism and hospitality sector. Why does that sector seem to be singled out for additional taxes on top of the burdensome ones already imposed across the breadth of the private sector?
Why does the tourism sector seem to be particularly paying the price, especially given how important it is to the UK economy? It brings joy to millions of people—both domestic and overseas visitors—every year, generates more than £147 billion in economic activity and employs well over 2 million people—about 3.5 million, if we include the broader tourism and hospitality sector. Of course, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire pointed out, it is also a major generator of export revenue, adding more than £30 billion a year. That is greater than the car industry and greater than the defence industry, but it is being singled out for yet more taxes. Why? How often do we have to say that we cannot generate economic growth by whacking up taxes, and we cannot create jobs by making it more expensive to employ people? That is why we are seeing unemployment.
Before I go on to further details and probably more negative comments, I want to take the opportunity, as many colleagues have, to praise the sector. Our tourism industry is a British success story, and we are very proud of it. Everyone who has contributed has spoken proudly about the amazing things in their constituencies that attract people domestically and from around the world. It is not just the overt tourism things, but our beautiful landscape, incredible heritage, specific tourist offerings and beautiful beaches. We have a lot to offer the world, so we should be proud of this sector, but that raises the question of why it is being hit so hard. It is a major employer in every one of our constituencies.
This is already a highly taxed sector. Those are not just my words; the former Tourism Minister, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), said that a few months ago. He also said the Government had no intention of bringing in a tourism tax, but a few weeks later the Government are doing just that.
It has been pointed out that this was not a manifesto commitment, just as the national insurance increases were not. The credibility of this policy is therefore already in question, especially when it comes on top of those national insurance increases and the changes to the thresholds, as well as business rates changes that have undermined the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors, and significant above-inflation increases in the minimum wage. We support and have supported increases in the minimum wage, but the increase so far above inflation for younger people has had a disproportionately negative impact on their employment prospects. The tourism sector is primarily an avenue for young people, so we have had increased unemployment and huge amounts of missed opportunity for people to have what could have been their first job in an amazing sector.
It has been said frequently today that this is not just a tourism tax, but a tax on overnight stays—I agree with my Liberal Democrat colleague, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), who made that point a few moments ago. It is an overnight accommodation tax, and it is therefore unclear who exactly would be within the remit. Yes, obviously hotels and hostels, but is it caravans, tents and B&Bs? Will the private rented sector and other sectors be included? Who would be included? Would there be exceptions for groups such as Guides and others, who rely heavily on and get great joy out of overnight stays?
As has been said, even if it is proposed at an early stage that the level should be £2 per person per night, that is an additional £56 on a family holiday for four over a seven-day period. That might not sound like a lot to a lot of people, but in the shoulder seasons in a caravan park, for example, it could add a quarter or more to the cost of a holiday. That would make the decision about whether to go very real, and could do immense damage to the shoulder season. One of the most important things we need to do, particularly for our coastal resorts, is extend the shoulder season to increase the sector’s productivity.
I am sure the Minister will comment about how this tax fits into the overall finances of local government and could help local authorities, but there are many practical concerns about how it could be implemented. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire asked whether we could get a guarantee that the money would be ringfenced. There is a suspicion that the tourism industry would be subsidising and paying towards broader local government finance. Would the tourism tax end up paying for adult and children’s social care? Unless the Minister can guarantee that that will not be the case, that will always be the suspicion.
Tourism taxes are often brought in around the world and then spent on additional tourism and marketing, tourist centres or supporting local tourism offerings. If there is a suspicion that this tourism tax will be spent on other things, it will be doomed to fail from the beginning. The history of all these taxes also shows that, although they may be brought in at a very low level, they always go in just one direction: up and up. So the £56 a week I mentioned could quickly become a much bigger amount. Is the Minister therefore considering putting a cap in the legislation on the maximum amount that could be achieved? Other hon. Members have mentioned that sometimes when these taxes are brought in, there is the quid pro quo of a lower VAT rate; very rarely is there both a high VAT rate and a tourism tax.
There are other points to consider. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the point about the challenges if one area raises a tax and another does not, and he has experience of that on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. What if Cornwall brought in a tax but Devon did not? Businesses right on the border would face stark issues because of perfectly reasonable decisions made by holidaymakers. That would be through no fault of their own, but because of a decision made by local government.
The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) spoke of the peculiarities of local government in London, where we have the boroughs and the mayor, and that point has been raised by Conservative councillors as well. She made the reasonable argument that if the tax is brought in, it maybe needs to be split; otherwise, all the benefit goes to one and some of the costs go to others.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) raised the fear that if this tax is brought in, there could be 33,000 or more job losses in a sector that is already suffering—I mentioned the over 100,000 jobs that have already been lost in hospitality and leisure. There are real concerns here.
I have further questions for the Minister. The key one is about ringfencing: can we please make sure that we can include in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill—if it comes in—that the money will be ringfenced for tourism? Has an assessment been made of the impact of this tax? Can the Minister confirm whether she has had discussions about VisitBritain and VisitEngland spending, which has also been cut? That is the argument I am making: why are the Government constantly attacking this sector, reducing its funding and increasing taxes on it, when it used to be a great success story? Could the Minister confirm whether she will support Conservative party proposals for 100% business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure? There is an alternative to constant increases in taxes.
Whatever the problems may be with local government finances—and there are challenges—we all recognise that they should not and cannot be resolved off the back of an already struggling tourism industry. This is the wrong tax at the wrong time. But if it is coming in, can the Minister assure us that the money raised from tourism will absolutely, 100% be spent on tourism?
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing today’s debate on the proposed visitor levy in England. It has been an absolute pleasure to hear from—I think—nine Members on the Back Benches about their constituencies, all of which, I am certain, are equally lovable and great places to visit.
As Members have set out, this is an extremely important issue across the country. I respect the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), who speaks for the Opposition. He has a passion for the tourism and visitor economy, and he is right to say—as other Members, including the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, set out—what an important part of our economy the tourism industry is. I agree with the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham on that.
I will focus some of my remarks on devolution, because the approach we are taking is based in the strengthening of devolution. We now know that mayoral devolution works in terms of economic growth. From the construction of the Elizabeth line here in our great capital to Greater Manchester’s integrated transport, devolution has delivered results in getting the infrastructure that we need for growth.
I just say to hon. Members that I am not immune to the arguments they have made about the challenges to economies in different parts of the country; those points have been well made. If somebody had told 13-year-old me that one day people would go for a mini-break on Merseyside, I would have thought they were barking up the wrong tree. But, believe it or not, tourists and visitors of all kinds have saved the city I love, so I am not remotely immune to the arguments Members are making. It is extremely important that we consider carefully how to grow those parts of our economy that really need it, and particularly coastal areas. I take what Members have said very seriously, and I will consider it as part of the Government’s consultation.
When I was listening to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire describe very effectively the effect of tourism on our economy, I wrote down the word “Brexit”, given the effect it has had. It is too late in the day for me to become grumpy now, so I will just crack on, because this is a serious subject. The truth is that our country’s economy needs to grow at a faster rate than it has over the past decade and a half or so. The question is how we make that happen. The truth about our country is that power is extremely centralised, which means we have historically taken decisions for those places with the most power—largely the south-east.
However, recent decades of devolution—under both parties that have been in power—have begun to show a different story: when we give local leaders real powers, they can take better decisions, invest for the long term and change their fortunes. That is what devolution is all about. Mayors already hold levers for growth, from transport to planning, skills and housing.
Alison McGovern
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he first allows me to give a little shout-out to my local mayor, Steve Rotheram. The Centre for Cities recently found that over the past decade under his leadership the employment rate in Liverpool has gone from 61% to 71%—a 10-point increase. That is a miracle, and I pay tribute to Steve Rotheram for his work on that.
Tom Gordon
I completely agree, and as Liberal Democrats we want to see devolution and the handing-down of powers. But, again, I come back to the question whether it is really meaningful devolution if, when I ask the Labour Mayor of York and North Yorkshire about removing the 9 o’clock time limit on disabled bus passes, his answer is that he does not have the funding to do it. These are not real choices if the funding settlements are not there in the first place.
Alison McGovern
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for his intervention, because it gives me the opportunity to respond to a point that a number of Members raised. We have just concluded the local Government funding settlement for the next three years, so we have set the path for local Government funding. This question before us is a separate conversation; it is about whether, in theory, as part of devolution, we should enable mayors—if they choose to, and they do not have to—to use this power to invest in and grow their economies. That is a completely separate question from local government funding, which I could bore this Chamber for England on, but I am not going to.
In her speech last week, the Chancellor set out that if we are serious about growth across the country and not just in a few places, we must go further. Giving towns and cities more say over their revenue is essential. Our international counterparts give city leaders real fiscal powers, and we want to begin to make progress in closing that gap for English mayors. That is the context for the proposed visitor levy we have been discussing. Its purpose is to address the gap between the responsibilities we place on mayors and the funding they have in order to meet them. A modest levy can provide a reliable income stream that mayors can reinvest in local infrastructure, transport and the visitor economy itself.
The right hon. Member for East Hampshire asked me to spell out what will be in primary legislation, which I am obviously not able to do at this point. However, I have heard what Members have said and I understand where they are coming from, and we will take that on board as we move forward. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) also asked about that issue, and we will set out the legislative process as we move ahead.
Emma Lewell
When I was looking through the guidance, it seemed to indicate that mayors will have to consult local authorities and local industry before they come to any decision, but there is no requirement to hold discussions with local MPs, who arguably know their constituencies far better than any mayor ever could. Could the Minister look at that for me, please?
Alison McGovern
If mayors are not talking to their local Members of Parliament, they are missing an opportunity and an important part of their role. I will certainly take what my hon. Friend says into consideration as we move forward with this.
We have seen internationally how well-designed visitor levies can support growth, making places better to live, work in and visit, while also strengthening tourism and local businesses. Visitor levies have been used internationally for tourism, promotion and marketing, sustainable tourism projects, public transport, parks, public facilities, cultural heritage, restoration and so on.
The principle is very straightforward: visitors who benefit from local services and amenities make a fair contribution to maintaining and improving them. That is fiscal devolution. Mayors will be best placed to judge whether a levy is right for their area, reflecting different priorities, their own economies and local democratic accountability. That is the point I want to emphasise. Hon. Members have mentioned different parts of England and different economies, a point I accept entirely. That is the whole point of devolution. If decisions about the economy are taken only in this postcode, they will not be right, because England’s economy is extremely diverse.
I want to turn briefly to questions about exemptions, specifically scouts and guides. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) who spoke passionately about the campaign run by his constituents is sadly not here, but I hope he might find out that I applaud the civic responsibility shown by those young people.
The consultation proposed that the levy would apply to commercially let short-term accommodation, not a main residence, as queried by a couple of hon. Members. This is obviously a consultation, and we will say more when we bring forward proposals.
Several national exemptions were also proposed, such as stays on registered Gypsy and Traveller sites where it is a primary residence, which a couple of hon. Members mentioned; charitable or non-profit accommodation for shelter, respite or refuge; and certain types of temporary accommodation. I take the point about scouts and guides very seriously. Final decisions will be set out in the Government’s consultation response.
A number of Members mentioned the cost of family holidays, and I want to flag that that issue is worth bearing in mind, particularly as we did not do all that work on the child poverty strategy to improve family incomes if they cannot afford a break, which many families up and down the country truly need right now.
The devolved Governments in Scotland and Wales have already legislated to introduce visitor levies and we are learning carefully from their experience. We also want to learn from those who would be affected by a levy in England, which is why we have taken a thorough and open approach to consultation. We received more than 1,000 responses from mayors, local authorities, hospitality representatives, independent accommodation providers and many others. Those responses covered a wide range of views, and they will continue to inform our thinking about the design of this power.
On the use of revenues, any money raised through a visitor levy should be reinvested in those places where it is generated. That is why we propose that the decision on how those revenues are spent should sit with local leaders, who can best understand local needs, pressures and opportunities. The levy must be fair and proportionate, which is why we consulted on the different types of accommodation to which it should apply. We asked whether there should be a threshold below which providers are not liable, and proposed a small number of national exemptions, which I have spelled out.
We also sought views on how the levy should be charged. In the consultation, we asked about a percentage-based rate, which would scale with the cost of a stay, but we also recognise the potential benefits of alternative approaches, such as a flat-rate model. Recognising that local leaders know their area best, we asked whether mayors should have the flexibility to set levy rates locally, reflecting local priorities. Those questions, alongside many others, are being considered carefully by my Department and the Treasury as part of the next stage of policy development. I will ensure that other Ministers involved receive a copy of Hansard that covers this debate.
The Government will set out their legislative priorities for the second Session of this Parliament in the King’s Speech, which we expect to provide the framework for local leaders to introduce a visitor levy before the end of this Parliament. Between now and then, we will continue to engage closely with all those who may be affected to ensure that this policy is well designed and locally led and that it delivers for communities as well as for visitors. I take it as read that Members who have contributed know that my door is always open to them if they want to discuss this issue.
The proposals we have discussed reflect a clear direction of travel for this Government. We want to give leaders the powers and tools they need to support growth, to introduce policies that can help shape their communities and to give their place the strongest possible future. By strengthening devolution and giving communities a greater say over their own revenues, we can build a system that is simpler, more accountable and better able to deliver for the people of this country.
Again, I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire for securing this debate. I look forward to continuing to work with Members from right across the House and with local partners as we move forward in developing this policy.
Damian Hinds
Thank you very much, Mr Efford, for presiding over proceedings. I thank everybody who has taken part in what I think has been a very good discussion in this two-part debate, and I thank the Minister for her considered response.
Broadly, there are three main objections to this new tax. The first concerns the cost of living, the second concerns adding costs to a sector that has already withstood a lot of costs, and the third concerns international competitiveness. I say gently to a couple of colleagues who spoke that they cannot just wish away the law of the elasticity of demand. Yes, it is true that the Norfolk broads are unique, but on the international market, there is also the Loire valley and the Black Forest. Yes, London is unique, but for people who want to come and do high-end shopping and go to cultural things, there is also Paris and Milan.
I have only two asks. First, I ask the Minister to talk to colleagues and other Ministers, as she said she would, to consider the growth opportunity from this sector, and to calculate how many people would have to be deterred from visiting for the new tax to be value destructive, just in terms of the tax take from the VAT on hotel stays, food and beverages, attractions and everything else, quite apart from the overall effect on the wider economy and job creation.
My second ask is to everybody else, especially Labour MPs. We will all be told repeatedly that this tax will be ringfenced, earmarked and reinvested into the visitor economy, so that it will bring more people in and create more jobs. Just hold the Government to that. To the Minister, for whom I have the highest regard, I also say this: the only way she can guarantee that is to see it in black and white on a Bill that becomes an Act of Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the proposed visitor levy in England.
Waste Crime: Knowsley
(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
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of waste crime in Knowsley.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I am really pleased to have secured this debate on waste crime in Knowsley. I know this is something that my hon. Friend the Minister cares deeply about; she has met me to discuss this issue many times, and I am grateful for her genuine and meaningful engagement with finding solutions.
As the Minister knows, waste crime is a national scandal, and it is felt acutely in parts of my constituency. It is important to call it what it is: serious criminality on an industrial scale. Some 38 million tonnes of waste are dumped illegally every year. What does that look like? It is enough to fill Wembley stadium 35 times over. The cost to the taxpayer is more than a billion quid a year. The scale of this is enormous, and it is often tied to organised crime, money laundering and modern slavery. It is seriously damaging communities such as mine, but unfortunately it is thriving. When The Guardian describes it as the “new narcotics”, I have to agree.
I know the Minister understands this, which is why I know she and this Labour Government will tackle it head on through the new waste crime action plan, which I strongly welcome. I look forward to hearing in her response how this plan will help people in Knowsley, where we have two major sites of concern.
The first site is what I have named the “Simonswood stink”. Although it is just over the border in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton)—I thank her for her work and support on this—it primarily affects my constituents who live in Kirkby. It is completely out of control. While the people of Kirkby, my local Labour councillors—and, indeed, those across Knowsley—and I have been campaigning consistently on this, I must say that the Reform-led Lancashire county councillors and council have been beyond useless and have done absolutely nothing on this matter, on a site in their local authority jurisdiction.
People in parts of Kirkby are living with thick dust and a foul stench day in, day out. They tell me about issues with their health—nausea, headaches, respiratory issues and throwing up. Kids are missing out on education because schools sometimes have to shut for days due to the dust and smell. Even when they are in school, they are sometimes not allowed to play outside because of it; they are cooped up. Home life is severely affected as well. Doors and windows cannot be opened, gardens cannot be used, and washing cannot be hung out without being coated in thick dust. Cars that are washed are almost immediately covered in a thick film of soot.
Maria is really worried about her 10-month-old granddaughter’s health. She has a respiratory tract infection, and Maria is anxious that the site is making it worse or may even be the cause. Michelle has told me that since moving to the area, she has had constant nausea and headaches from the smell. Gina says it has given her child a persistent sore throat, while Joanne and her husband are having breathing problems. Hon. Members should see the photos that people send me and post online. When I am out and about in that part of the constituency campaigning, I see homes, streets and cars covered in this absolutely shocking thick dust. Hon. Members should see the size of this waste dump. It is not meant to be more than five metres high—that is a joke. It looks like the Welsh mountains.
This has been going on for years. I have been campaigning about it since I was elected—holding specific surgeries on the matter, promoting petitions, raising visibility with posters and stickers, meeting Ministers, asking questions here and pushing the Environment Agency to address it—but I am getting really fed up. I am really frustrated because the progress is just far too slow: nothing seems to be happening. People are living with this on the daily. I do not want them to go through yet another summer of this, which is when the stink and the dust get worse.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this forward—I spoke to her beforehand as well. She has outlined a serious waste-crime issue specific to her area. She is probably fortunate to have a Minister who will respond in a positive way, and I look forward to that response. However, it is not just an issue in Knowsley; it is an issue everywhere, including in my constituency.
Does the hon. Lady share my concern that, for rural communities, part of the problem with challenging those committing waste crime is the isolation of the countryside? When it comes to the Minister’s response on how to address that, there must be other ways, such as extra policing or CCTV, to catch those doing this.
Anneliese Midgley
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which will come as a surprise to no one. Yes, I know that Labour’s waste-crime action plan addresses many of the concerns that he has raised, and I am sure that the Minister will go into that in more detail in her response.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Fleetwood stinks again today, but the Jameson Road landfill site still has not been closed. After 14 years of Conservative cuts to all our public services, bodies such as the Environment Agency are on their knees. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Environment Agency desperately needs more boots on the ground to take on the criminals who care nothing for our communities or our planet?
Anneliese Midgley
I know that my hon. Friend has done such hard work for her constituency of Blackpool North and Fleetwood in campaigning on this. We are working closely together on this issue, and I absolutely agree: a big part of the problem is about the resources and enforcement powers of the Environment Agency, which, again, Labour’s waste plan will go some way to addressing. I am sure the Minister will respond to us with more detail about that.
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has outlined clearly the issues caused at Simonswood in my constituency, which my constituents are also really concerned about. Constituents on the other side of my constituency are also dealing with a very similar problem at the St Joseph’s college site. Would my hon. Friend agree that, if the Environment Agency cannot or does not act promptly and robustly when we have these problems, it leads to a significant erosion of trust in the Environment Agency—and, actually, in Government agencies as a whole?
Anneliese Midgley
Absolutely. I pay tribute, once again, to my hon. Friend for the work that she has been doing with me on that specific site in her constituency. She is right. In a moment, I will move on to another site with major issues, but where the Environment Agency did move swiftly, which has made such a difference. I absolutely agree with her.
I do not want my constituents in Kirkby to face another summer with this stench and smell. Summer is something that we should look forward to, but they are going to be dreading it.
I will move on to the next waste dump, which I have briefly mentioned. Late last year, between 15,000 and 20,000 tonnes of waste was illegally dumped just off the M57 and East Lancs Road. That is enough to fill more than 12 Olympic-sized swimming pools, and it is one of the largest illegal waste sites in the country. If those roads had to close because there were any issues or problems from that waste dump, 800 businesses could be affected, with 20,000 employees struggling, or not able, to get into work.
These sites show that there has been a failure throughout the system. Taken together, they send a message that Knowsley is being treated as a dumping ground, and that is impossible for me and my constituents to ignore. We can see what is happening across the country. The Government have rightly stepped in to support the clean-up of illegal waste sites, first in Oxford, and now announced for Wigan, Lancashire and Sheffield. That is great, but what about the dumps affecting Knowsley? I am sure that the Minister will understand why my constituents and I see that as unfair. It is not right for my constituents and struggling local authority to have to pick up the tab for outright criminal behaviour.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and I wholeheartedly support her campaign for her constituents, given the appalling situation they find themselves in. Does she agree that issues are often also at street level where, sadly, a tiny minority of residents drop off mattresses, old furniture and bags of rubbish, leaving them at the end of the street, causing a local stink and an eyesore? In my area, that is being tackled by the local authority, but we would like more resources. It is important that the Minister is present, and I look forward to her addressing the issue later.
Anneliese Midgley
I absolutely agree: this matter affects us across all our constituencies. In the action plan, I have read about some good measures, but they need to be put into action. I am sure that the Minister will go into that in more detail.
I finish with four questions for the Minister. First of all, will she look at whether Knowsley could receive the same level of support as other areas that have been cleaned up following Government intervention? Secondly, will the Government ensure that struggling local authorities are not left to pick up the bill for large-scale organised waste crime? Thirdly, what will actually change to ensure earlier intervention, so that no community has to endure what a number of my constituents are living with now? Finally, what will the consequences be for the criminals, so that this is just not worth it for them?
My constituents deserve better. They should not have to live like that. They should not be breathing this in, cleaning it off their homes, missing out on education or reorganising their lives around it, and they should not feel like they are being overlooked or left behind—but right now, that is exactly how it feels to us. That is not acceptable.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I have slightly more time than normal, so I hope that we can have a bit of discussion because I am absolutely passionate about tackling waste crime. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) for securing this debate and to all hon. colleagues who made such valuable points.
I say first that we have a programme called Pride in Place. Everyone’s environment starts at their front door, and if their front door has dog mess or fly-tipping on it, or if, as we have heard today, their car is covered in dust from an illegal waste site—or from a permitted waste site in breach of its permits, as the lawyer on my shoulder would say—then people do not feel at ease where they live. Those waste criminals and permit breachers violate our spaces.
Organised criminals, as we heard, are exploiting the waste sector for profit. They have moved in on a large scale over the past 15 years, on the Conservatives’ watch. They damage our environment, threaten public safety and undercut decent businesses doing the right thing, and they are making a lot of money out of it. That happened under the previous Government and was allowed to continue, so that it became a consequence-free crime.
The Environmental Services Association estimates that 20% of all waste in England is illegally managed. That costs our economy more than £1 billion. In the 2024 financial year, criminals evaded at least £150 million in landfill tax. They do not pay it, so we all pay it. Waste crime is organised crime. Waste crime is serious crime, and this Government will treat it as such. We are calling time on waste crime.
What have we done? We have put boots on the ground and we are putting drones in the air. Since coming into office, we have boosted the Environment Agency’s enforcement budget by 50%: it has gone up from £10 million to more than £15 million. When I was Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee in a previous Parliament, before my enforced gap years, I remember sitting and watching pollution happening in our country. I was really frustrated, and I understood the Environment Agency’s frustration that it was not equipped and funded to do its job. We have pursued major regulatory reforms, and we have boosted the joint unit for waste crime.
In the first 18 months of this Labour Government, the Environment Agency has stopped illegal waste activity at more than 1,200 sites. It has achieved 122 prosecutions and 10 people have gone to prison. The action plan that we announced last Friday is the next step up, and it is a scale up. We are calling zero tolerance on this crime in three different areas. First, we are preventing illegal activity before it starts, by getting better at working out how criminals act. Secondly, we will strengthen enforcement so that offenders are caught and punished. Thirdly, we are cleaning up the most harmful sites. I will come on to the site mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley shortly, but let me first take each of those areas in turn.
First, on prevention, we are tightening the rules and closing the gaps that criminals exploit. How? We are overhauling the regulation of the waste carriers, brokers and dealers regime, moving from a light-touch, paper-based regime—where campaigners registered Oscar the dog for a licence—into a full, environmental-permitted scheme. Those paper systems are going. We are going to have mandatory digital waste tracking. There will be a single UK-wide platform to monitor those waste movements—as it goes from the transfer statement on to someone else and on to someone else, as that is where it gets lost and it goes out into the environment—so that we can spot diversion and fraud earlier, further up the chain before it turns up on a motorway.
We are also removing widely-abused waste permit exemptions on three things. The first is waste tyres; we have all seen the mountains that somehow catch fire. The second is end-of-life vehicles, and the third is scrap metals, where we know there is a criminal industry with cable theft and so on. There was a similar site in Wakefield that eventually went bust, owing the taxpayer £60 million.
Matt Rodda
The Minister is making an excellent speech. I am really pleased to hear about the new strategy and determination from the current Government, in contrast with their predecessors. Would she able to address—this is a niche matter, but it is really important in some areas—the issue of abandoned boats? We have a serious problem in our section of the River Thames with sunken boats. When I walk along the river, I can often spot three or four of them. They are an environmental hazard. Fuel oil could get out of these boats—
Mary Creagh
Understood. We are talking about Knowsley, and I am not the canals Minister, but I will take that back to the Department. I am sorry to do the DEFRA silos, but this is not the first time I have heard that. My hon. Friend makes a very good point.
I was talking about tyres, scrap metal and end-of-life vehicles. We are tightening seven more activities that people currently do not need a waste permit for. We are also going after the tax evaders; it is the Al Capone method. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is going to expand tax-check rules to the waste sector. If someone has not paid their taxes, we are going to be asking them questions before we renew their licence. We are going across the chain on that.
Secondly, let me turn to enforcement. We are matching our preventive work with tougher enforcement. We are pursuing waste criminals with every tool in the box. We are doubling the Environment Agency’s enforcement budget, with an additional £45 million over the next three years. There will be more boots on the ground and more drones in the air to stop the criminals in their tracks. We are giving the Environment Agency new police-style powers so that it can intervene earlier, disrupt criminal networks and bring more criminals to justice before illegal operations, such as the one my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley mentioned on the motorway, become established.
Alongside that, the joint unit for waste crime—I visited it in the midlands just a couple of weeks ago, where it is doing some absolutely excellent work—is strengthening its hand. It is bringing together environmental watchdogs, police forces and the National Crime Agency; some of this involves very serious, hardcore, dangerous criminals, so we need some heavy people with us to deal with heavy people. They are getting ready to dismantle the serious organised crime networks that blight our communities.
The penalties for the crime must match the harm. The carriers, brokers and dealers reform will increase the penalties for offenders to up to five years’ imprisonment. Our manifesto made it clear that those who spoil our streets and parks should face up to what they have done and put it right with their own hands.
I am extremely keen that carriers or brokers should have their registration numbers on all their advertising and on their vans. If digitally excluded or older people give their waste to somebody, they should not get the fine. They should be able to clearly see that the van coming to pick up the stuff is a registered vehicle. We should have that confidence, because we as consumers should know that the van is compliant.
We will consult with councils on powers for them to issue fly-tippers—we have heard about them—with conditional cautions to make them clean up the mess they make. What is a conditional caution? I, too, have learned some things: it is an on-the-spot fine of up to £300 and an on-the-spot penalty of 20 hours of unpaid work. We think that clean-up squads are educating people about the harms they have caused, and that getting people to clean up is the best possible way to get them to think twice before they do it again. We will also look at putting penalty points on the driving licences of persistent fly-tippers—again, to make them think twice before they do a job for their mate on a Friday night, shall we say, that may affect their regular employment during the week. We are coming at it at all levels of the chain.
Jim Shannon
I have a quick question. Does that apply to the obfuscation of the vehicles and vans used? If it does, that will also hurt them.
Mary Creagh
Local authorities have those powers already, but they are not very confident at using them, so I have issued guidance to local authorities to say, “Come on—you’ve got these powers. Why don’t you use them?”. One of the things I hear back is that local authorities have to store the vehicles, pay for a pound, and make sure a vehicle is properly illegal before they seize and crush it. But Labour’s Merton council, in south-west London, does an excellent job on seizing and crushing, as does Sunderland city council up in the north-east. They are in my star hall of fame for seizing and crushing a lot of vehicles; I hope that, if we have this debate next year, other local authorities will be in the mix.
Clean-up costs should rest with the landowner. The polluter should pay, and we will go after the criminals to make sure they pay. We are supporting the clean-up of three illegal waste sites, which my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley mentioned, and we have published clear criteria for those sites where intervention is needed most urgently. They include an assessment of the landowner’s capability to clear up the site without Government needing to spend taxpayers’ money.
I understand why the residents of Knowsley want the site next to the M57 motorway to be included in that work. We still need to see the fire risk from Merseyside—that was covered in the last meeting we had—and the Environment Agency is in conversation with the landowner about clearing the site. We are getting cleverer at working out what happens before an illegal waste site is created, and we are going to use satellite technology, as well as drones, to be much smarter about how we move earlier on these things. In the meantime, we are monitoring the situation and working with local partners.
For local authorities that want to clear up waste sites on their land, we are looking to develop a rebate scheme for the landfill tax they pay. We will also look, with the insurance industry, at developing an insurance model to shield farmers, businesses and landowners from bearing the cost of waste dumped on their land through no fault of their own.
Let me quickly return to the issue of St Joseph’s college, because that was not on my radar—I thought, “What problems do we have here?” I have a note that refers to the development of a new golf course bringing waste material on to the site. Let me look into that as soon as possible once I get back to my desk, because if something is going on there we want to get in super quickly and get it done super fast. If it is a golf course, then let it be a golf course—not something else. The key is to raise it earlier and to call 999 or Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111. If something does not look right and feels wrong, a person must tell the police. It is no good assuming that it is the council, National Highways or workmen. I have spotted vehicles fly-tipping on the M1 while driving back from Coventry at night, and I have called 999 straight away because it is clearly a waste crime in progress.
We heard about the action that was happening on the Simonswood industrial estate, with the Environment Agency. We have had investigations; the Environment Agency has stopped burning and sent reminders to all permitted sites. However, it is clear that the ongoing waste odours and problems mean that further action must be taken. I remember that when we first met, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley told me the site was making Mo Salah sick. I am devastated that he is leaving Liverpool before we have had a chance to make things right.
On Windmill Services, the EA is looking at the next regulatory enforcement step, including revocation of its permit. The EA will conduct site visits imminently to make that assessment and there is a live enforcement case under way. Finally, on Jameson Road, there have been over 500 odour complaints in February, so clearly there is an ongoing problem. We are not going to fix this overnight, but we are doing our absolute best.
I give all hon. Members present from across the House my absolute commitment that we will tackle these rogues. We are coming for them, and we are going to put them out of business.
Question put and agreed to.
Public Baths and Lidos
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
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of public baths and lidos on local communities.
It is a pleasure to speak in a debate that I think should be called in Hansard, “For the Love of Lidos”. It is a delight to open this debate on the value of our public baths and lidos. It could not be timelier, as Peterborough lido is set to open for its 2026 season this coming weekend.
I am delighted to see so many colleagues. That shows the love of lidos in our communities, how important they are and how much interest they generate around the entire country—not just in my constituency. The UK stock of public outdoor pools represents deep cultural heritage, serving our communities for over a century and generating health, happiness and pride in our places.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentions community. Does he agree with me that pool users’ groups are crucial to keeping up standards in our ageing facilities? Would he also agree that we must target younger children so that they can swim lifelong in what is often very cold water, and that school swimming is crucial?
Andrew Pakes
I agree on both points. I will talk later about how I am blown away by the dedication of so many of the volunteers who have supported and built our lidos over a long period, and particularly during some very dark years in funding for some of them.
Nowhere is the happiness and pride that I have talked about greater than in Peterborough. Our art deco lido is a jewel in our city’s crown and, after a number of years on the down, it is now on the up. Two years ago the lido faced a bleak future because of the nature of local government funding cuts. Despite great enthusiasm from swimmers, it had seen better days. I am pleased to say that the council was forced to think again after more than 2,500 people got involved in the campaign to save our lido, and I am pleased to have played my part. Last year, the lido, with support from the council and residents, went on to have its best ever season.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First of all, I apologise to the hon. Member because I had hoped to speak in this debate and give some thoughts from my constituency back home. However, I cannot because I have to chair an event at six o’clock, so I apologise for having to intervene and then leave after his speech.
In many communities, lidos are far more than just outdoor swimming pools; they are valued public assets that promote health, wellbeing and social cohesion. Yet without sustained support, the facilities remain vulnerable to closure due to financial pressures. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that their importance for public health, community wellbeing and access to affordable leisure is vital?
Andrew Pakes
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that lidos are critical to public health, but they need to be accessible and affordable for people from all parts of our communities. We need to build that as we go forward.
That links to my next point about the generations that built many of our lidos and the echoes of that today. Built in the lido boom of the 1920s and 1930s, Peterborough lido proudly celebrates its 90th anniversary this year.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
Worthing lido recently celebrated its centenary. It is a symbol of our wonderful seaside town’s history, but it has been unloved for some time. I am delighted to be working with my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), Worthing’s Labour council and the local community to restore our lido to its former glory as a community space, and hopefully, in the long term, to build a tidal pool nearby. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) agree that lidos should not just be a part of our past, but should offer an opportunity for a glorious future for our towns?
Andrew Pakes
I wholeheartedly endorse my hon. Friend’s comments. It is not just the fact of having a lido: it is about the community and volunteer spirit that builds around it, which adds something greater than just a pool.
Peterborough is a working city. The lido was built in an era of recession and global uncertainty and it represented an important investment in public health in our city. Today, on its 90th anniversary, we face similar shadows: a decade of austerity and cuts for public services and local government; a world facing anxiety; and families still worried about living costs. Since its opening in 1936, Peterborough lido has remained a constant feature in our city. It has withstood many changes: changes in management, bomb damage during world war two, multiple threats of closure and demolition, and, most recently, the covid pandemic.
Why does it matter? It matters because swimming and the public good go together. No only did we nearly lose our lido, but two years ago the Conservative council closed our only public indoor pool as well. We are now the only one of the top 10 fastest growing cities in the country without an indoor public pool. I am glad that the new Government have listened, and, thanks to the work that I helped lead, the Chancellor has provided £20 million through the growth mission fund so that we can now have both a majestic lido and a new indoor pool, which is being built.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I want to thank my hon. Friend for his speech that he is making and for bringing this matter to the Chamber. I am greatly enthused by what he has achieved because every time I visit Stanhope, I know that it is a great source of sorrow for people that our lido closed during covid and has never reopened. Likewise, if I am in Crook, the No. 1 thing that people raise with me is the loss of the swimming baths about 10 years ago. Those are two areas where I am working with people and hoping that we can bring those services back. This is something that my hon. Friend has achieved, thanks to the funding from the Labour Government. I would love to hear more from him about that and hear how he and his community have been successful in that campaign.
Andrew Pakes
Brilliant—I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The only correction I would make is that it was not my achievement. It was the achievement of the friends group, the campaigners in the council and its good officers, who have all worked together to rebuild our lido after a difficult period, learning from the successful campaigns in other places around the country.
At a time when prevention is the overriding health priority and physical activity is recognised as the key to lifelong health and wellbeing, these accessible and inclusive facilities have a vital and powerful role to play. Swimming remains one of the most popular activities in England. Each year, around 12.5 million adults go swimming, and over 4 million people enjoy swimming outdoors, including in lidos. I pay tribute to all those involved in promoting the benefits and enjoyment of swimming, including Swim England and Future Lidos, both of which have helped me to prepare for this debate.
I also pay tribute to the award-winning City of Peterborough swimming club, and to the swimmers, parents and volunteers who support it. There are no finer volunteers in our communities than the parents who give up their weekends and early mornings to help their children and other children to engage in the beauty of sport.
I could not make this speech without recognising the incredible role of Friends of Peterborough Lido. In particular, I pay tribute to the wonderful Clare Marshall, who this week stood down as chair after many successful years of shepherding the group. I know from speaking to many hon. Members and hon. Friends across the House that friends groups and volunteers are vital to saving our lidos and keeping them in rude health.
I welcome the Minister. We have a shared love of community sport and facilities. However, as the evidence suggests, this issue cuts across Departments and is not restricted to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, so I will put a couple of friendly questions to him.
What assurances can the Minister give the House that the Government understand how swimming is integrated across public health, DCMS, local government and a range of Departments? Can he reassure us that the Government, as a whole, understand the importance of these facilities? What role do lidos and swimming play in the Government’s commitment to grassroots sport and public leisure? And with a little cheek, I invite him, on his way home to his constituency, to join me for a dip at some point during the 90th anniversary of Peterborough lido. We will even supply him with a cuppa and a camera to record the moment for posterity.
Peterborough lido is not just a pool; it is part of both our heritage and our future. It is about the memories made and the memories still to come. It is one of our key leisure and visitor attractions. Its 90th anniversary is a city celebration, not just a pool celebration. Last year, I was privileged to help form Peterborough’s first ever tourist board and to serve as its inaugural chair for the first year. Peterborough brings together the art deco jewel of our lido with our cathedral, our museum, our green spaces—including the John Clare countryside and Nene Park—and our history in Flag Fen. I am also proud that Peterborough Museum will host a civic exhibition on the importance of our lido, with a documentary being recorded later in the year.
Our lido, like so many lidos, is in the heart of our community, which is where they should stay. For that to happen, we need to safeguard these assets for the long term. The public sphere has been much eroded over the last decade, but together we can rebuild it. Through community ownership and involvement, we can strengthen these bonds, which will become much easier with Government support.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
I remind Members to remain standing to give us a chance to work out a time limit. It will be roughly four minutes, although I will not impose a strict limit.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) for securing this excellent debate.
I begin by paying tribute to Kitty Wilkinson, the woman to whom we owe a debt of thanks for giving us modern public baths. In 1842, thanks to her determined advocacy, Liverpool opened the first combined public washhouse and baths in the United Kingdom since Roman times. Crucially, she inspired national interest and, just a few years later, Parliament passed the Baths and Washhouses Act 1846, which empowered local authorities across Britain to build public bathing and laundry facilities.
However, as we discuss the impact of public baths, we should remember that they were never conceived as leisure facilities, but as tools to improve the health of working people. Indeed, the 1846 Act does not mention swimming at all.
Carlisle’s public baths opened in 1884, funded by the proceeds of the municipal gasworks. However, the funds did not stretch to including Turkish baths, which had become popular—again, not as leisure facilities—thanks to the work of Richard Barter and David Urquhart, a doctor and a diplomat who extolled the therapeutic benefits of hot and cold treatments and drove the expansion of Turkish baths across the UK during the 19th century. Turkish baths catered for the working man, for it was men who were in the factories at the time. After a long shift in the mills and factories, they could be cleaned and cleansed, inside and out, by a Turkish bath.
Carlisle’s Turkish baths were finally added in 1909. Sadly, the relocation of the main swimming pools in 2022 forced the closure of not simply the Turkish baths, but a community facility used by a loyal group of regulars—Barry, Iain, David, Richard and Keith, to name but a few—who knew of the baths’ physical and mental health benefits.
On one visit just before its closure, I spoke with a young man who explained that, as a recovering alcoholic, his weekends were lonely because he could no longer go to the pub, but a couple of hours in the baths had been filled with the conversation he missed. Another said that the baths had kept him together after he and his wife separated, and another spoke of how they alleviated his asthma. Barry, a regular of more than 50 years, would often say that he could name half a dozen men who had not needed mental health treatment because the baths provided a space to unwind and talk.
It has been three years since the closure of Carlisle’s Turkish baths, but the campaign and the charity that I started continue the work to secure a community asset transfer from Cumberland council and reopen them as an expanded centre for health and wellbeing. I pay tribute to Steve Yeates—
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a heartfelt and moving speech in support of somebody who was clearly very dear to her, for which I commend her. I hope I have given her a little breathing space.
Ms Minns
My hon. Friend has, and I appreciate it.
Steve Yeates was the secretary of Friends of Carlisle Turkish Baths, and he sadly passed away last year. I also thank the Architectural Heritage Fund for the advice and financial support that have enabled the group to evidence the viability of its vision, which will include a community laundry because, as Kitty Wilkinson knew, baths are a community facility that supports public health, and they are open to all.
I conclude by inviting the Minister to visit Carlisle, to endorse the work of the friends group and to back its vision of reopening the north-west’s last Victorian Turkish baths.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) for his continued advocacy. As someone who lived down the road in Huntingdon for many years, I am delighted to hear that Peterborough lido is up and running again, which is fantastic. Lidos are not just leisure facilities; they are part of the fabric of our communities, as other hon. Members have so eloquently spoken about already.
In Worthing West, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tom Rutland) has already alluded to, our lido tells a similar story. It was originally built as a bandstand in 1925, and was later transformed into a pool. It has long been a defining feature of our seafront, and it is a place to which people feel deeply connected. For some time, it has stood empty. However, it has not been redundant, as it has played host to a fantastic series of film backdrops. The 2018 Laurel and Hardy biopic was set in our wonderful lido, and it can also be seen in “Wicked Little Letters” with Olivia Colman.
Even though we welcome our lido being a film backdrop, it is now changing into something much more proactive for our community, as there is real momentum behind bringing it back to life. It has been a local priority for me and my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, and we have been working with partners, including Worthing borough council, Worthing Heritage, businesses and community groups, to help drive that forward.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I cannot let a debate on swimming pools go without mentioning Falmouth, which is on a peninsula with sea on three sides. The children of Falmouth have lost the swimming pool, as it was shut by the Conservative council in 2022. We have been campaigning rigorously, including with a petition to this House, to try to reopen it. In the meantime, community organisations, Falmouth town council and Pendennis Leisure have taken on the site to try to keep it running. I pay tribute to those organisations.
Dr Cooper
Excellent. I thank my hon. Friend, who has nicely paid tribute to them. Well done.
What has been so striking about the work we are doing is the level of local energy in our community. People care deeply about these spaces, and they want to see them thriving again. We have an opportunity to do that in a way that reflects who we are now as a town, by creating a space that works for the future—one that can bring people together and host community life, and that makes the most of its unique position on the seafront. In Worthing, the sea is not just a backdrop. It is part of our identity, which gives us the chance to think a little differently about how people experience this space and the role it can play in everyday life.
At this point, I give credit to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. The lido is right on the seafront, and being on the channel, as Members can imagine, the structure is not terribly stable. Worthing borough council is putting in a lot of money, and Historic England is looking to shore it up so that it does not fall into the sea. Although I am not an engineer, the prospect of putting a swimming pool back into that structure looks quite unlikely. My mighty hon. Friend is undeterred. He says that we must have some sort of sea pool, so we are looking into the possibility of having a sea pool near the lido structure. We are also looking at the possibility of green energy generation. What started out as a community project is blossoming into something quite fantastic for Worthing. It is in its early days, but we are very excited.
As a public health doctor, I can see real value in these spaces, and many Members have mentioned public health already. Access to healthy outdoor spaces should not be a luxury; everyone should benefit from them, regardless of where they live or what their circumstances are.
I conclude by inviting all hon. Members to come to Worthing to see the lido in its current art deco glory, and I ask the Minister to consider the options for Government contributions to our lido. There will be mighty funding contributions, and I ask the Government to contribute in whatever way possible to our community “ DIY SOS” project.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) for securing this debate. Lidos are important to us all—particularly to me, because I learned to swim in Grange-over-Sands lido, which is a saltwater lido that is currently closed but will hopefully be reopening shortly, and my first job was in south Oxford at the Hinksey open-air lido. Lidos mean a lot to me.
We are in crisis in Stroud: last week, we found out that our lido in Stratford Park is not going to open for a number of maintenance reasons. That is a recurring theme—my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) said that his lido has not opened either. We are in a crisis, and we need extra Government support. Our lido, like many in this country, was built in 1938, and throughout the war, people swam there to relax. Lidos are lifesaving: 25% of children in this country are unable to swim when they leave primary school, which is a scandal. The health benefits, which my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) just talked about, are important, and they include fitness and combating stress. On the community value of lidos, one of my constituents said:
“It is no exaggeration to say that there are people who would not have been born in Stroud were it not for their parents or grandparents meeting at the lido and it is no exaggeration to say that there are people in Stroud who would now have died were it not for the enormous health benefits of swimming in the lido.”
At our lido, a load of things have been found that are probably quite familiar to many others: the lining is beginning to break up and there is some worry that the pump and the valves, which are all 80 or 90 years old, are about to fail. We are very angry in Stroud because we were not told about that before. I believe that there are ways to open the pool this summer so that we can benefit from it, and then maintain it in the winter.
It is said that the lido is going to be closed for safety reasons, but if it is closed, people in my constituency will go to the many rivers and lakes around Stroud, which are much more dangerous for swimmers. There have been a number of deaths in a lake in the area, so opening the lido will save lives. We need to fix the bottom of the pool quickly and fill it up for the summer, and then we need to consider a change of ownership. It is currently owned by the district council, but maybe it could be run through community ownership or with support from the Government.
Many of those in charge of lidos in this country should look to Penzance’s hot saltwater pool. It was redeveloped after storm damage, and it is lovely to sit in. We need to offer day tickets. The Government should make lidos cheap and cheerful because people love them. Would the Minister consider creating a national lido fund? If the Government are serious about public health, communities and opportunity for young people, they must be serious about saving our lidos.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve in this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) on securing such an important debate. Sadly, the reality is that more than 1,200 swimming pools have been closed since 2010, a net loss of around 500 due to the austerity imposed by the coalition Government and subsequent Conservative Governments.
In Stockport, not only have we lost Reddish baths, but we have serious issues at the Grand Central swimming pool in our town centre. That pool is a valuable asset for the community, and I am concerned by the lack of investment in the facility by the Liberal Democrat-run Stockport council. It is a valuable 50-metre pool. The ability to switch between short-course and long-course swimming provides significant benefits to local swimmers. The pool is essential to the physical and mental wellbeing of many, and we cannot afford to downgrade yet another facility. I am sorry to share that, and I would like the Minister to intervene on this issue if possible, because when I engaged with Sport England, the organisation was less than helpful—I think it should take a better attitude to engaging with MPs.
Reddish in my constituency faces many issues, including health inequalities and a lack of high-quality public facilities. Reddish baths closed in 2005 and the building has stood vacant ever since. For generations, the swimming baths brought the community together, gave young people the opportunity to learn a vital skill and served as a much-loved facility. I am currently running a survey asking residents in Reddish to share their views about the baths, and 86% of respondents placed “swimming or fitness facilities” in their top three preferred future uses for the site. I thank Councillors Rachel Wise and David Wilson for supporting my survey.
I regularly meet people who are frustrated by the lack of provision in Reddish; many respondents to my survey referenced childhood memories, the loss of local pools and frustration at seeing a valuable building left unused. Despite that, Stockport council currently has no firm plans to reopen or reinvest in the baths. Across five facilities, Stockport council has a public supply of 2,648 cubic metres of water. To meet the recommended supply, Stockport would need another 990 cubic metres, so there is clearly a water provision deficit.
Nationally, swimming outcomes are worsening, and that is a cause of serious concern. I recently visited Stockport Metro swimming club at Grand Central to see the performance squads in action. I pay tribute to the dedication of the swimmers and coaches. Stockport Metro continues to be a vital pathway for young people to progress in the sport. Since moving to Grand Central pool, 14 Stockport Metro athletes have qualified for the Olympic games and the club has produced four Olympic medallists, making it the most successful in British history. That is a point of pride and celebration for us in Stockport, and I wish Stockport Metro the best of luck in the upcoming Commonwealth games in Glasgow.
To add to the list, I invite the Minister to Stockport to visit Reddish baths and Grand Central. I want to see the Government engaging constructively with Stockport council to secure the future of facilities in Reddish and our town centre. I am grateful to all staff at Life Leisure in Stockport and everyone who has written to me about these issues, and I place on the record my thanks to Swim England for all its work on the issue.
All of us want high-quality public services in our constituencies, in particular for health, fitness and mental wellbeing. Britain has a rich tradition of producing world-class athletes; if we do not invest in such facilities for people of all ages, that will be lost. I could go on and on, Mr Efford, but I know you are getting uneasy in the Chair, so I will conclude my remarks.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) for securing this fantastic debate about lidos.
I am proud that my constituency is home to Brockwell lido in the magnificent setting of Brockwell Park. Brockwell lido is an unheated outdoor swimming pool that opened in 1937, and it is grade II listed. It is a very special place. Crowned Britain’s best outdoor pool by the AA in 2025, it is known locally as Brixton beach. It is a place where generations of children have learned to swim and enjoyed the freedom of a summer by the pool. It is where many local residents enjoy the ritual of year-round swimming and a range of activities, including gym, fitness, yoga, and a truly wonderful programme of inclusive children’s activities run by the brilliant Whippersnappers.
Brockwell lido is firmly at the heart of our community, and it has a special place in my life too. I have swum there regularly since 1996. In 2024, after many years of trying to summon the courage, I—pardon the pun—dipped my toe in the water of cold-water swimming, continuing my weekly swim into the autumn months. I very much enjoyed the experience until the Sunday before Christmas, when the water temperature was a balmy 8°. I fainted in the changing room afterwards. I am grateful to the kind women who found me and helped me to recover my pride and dignity, as much as my consciousness; I am now not quite a year-round swimmer at Brockwell lido.
Throughout Brockwell lido’s history, however, it has faced precarious times. It was closed for a period in 1990 and opened again after a vigorous campaign by the Brockwell Lido Users group. I pay tribute to BLU, which played such an active role in advocating for lido users and for the protection and maintenance of Brockwell lido. In 2023, when the lido needed major investment to be able to continue, BLU was involved in the choosing of a new operator, Fusion Lifestyle, which secured the investment needed at the time and ran the lido well for the first few years through good collaboration with BLU, Whippersnappers and Lambeth council.
In recent years, however, following a change in the leadership of Fusion Lifestyle and some of the challenges faced by the leisure industry as a result of the pandemic, there has been increasing concern about the quality of the facilities and the lack of investment and maintenance at Brockwell lido. Right now, Brockwell lido is facing a new risk, as it is understood that Fusion Lifestyle faces grave financial difficulties and may no longer be in a position to continue to operate the lido.
On Sunday, I attended a meeting of more than 200 local residents, who came together with Lambeth councillors and members of the BLU committee to talk about the future of Brockwell lido. Were any confirmation needed as to how loved and valued Brockwell lido is by local residents in our community, that meeting was it. I am pleased that Lambeth council agreed to step in if needed to ensure that Brockwell lido stays open, but the anxiety in recent weeks poses a number of questions about protections for our lidos, and whether sufficient protection is afforded to them given their great value to our communities.
We know, for example, that Brockwell lido is a profitable site, but there has been little transparency about, and no ringfencing of, the funding that the lido brings in, such that it is spent on the maintenance and investment that is needed for the lido. The process is under way for designating Brockwell lido an asset of community value, but I wonder whether such a designation should be automatic for facilities that are always going to be assets of community value. There is no guaranteed role for users of our lidos in their governance, despite the fact that the users are so often the custodians of such valuable and important places. Finally, in the event of insolvency or administration, there is no obligation on an operator to co-operate with, or to hand the facility back to, the council so that it can continue to operate for the public benefit.
We love Brockwell lido and, as a community, we will work to ensure that it has a sustainable, viable and long-term future, but without doubt, having had this experience, we are learning about possible additional protections. I hope that the Minister will have some response to such concerns.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) for giving me the opportunity to talk about our public baths and lidos, and the positive effect they have on our local communities.
This year, the outdoor swimming pool in Hathersage will be celebrating its 90th anniversary, an incredible achievement for a community asset that has faced many challenges. In 2014, Hathersage parish council agreed to pursue listed status for the pool, a process that locals described as time-consuming and arduous. It is vital that we protect historical facilities such as the outdoor pool at Hathersage by minimising barriers to achieving listed status, therefore giving more access to grant funding so that they may continue to play a central role in community life for many years to come.
Similarly, the lido in Matlock Bath plays an important role in supporting both residents and visitors, who contribute to the local tourist economy and travel from far and wide for the unique experience that Matlock Bath has to offer. The outdoor pool at the New Bath Hotel is fed directly by the site’s natural geothermal spring—in fact, it is the only lido in England heated by spring water, with temperatures naturally reaching up to 23°C. The lido plays a role as not just a community space, but a direct provider and supporter of jobs, both in maintaining and running the pool, and a provider of secondary employment in the hotel, pubs, cafés and restaurants that benefit from tourism in the area.
In many parts of the country, especially rural areas with underfunded public transport, lidos are now under real pressure from rising costs, ageing infrastructure and shrinking access to funding. If we lose them, we do not just lose a pool; we lose something that holds the community together, brings in tourism and has real historical value.
I simply urge that when we talk about investment in public health, local infrastructure and community assets, we recognise the value of facilities such as those in Matlock Bath and Hathersage. In areas such as the Derbyshire Dales, they make a real difference to people’s lives. I will not add to the Minister’s growing workload by inviting him to the Derbyshire Dales, but he will always be welcome there.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) on obtaining this debate and on the delightful picture he painted of the Peterborough lido. It is concerning to hear from the Members who have spoken so far about the precious yet precarious position that lidos are in.
At their peak, there were over 300 active public outdoor pools in the UK, but during the 1960s and 70s, policy and funding for lidos shifted away. Many were closed, filled in, or turned into car parks, supermarkets or garden centres. This continued in the 1980s and 90s, when the national stock of outdoor pools shrank by almost two thirds. But even as this was happening, communities were starting to fight back. The 21st century has seen a national lido revolution gaining ever-growing momentum.
We saw dozens of lidos reopened in the 2000s and 2010s after vigorous community campaigns. Many have been transferred to community-led charities, as we have heard from across the Chamber today, where innovative and responsive models maximise the positive impacts. Others have been revived and sustained by councils that saw the benefits to public health, community cohesion and the local economy. Future Lidos, which connects, represents and advocates for lidos across the UK and Ireland, lists 125 operating lidos and 40 projects either developing new pools or working to revive these precious heritage assets.
The lido sector is flourishing, collaborative, imaginative and resilient, yet these pools are being sustained against considerable odds. Alongside indoor pools, lidos have been hit hard by energy crises and costs. National insurance increases and the volatile cost of living have not helped either. These vital public health resources are run by cash-strapped councils and small independent charities operating on ever-tighter margins, often within the constraints of heritage facilities and outdated equipment.
I apologise; at the beginning of my speech, I should have reminded Members of my registered interest as a member of Teignbridge district council. In Teignbridge we have six pools: Chudleigh, Bovey Tracey, Kingsteignton, Ashburton, Moretonhampstead, and Teignmouth lido. Of those, Teignmouth is the only one by the sea, and the only one that is still council-run, but hopefully it is under transition to a community group—a familiar story that we have heard across the Chamber. It is also unusual in that it opened in 1976, but it has been an important part of Teignmouth’s history ever since. As a vital community asset, it is used by around 10,000 people every year.
Swimming at the lido is one of the most accessible activities to support an active and healthy lifestyle. Swimming pools such as the Teignmouth lido play a vital role in the community for those of all ages, backgrounds, ethnicities and financial circumstances. Devon has one of the highest proportions of people who swim regularly; residents are twice as likely as those in the rest of England to swim regularly in an outdoor pool. The lido offers residents of Teignmouth and the surrounding areas the ability to swim. I welcome the calls for Government support for lidos across the country, which would help save Teignmouth lido for future generations.
We know that swimming has enormous benefits for our health and wellbeing, and that those who get into swimming are more likely to remain active than those who participate in other forms of exercise. Public baths and lidos are vital community assets and public places for relaxation and mental wellbeing. However, some communities simply do not have access to them. Among people with long-term health conditions or disabilities, participation in swimming is much higher than in other sports. Investing in public baths and lidos is an investment in the nation’s health.
The Liberal Democrats have called for swimming pools and leisure centres to be designated as critical health infrastructure to protect them from closure; if things are not statutory in councils’ budgets, they can and will be cut in these times of hard choices. That designation would enshrine protections in law, meaning that central and local government would have a legal duty not to cut these services, and to maintain adequate funding to keep them open, as they are critical to the national health.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) on securing this important debate.
Across the United Kingdom, public baths and lidos play an essential role in encouraging people of all ages to keep fit and healthy, as well as teaching them a vital life skill: how to swim. Although we often, rightly, discuss the critical importance of our indoor leisure centres, which provide year-round access for our schools and competitive clubs, I want to take the opportunity to focus on the unique cultural and economic value of our lidos and public baths.
Around 12.5 million adults go swimming each year, and more than 4 million people enjoy swimming outdoors, including in our historical lidos. These venues offer a communal experience that is hard to replicate elsewhere. They are social and recreational spaces that act as a liquid town square, bringing together families and children in a controlled and safe environment.
From a health perspective, lidos offer a unique form of blue health, supporting the prevention of ill health and, indeed, the Government’s own prevention agenda in health policy. The cold-water environment and the connection to the outdoors provide significant mental health benefits, while the low-impact nature of the exercise is particularly important for older generations and those with disabilities or musculoskeletal conditions.
Beyond health, we must recognise the role of lidos in our tourism sector and visitor economy. A well-maintained lido is a destination in its own right, attracting visitors who support local cafés, shops, hotels and other businesses. In my constituency on the Isle of Wight, I am backing a campaign to get a new sea pool built in Sandown bay. That visionary, community-led initiative seeks to integrate an accessible, nature-based tidal pool directly into our coastal defences. By linking our traditional heritage of public baths with the natural blue health of the Solent, the project demonstrates how we can provide safe, year-round swimming that complements our UNESCO biosphere status. It will serve as a model for how coastal communities can reclaim their relationship with the water through sustainable, integrated solutions that offer health, tourism and regeneration all in one. In the spirit of dishing out invites during this debate, I invite the Minister to visit the new sea pool—but he may wish to put my invitation to the bottom of the pile, because it has not been built yet.
We must confront the reality, however, that these facilities are under threat. More than 25% of children leaving primary school are unable to swim 25 metres. The facilities they use are now at risk due to their age and increased costs. Looking at pools in general built since 1960, the average age of a pool at the time of closure is 39 years. More than 1,200 pools operating in England are more than 40 years of age and therefore approaching the end of their lifespan. In fact, the average age of a pool among Community Leisure UK members is 55 years, making them older than the average Member of this House. This is a wider issue than only lidos.
Every £1 invested in community sport and physical activity sees a return of £4.20, and swimming specifically generates £2.4 billion of social value each year. Those benefits can continue only if there is a genuine strategy for investment. I secured a similar debate on Government support for swimming facilities almost 300 days ago, yet we have had no plan or update since then. I endorse the questions put by the hon. Member for Peterborough to the Minister and I will also ask him some of my own.
Will the Government commit to a long-term capital strategy for swimming pools and lidos, recognising the ageing condition of much of the current estate? What assessment has the Department made of the impact of rising operational costs, including employer national insurance increases and energy costs, on the financial sustainability of community pools? Finally, when will we see a joined-up strategy across DCMS, the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care to guarantee access to swimming for every child?
The Vice-Chamberlain of His Majesty’s Household (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I am pleased to respond to this lively and informative debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) on securing it and such good attendance, too. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions; I think I have collected invitations to Peterborough, Carlisle, Worthing, Stockport, Matlock and the as-yet-to-be-built sea pool on the Isle of Wight.
Sam Rushworth
I just want to extend the Minister’s invitation list: I invite him to see the lido that we want to reopen at Stanhope and to come to Crook, where the public baths closed 10 years ago. Will he write and let us know what opportunities there are for Sport England funding for that sort of project? At the moment, I am not promising it to my voters, although I am really committed to it. I am meeting with Crook Community Leisure and others and trying to make it happen, but I struggle to see a way to do it without Government support.
Sir Nicholas Dakin
My hon. Friend’s energy and willingness to work with Crook Community Leisure speaks for itself, but I will certainly take away that question and share it with the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock). She was meant to respond to the debate, but unfortunately, due to the change in the voting pattern, she needed to get the last train to Cornwall at 7 pm, so she sends her apologies to hon. Members. She is disappointed not to be here, as she was very excited to talk about lidos. She will be keen to read the debate and follow up with hon. Members on any questions that I fail to answer appropriately.
As we heard, it is an exciting time of year for the art deco Peterborough lido, which is a jewel in the crown of Peterborough. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough will be one of the first to make a splash in the newly reopened lido.
Sir Nicholas Dakin
Tomorrow, he will be splashing. He invited me to drop into Peterborough as I pass by on my way home to Scunthorpe, but unfortunately I am not sure that I will be able to do that.
Lidos are not only a vital part of our culture; they offer a great contribution to our health and wellbeing, too. We heard about the restoration of Worthing lido to its former glory. We heard about the value of Brockwell lido, which my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) talked about at great length and with great passion—I thank her for that. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) about Matlock Bath; the lido’s contribution towards the heritage and tourism there is a good example of the contribution of lidos across the country.
Lidos are part of our deep cultural heritage, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough said, and I think that has been demonstrated by the energy of the debate. Certainly, we have the beginnings of a lido network here, and I encourage hon. Members to work with their local lidos to join them up. I think that would help in working with the Department, Sport England and other bodies to ensure that the voice of the lido world has its full impact.
Sport and physical activity, especially activities such as swimming, play a vital role in tackling the health challenges facing our nation by helping to treat and manage a wide variety of health conditions. My hon. Friend spoke with passion about his local lido, and I can understand the appeal of outdoor swimming. He is right that swimming and the public good go together, and lidos are an important part of that.
The Under-Secretary of State experienced some of the benefits of outdoor swimming when she joined Mental Health Swims for a swim in Hampstead ponds a while ago. That reinforced for her the positive impact that swimming, and outdoor swimming in particular, can have on mental health. Last Sunday I attended the annual north Lincolnshire swimarathon at The Pods in Scunthorpe, which is organised by local rotary clubs and raises thousands of pounds for local charities. It is good for the wellbeing of both volunteers and swimmers.
A golden thread that ran through everybody’s speeches was the voluntary effort that is put into running these facilities, whether by campaigners to maintain the facilities or to rejuvenate them. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) drew attention to Steve Yeates, the secretary of Carlisle Turkish baths. His story is an inspiration for all the other volunteers across the country. We pay tribute to him and, through him, to all those other volunteers who do so much in our world of sport and wellbeing to make the world a better place.
Swim England’s “Value of Swimming” report highlighted that 1.4 million adults in Britain felt that swimming significantly reduced their anxiety or depression, and that swimming saved the NHS and social care system over £357 million annually. Physical activity interventions contribute to an immense saving to the NHS by preventing 900,000 cases of diabetes and 93,000 cases of dementia every year. As the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) said, investing in lidos is an investment in the nation’s health.
The Government are committed to pivoting our health system to focus on prevention, and sport and physical activity are central to that. The biggest health gain comes from supporting those who are inactive, or less active, to move more. We know that swimming is a fantastic activity for the more inactive.
Catherine West
The Minister is making an excellent point about prevention. The other thing that Swim England always emphasises is the importance of 11-year-olds being able to swim when they leave primary school. As a former teacher, does he agree with that?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I absolutely do, and my hon. Friend moves me on to my next point. Before I come to it, though, let me emphasise that we are acting on the 10-year health plan by developing a national plan for physical activity. That plan will set out how the Government are working across sectors, from health to sport to transport, to enable everyone, and particularly the least active, to access physical activity and benefit from social connection and improved wellbeing.
My hon. Friend rightly raises the importance of swimming. As a former teacher, I fully understand the importance of swimming lessons for children. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) drew attention to that, too, as well as to his local lido.
Swimming is a vital life skill, as the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), said. Swimming and water safety are compulsory elements of the physical education national curriculum at key stages 1 and 2. Pupils should be taught to swim a minimum of 25 metres, use a range of strokes and perform safe self-rescue in different water-based situations.
It is clear that we are facing significant challenges, and the number of children leaving school able to swim the required 25 metres unaided is sadly falling. We need to put additional focus and effort into this area. Last year’s data shows that only 73% of year 7 pupils aged 11 to 12 can swim confidently and proficiently over distances of at least 25 metres. We must strive to get that percentage as close to 100% as possible, so that children can safely enjoy this wonderful activity.
What is clear is that the inequalities between those who have access to opportunities to swim and those who do not—we have heard much about access in this debate—are widening further. Through the Government’s work to reform school sport, we are committed to protecting time for physical education in schools, including by supporting schools to provide opportunities for every pupil to learn to swim.
There is evidence of a direct correlation between increased activity levels and areas of the country with the highest density of accessible facilities that are safe, inclusive and affordable. It is fantastic to see Peterborough council and the Government working together to ensure that those facilities are available for the local community in Peterborough. I am delighted to hear that the lido has reopened and is flourishing, with over 37,000 visitors last year—a record year. That should give heart to all hon. Members who are endeavouring to move forward with their local lidos in a similar way.
It is positive that the Government are supporting the development of a new swimming pool and sports quarter, by providing £20 million from the growth mission fund. Sport and leisure facilities can help create a sense of pride in place and improve community cohesion, whether through team sports, gym classes or children’s swimming lessons.
My hon. Friend the Minister saw this at first hand at Bletchley leisure centre in Milton Keynes and the physical activity hub in Bedworth, both of which she was fortunate enough to visit in February and March. It is clear that those facilities make a huge difference to people’s lives. She has also seen the impact of community facilities in her own constituency. Your Space Hoyland provides swimming, football, badminton, netball, basketball and a gym. The centre is not for profit and reinvests money back into its facilities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough knows all this and has made a powerful and passionate case for the important role that quality, accessible community swimming facilities can play in his constituency, illustrating his commitment by securing this debate. Local government has an integral role to play. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), who is working as best he can with Stockport council, and I commend his continued efforts to engage with it. I also share his best wishes for Stockport Metro in the upcoming Commonwealth games.
While local authorities are responsible for decisions on sport and leisure provision in their areas, we recognise the challenges faced, especially by smaller councils. The Government are committed to supporting local government and ensuring that funding goes to the places that need it most through the local government finance settlement.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is responsible for the overall approach to sport and leisure provision across the country. We work closely with Sport England, the Government’s arm’s length body for community sport, to invest over £250 million of national lottery and Government money annually into some of the most deprived areas of the country to help them increase physical activity levels. That includes a vital £10.6 million through Sport England for grassroots swimming, empowering more people to learn to swim, enjoy the water safely and compete.
Sport England’s place-based investment approach, which now covers over 90 communities and places local voices at the heart of decision making, is a testament to our evolving strategy. However, we recognise that the journey does not end there. Certainly, if Members want the Department to look into facilitating more MP engagement with Sport England, we would be happy to do so.
We have had an excellent debate, and I thank everyone for their contributions. We have shouted out very loudly for lidos this afternoon, which I think will continue with the efforts of my hon. and right hon. Friends present.
Andrew Pakes
Thank you for chairing this debate, Mr Efford, and I thank everyone for sharing their experiences. We in government talk a lot about connection, the importance of communities coming together and pride in place. Nothing brings us together more than the pride in our lidos and public baths, as we have heard today.
The one person I would single out is Kitty Wilkinson, and the wonderful story told by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns). It was working men and women, through generations gone, who fought for public health and the ability for people to wash after a day’s work. They transformed and created a movement that has led to today’s lidos, and it is the passion of volunteers today that will keep lidos in rude health for years to come.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of public baths and lidos on local communities.
Written Corrections
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministerial Correction
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Work and Pensions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Measures to support about 17% of our young people in Wales who are not in education, employment or training to gain employment are welcome, although I prefer to use the term “LEET”—looking for education, employment or training—which I think is a much more positive way of viewing our young people. However, apprenticeships and skills are devolved in Wales, so will the Secretary of State tell me which aspects of his announcement apply to the young people of Wales and the other devolved nations?
Pat McFadden
I agree that “NEET” is not the best and most user-friendly term, but it has been used for some time. As for the hon. Lady’s question about what is devolved and what is UK-wide, the hiring bonus will apply throughout the UK, but the apprenticeship aspects are devolved to Wales.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
One of my main priorities as an MP is to ensure that we see more of our young people in good, fulfilling work, because I know that far too many young people in Clwyd North are unable to fulfil their potential. I am excited about the £3,000 youth jobs grant and the expansion of the youth guarantee in Wales, but can the Secretary of State tell me more about the difference this will make to young people in Clwyd North?
Pat McFadden
I think that the statement offers hope to young people throughout the United Kingdom. I look forward to a positive and close working relationship between the UK and Welsh Governments on this issue, because I believe that both Governments share a desire for young people, in Clwyd North and everywhere else in the country, to have the best start in life. I think that, for example, the £3,000 hiring bonus and the jobs guarantee for the long-term youth unemployed, which are UK-wide initiatives, can help people in my hon. Friend’s constituency and offer hope that there is a solution to the scarring effect of leaving young people to fester in long-term unemployment, which is not good for them and not good for the country either.
[Official Report, 17 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 801-802.]
Written corrections submitted by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Pat McFadden):
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Measures to support about 17% of our young people in Wales who are not in education, employment or training to gain employment are welcome, although I prefer to use the term “LEET”—looking for education, employment or training—which I think is a much more positive way of viewing our young people. However, apprenticeships and skills are devolved in Wales, so will the Secretary of State tell me which aspects of his announcement apply to the young people of Wales and the other devolved nations?
Pat McFadden
I agree that “NEET” is not the best and most user-friendly term, but it has been used for some time. As for the hon. Lady’s question about what is devolved and what is GB-wide, the hiring bonus will apply throughout the GB, but the apprenticeship aspects are devolved to Wales.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
One of my main priorities as an MP is to ensure that we see more of our young people in good, fulfilling work, because I know that far too many young people in Clwyd North are unable to fulfil their potential. I am excited about the £3,000 youth jobs grant and the expansion of the youth guarantee in Wales, but can the Secretary of State tell me more about the difference this will make to young people in Clwyd North?
Pat McFadden
I think that the statement offers hope to young people throughout the United Kingdom. I look forward to a positive and close working relationship between the UK and Welsh Governments on this issue, because I believe that both Governments share a desire for young people, in Clwyd North and everywhere else in the country, to have the best start in life. I think that, for example, the £3,000 hiring bonus and the jobs guarantee for the long-term youth unemployed, which are GB-wide initiatives, can help people in my hon. Friend’s constituency and offer hope that there is a solution to the scarring effect of leaving young people to fester in long-term unemployment, which is not good for them and not good for the country either.
Universal Credit: Foreign Nationals
The following extract is from Work and Pensions Questions on 9 March 2026.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
The working-age benefits bill is set to reach £171 billion by the end of this Parliament, yet the Government are doing nothing to get it under control. In fact, by scrapping the two-child cap, they have added another £3 billion. It is time to stop spending and get saving. The Conservatives would stop benefits for foreign nationals and save £7 billion a year. Britain cannot be a cash machine for the world. With war in Ukraine and now in the middle east, we must boost our national security, so why are the Government continuing to bankroll benefits for migrants rather than investing in defence?
Andrew Western
The hon. Lady will be aware that the Conservatives created this system. On her specific question about what we are doing to restrict access to the benefits system by foreign nationals, she will also be aware that the Home Secretary has brought forward proposals to extend the period before somebody can achieve settlement from five to 10 years, and there is a consultation under way to move that point from the point of settlement to the point of citizenship.
[Official Report, 9 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 6.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western):
Helen Whately
The working-age benefits bill is set to reach £171 billion by the end of this Parliament, yet the Government are doing nothing to get it under control. In fact, by scrapping the two-child cap, they have added another £3 billion. It is time to stop spending and get saving. The Conservatives would stop benefits for foreign nationals and save £7 billion a year. Britain cannot be a cash machine for the world. With war in Ukraine and now in the middle east, we must boost our national security, so why are the Government continuing to bankroll benefits for migrants rather than investing in defence?
Andrew Western
The hon. Lady will be aware that the Conservatives created this system. On her specific question about what we are doing to restrict access to the benefits system for foreign nationals, she will also be aware that the Home Secretary has brought forward proposals to extend the period before somebody can achieve settlement from five to 10 years, and the Home Office also consulted on moving the point at which public funds benefits can be accessed from the point of settlement to the point of citizenship.
Written Statements
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Corporate Civil Enforcement Regime
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
The enforcement activities of the Insolvency Service—tackling economic crime, disqualifying directors for corporate misconduct and winding up companies in the public interest—serve to protect market integrity. This, in turn, fosters economic growth by maintaining a trustworthy environment, conducive to investment and entrepreneurship.
A robust corporate enforcement regime capable of tackling all forms of corporate abuse is essential for providing a level playing field for legitimate businesses, so that they can thrive and grow. It encourages good corporate governance standards, provides the confidence to do business, and helps attract investment for companies based in the UK.
Following a comprehensive review of the corporate civil enforcement framework, I have concluded that while disqualifying directors and winding up companies remain important for addressing corporate misconduct, they do not, as they are, provide the flexibility needed to deal with today’s fast-moving and complex business landscape.
I am therefore publishing a consultation today that contains a range of options that would modernise the regime and add new flexibilities for dealing with varying degrees of misconduct. These options broadly fit into three categories:
Structural reforms
To modernise the enforcement framework, we could introduce additional tools to enhance flexibility and improve efficiency. These reforms would enable Government to address a broader range of corporate abuse, while supporting a more proportionate and targeted response to lower-level misconduct. The proposals seek to accelerate enforcement processes, speeding up the removal of individuals responsible for corporate abuse, and strengthening protections for the public and the wider marketplace.
Options include: introducing tailored restrictions for directors—as opposed to outright bans—when misconduct is due to ignorance, rather than an intent to commit wrongdoing; a faster process to ban directors from the marketplace where companies have been liquidated on public interest grounds due to causing harm; and updating and simplifying disqualification proceedings, by shifting defended cases from the courts to a tribunal model.
Information gathering powers
Strengthening the Government’s powers to seek and gather information necessary to support effective and efficient investigations into corporate abuse. This will ensure powers are fit for purpose, particularly in the light of the new powers introduced by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023.
Procedural changes
Improving and modernising the current procedure for director disqualification. Making the processes more efficient and ensuring fairness and clarity for all parties.
Consultation next steps
The consultation invites general feedback on the options for reform, which will inform further policy development and identify preferred options. The consultation will be open for 12 weeks. I encourage those interested to respond to this consultation and use this opportunity to provide their views. The full consultation is available on gov.uk.
[HCWS1448]
Corporate Re-domiciliation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
I am pleased to announce that the Government are today launching a public consultation on detailed design proposals of an inward UK corporate re-domiciliation regime as part of our industrial strategy commitment to modernise company law.
The UK is a great place to locate and grow a business, with companies wanting to benefit from the business-friendly environment, world-class regulatory and legal framework, competitive corporate tax regime and extensive network of trade agreements. Under current processes, moving a company’s place of incorporation to the UK involves the creation of a new legal identity. This is costly, complex and can introduce commercial risks due to the need to transfer assets and contracts. An inward re-domiciliation regime, on the other hand, would enable foreign companies to transfer their place of incorporation to the UK while maintaining their legal identity, significantly reducing the disadvantages associated with the current routes. For some companies, the introduction of a regime would provide a practical and viable route to establishing a UK presence for the first time.
Economic growth is the No. 1 mission of this Government, and by making it easier for companies to move their place of incorporation to the UK, we will maximise opportunities for increased investment and skilled jobs. Companies moving to the UK will increase demand for professional and business services. In addition, the regime will support our plan to strengthen the UK’s position as the global location of choice for financial services firms to invest, innovate and grow. Both these sectors are among those identified as having the greatest growth potential in our modern industrial strategy.
To ensure that the regime is attractive, the regime will provide business with clarity and predictability, with proportionate and appropriate safeguards. Insolvent companies, or companies that are subject to specified sanctions—or whose directors, persons with significant control or members are subject to sanctions—would not be eligible, for example. Once a company has re-domiciled to the UK, it will be treated in the same way as a company originally incorporated in the UK, where all UK legal requirements would apply. Companies House will be responsible for operating the regime and will recover the costs associated with applications through fees.
The consultation will run for 12 weeks and may be of particular interest to multinational businesses, foreign incorporated companies, business representative groups, company law experts and professional services firms.
I will place copies of the consultation in the Libraries of both Houses, and it will be published on gov.uk.
[HCWS1447]
Intergovernmental Relations Dashboard
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
The Government commitment to working in genuine partnership with the devolved Governments continues to be reflected in the depth and consistency of our engagement.
As the Prime Minister said when he first came to office, to ensure that we are indeed a United Kingdom, it is crucial to give greater importance to respect and collaboration in the service of all people, across all parts of this country. This is essential to tackle our shared challenges and build a United Kingdom that works for everyone.
Between April and September 2025, UK Government Ministers held 214 meetings with their counterparts in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, across formal intergovernmental structures and direct bilateral engagement.
This level of contact, maintained even across the summer recess period, remains higher than in comparable periods and reflects the value we place on sustained, collaborative working relationships.
Beyond formal forums such as the British-Irish Council and Interministerial Standing Committee, ministers and their devolved counterparts met across a wide range of policy areas—from trade strategy and EU matters to migration and economic growth—demonstrating that collaborative working is now embedded across Government.
This pattern of engagement reflects a broader truth: that the most effective solutions for people across the United Kingdom are found when Governments work together, drawing on the knowledge and priorities of each Administration.
As the publication of this dashboard shows, this Government remain fully committed to the devolution settlements and genuine partnership with the devolved Governments to deliver for people all across the United Kingdom.
[HCWS1449]
Covid-19 Inquiry Module 2: Government Response
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones)
On 20 November 2025, the covid-19 inquiry published its second report, which examined core decision-making and political governance across the UK and put forward 19 recommendations for the Government to consider. Today, the Government published their response and set out the actions we are taking to address them.
The covid-19 pandemic was a traumatic chapter in our country’s history. Families lost loved ones, businesses suffered or were forced to close, and many across the country were left with life-long health impacts. The Government debt built up to cover the economic impact of the crisis is still being paid back today; the impact on NHS waiting lists remains a long-term challenge.
The Government welcome the inquiry’s module 2 report and I want to express my gratitude to Baroness Hallett and her team for their rigorous examination of the issues it raises.
It is a sobering read. Responding to the pandemic was a highly significant logistical challenge to our system of government, and indeed to Governments all around the world. However the module 2 report nevertheless exposes several failures of the Government at the time: a failure to respond quickly enough; to treat the impact on vulnerable people and children seriously enough; to provide clear, unequivocal public health messaging; and to turn scientific advice into coherent policy in a transparent, methodical way. There are many lessons to learn from the mistakes, failures—and successes—where they were made.
This Government have already made significant changes to their crisis response structures in response to the covid-19 inquiry module 1 report. Without effective governance, we cannot expect to respond to crises effectively. The Prime Minister, Cabinet and civil service must be structured, willing and able to make fast, evidence-based and compassionate decisions that will save lives and livelihoods, informed by the scientific evidence. In July 2025, we also published our resilience action plan which explains this Government’s strategic approach to increasing the UK’s resilience. Our response to the module 2 report today builds on that.
We have already updated the UK Government’s crisis management doctrine, known as the Amber Book, which sets out the decision-making framework for responding to a crisis. This includes establishing the principles for a successful taskforce structure, to oversee the response to protracted whole-of-system crises, and has informed the development of internal risk-specific operational plans for catastrophic risks like pandemics.
The report also notes that clear and inclusive communication is integral to a successful Government response to an emergency. The Government Communication Service crisis communications operating model has been updated to clarify communications roles and responsibilities before, during, and in the aftermath of a crisis. We have issued new advice to help Departments create robust communication plans for their specific risks, and our STOP model for crisis planning now mandates that all communications consider people with additional needs. This ensures that our messaging is accessible and inclusive by default, in line with the Equality Act 2010, the public sector equality duty, and the British Sign Language Act 2022.
As recommended by the module 2 report, we are also working towards commencing the socioeconomic duty under section 1 of the Equality Act 2010 in England. Additionally, in 2025, we published updated guidance for identifying and supporting vulnerable people during an emergency.
We have also worked closely with our counterparts in the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to draft our response to this report. Our shared aim is to ensure that intergovernmental machinery is configured to enable better co-ordination between Governments while respecting the importance of local accountability. The devolved Governments should be invited to COBR and taskforce meetings during an emergency where relevant. Furthermore, guidance has been updated to ensure the three chief scientific advisers from the devolved Governments are invited to Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies meetings from the very outset of an emergency.
As the Government implement our response to the module 2 report, our progress will be recorded and tracked transparently using our covid-19 inquiry dashboard. These may seem like technical changes, but in an increasingly disruptive global context, having processes in place to make the right marginal call in moments of volatility can have profound and long-lasting impacts.
Many will naturally want to put the difficulty of covid-19 behind us, but given the long-lasting impact on the British economy and public services, it is right for Government to take these lessons seriously. And we owe it to those who died, suffered and struggled during the pandemic too. I am grateful to Baroness Hallett and her team for their rigorous examination of what went wrong, on the basis of which we are acting, to make sure this and future Governments can do better next time.
[HCWS1456]
2024 Horserace Betting Levy Review
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made today in the other place by my noble Friend the Minister for Museums, Heritage and Gambling and Department for Culture, Media and Sport Lords Minister, Baroness Twycross:
The Government recognise the significant contribution that racing makes to the nation’s economy and sporting landscape. Britain is the birthplace of modern horse racing, and British racing is world-leading and includes sporting jewels such as the grand national and Royal Ascot. It is the second most attended sport in Great Britain, and saw increased attendances in 2025.
Horseracing is the only sport in receipt of a direct Government-mandated levy, which helps to drive improvements in the sport. The horserace betting levy is paid by bookmakers with annual gross profits on British horseracing of over £500,000, at a rate of 10%. The levy is collected by the horserace betting levy board, and directed towards supporting breeds of horses, the advancement or encouragement of veterinary science and education, and the improvement of horse racing. Last year’s levy yield was £108 million, which exceeds the previous year’s figure of £105 million. The Government last introduced changes to the levy in 2017 by regulations made under the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014, which made a commitment to a further levy review by 24 April 2024. That review was undertaken by the last Government by the 2024 deadline, and this statement sets out the conclusions of that review.
First, in the light of the recent changes to gambling taxation, we want to provide stability and certainty to the gambling sector. For this reason, the Government do not feel it is appropriate to pursue legislative changes to the rate of the horserace betting levy at this time. Secondly, we do not support the extension of the levy to overseas racing. This is because the combination of the existing levy and commercial opportunities already appropriately reflects the specific relationship between the racing and betting industries in Great Britain.
A sustainable future for British horseracing is the shared goal of the betting and racing industries and joint action is required to achieve this.
The Government are steadfast in their support for racing. We welcome initiatives to improve the governance structure within the sport, modernise the fixture list and improve horse welfare. We will continue to support the BHA and wider racing stakeholders to achieve these aims. British racing is the envy of the world and we would encourage the industry to work as one—and with the betting industry—to ensure a sustainable future to ensure the continued success of this national treasure.
[HCWS1450]
Inclusion and Capital Funding
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
I am today announcing:
£860 million of capital funding for the 2026-27 financial year to support the creation of around 11,000 places for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities or who require alternative provision as part of our delivery of 60,000 new specialist places;
Details of over £2.1 billion in capital maintenance funding for the 2026-27 financial year so that buildings at over 22,000 schools and sixth-form colleges in England provide a safe and effective learning environment; and
Details of how the first year of the £1.6 billion investment in mainstream inclusion announced in the schools White Paper will be allocated. From 2026-27 the new inclusive mainstream fund grants will allocate this funding to mainstream schools, 16-19 providers and early years settings to support inclusive practice.
Funding for SEND and AP places
We are allocating £860 million in high needs capital to support all local authorities to create high-quality places that are suitable to meet the needs of children and young people with SEND. This is part of the £3.7 billion capital announced to help deliver 60,000 new specialist places.
We want schools to be inclusive by design, with strong mainstream provision and excellent specialist support. This funding will support a transformative expansion of inclusion bases, adapt mainstream settings to improve their accessibility and inclusivity, and create special school or AP places for pupils with the most complex needs.
To support this, local authorities will be asked to sign a memorandum of understanding aligned with these objectives.
I thank local authorities with planned special or AP free schools for confirming to the Department how they would like to proceed. Local authorities opting to create the same number of school places for children with SEND through alternative funding will also receive confirmed allocations today. Where local authorities have indicated that they want to continue with the special or AP free school, we have confirmed this choice and will move forward with delivery of over 5,000 places.
Condition funding
High-quality and inspiring school and college buildings are essential to delivering a world-class education and creating the conditions for all children and young people to achieve and thrive. Evidence suggests that learning in buildings that are in poor condition can have a negative impact on attainment.
This is why I am also announcing the allocation of over £2.1 billion in condition funding for capital maintenance for the financial year 2026-27. This includes: over £1.4 billion in school condition allocations for eligible responsible bodies, including local authorities, large multi-academy trusts and large voluntary aided school bodies, such as dioceses, to decide how to invest across over 18,000 schools; over £450 million available for the condition improvement fund for the almost 4,000 schools in smaller and stand-alone responsible bodies, including sixth-form colleges—with the outcomes of applications to the fund to be announced later this spring; and almost £220 million in devolved formula capital, which is allocated directly for 22,176 schools and sixth-form colleges to spend on their own capital priorities.
This supports the Government’s education estates strategy, published in February 2026, which set out plans for an education estate that supports opportunity for all, backed by a 10-year plan to deliver a decade of renewal to transform schools and colleges.
Inclusive mainstream fund
In addition to the investment in the physical estate, the schools White Paper, “Every Child Achieving and Thriving”, announced £1.6 billion for an inclusive mainstream fund for mainstream schools, 16 to 19 providers and early years settings to deliver improved inclusion practice over the next three years. This investment is about making the changes that put inclusion at the heart of every setting, so that every child and young person can achieve and thrive.
Today I am confirming the details of how over £500 million of this funding will be allocated in the financial year 2026-27. Through separate grants, £47 million will be allocated for early years; £400 million for mainstream schools; and £83 million for 16 to 19 providers. We have published methodology documents to explain how the funding will be allocated, with funding formulae varying between phases, in recognition of the different contexts.
We have published a calculator tool so that schools can see a close estimate of the funding that they will receive through the inclusive mainstream fund in 2026-27. This will support schools’ planning in advance of finalised allocations being paid in June 2026. For early years, we have also published a calculator tool to support local authorities to calculate their total funding allocation and plan for how they will pass on the funding to early years settings in their area.
The IMF is intended to be used alongside core funding allocations to equip settings to plan, prepare and embed evidence-informed approaches and activities to build an inclusive offer for children and young people with SEND. This could include interventions such as staff training to deliver evidence-based interventions; delivering activities and wider opportunities for pupils to build life skills and independence; or creating visual supports, such as timetables and communication aids. Alongside the funding methodologies, the Department has published case studies and examples of inclusive best-practice.
Schools will be required to develop and publish an inclusion strategy, setting out how they will use their resources—including the IMF—to identify and meet need and embed inclusive practice. Colleges will set out their plans within their accountability agreements. Building on existing accountability measures, local authorities will ensure that early years settings are using the IMF appropriately to support inclusion.
Full details of this announcement, including the capital allocations for high needs and condition funding, have been published on the Department for Education section on the gov.uk website:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/high-needs-provision-capital-allocations
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/school-capital-funding
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inclusive-mainstream-fund-2026-to-2027
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inclusive-early-years-fund-2026-to-2027
[HCWS1451]
NHS England: Financial Directions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I am revising the 2025-26 financial directions to NHS England made on 31 March 2025, and setting the 2026-27 financial directions to NHS England.
The amendment to the total revenue resource use limit for 2025-26 has been agreed with NHS England, as required under section 223D(4) of the National Health Service Act 2006.
The directions reflect recent funding settlements with His Majesty’s Treasury and include a number of funding transfers from and between the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England.
The 2025-26 total is as set out by HM Treasury at the autumn statement, with some additional transfers in-year, including for pay, industrial action and redundancy costs. The 2026-27 total is as set out by HM Treasury, with some additions from budgets held in the wider DHSC group.
Both directions will be laid before Parliament and published on gov.uk.
[HCWS1457]
Review Body on Doctors and Dentists Remuneration: Pay Recommendation
(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)
I hugely appreciate the incredible work of talented staff across our NHS. That is why I am formally accepting the headline pay recommendation from the Review Body on Doctors and Dentists Remuneration to give them a well-deserved pay rise. This means:
Over 165,000 doctors working in hospital and community health sector will receive a 3.5% pay rise.
For GPs and other general practice staff there will be a 3.5% increase to the pay elements of the GP contract.
Increased funding for the additional roles reimbursement scheme will also be provided to facilitate uplifts for staff in line with DDRB and NHSPRB recommendations.
For dentists there will be a 3.75% increase to the pay elements of the NHS dental contract.
Community dental service dentists, who are salaried, will also receive a 3.75% pay rise.
We are working closely with payroll systems to ensure pay uplifts will be implemented as soon as possible.
These awards are above forecast inflation over the 2026-27 pay year, meaning that the Government are delivering a real-terms pay rise, on top of those in preceding years, underlining the extent to which we value our doctors and dentists. We are in the process of concluding business planning across DHSC and its arm’s length bodies and that will take the DDRB recommendations into account. The existing challenging, productivity and efficiency commitments required by ICBs and providers to deliver break-even positions are the foundations of the Government’s ability to agree this within the existing settlement. This additional pressure above the Government’s affordability position set out in its evidence to the DDRB will be managed by DHSC and ALBs (including NHS England central budgets) so the DDRB increases will not be paid for by cutting frontline services.
I am grateful to the chair and members of the DDRB for their thoughtful consideration of the evidence presented to them; their report recognises the vital contribution that NHS staff make to our country. DDRB have examined the economic picture, and evidence on recruitment, retention, motivation and morale to reach their recommendations.
The DDRB made a further two recommendations, which are not directly related to headline pay, targeted at specific parts of the remit group. I am grateful for these recommendations. However, we need further time to carefully consider these, working with our partners to determine the best way forward. To avoid delays to pay uplifts reaching NHS staff, we will respond separately to these recommendations in due course.
We will continue to implement commitments to improve the support NHS staff receive and their experience at work. Ensuring the NHS is a great place to work is fundamental to improving the patient experience: from reducing the backlog in elective care, to ensuring timely access to GP appointments.
Next Steps
We have listened to the workforce and understand the difficulties they face when pay awards are not delivered on time. Last year, this Government committed to speeding up the pay review process, remitting the pay review bodies months earlier than in previous years, and also submitting written evidence earlier. I am pleased to be announcing the pay awards earlier than the previous year, which means that doctors and dentists will see pay in their pay packets closer to April. We will continue work across Government to keep bringing forward the pay round for all public sector staff.
The DDRB report will be presented to Parliament and published on gov.uk. I will update the House at the earliest opportunity on ongoing negotiations with the BMA Resident Doctors Committee.
[HCWS1462]
Pandemic Preparedness Strategy
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)
I am today announcing the publication of the new pandemic preparedness strategy, outlining the UK Government plan for improving our pandemic preparedness capabilities between now and 2030.
The covid-19 pandemic was the most significant crisis that we have faced in generations. It touched every aspect of our lives, and its impacts continue to be felt across our communities. It showed that a future pandemic is one of the most profound threats to our society.
The UK is already a world leader in life sciences. Building on our strengths and the huge amount of work that has taken place since the pandemic to improve preparedness, the 2025 UK Government resilience action plan set out a new national approach to resilience, based on continuous assessment of readiness and mobilising the whole of society.
This strategy, which is backed by investment of around £1 billion for health protection during the current spending review period, is a demonstration of our resolve to protect the health of our nation, safeguard our economy and minimise the unequal impacts that pandemics can bring. It sets out the improvements that we will make to our health system response capabilities, and how they underpin a whole-of-Government and whole-of-society approach. It builds on the lessons identified from the covid-19 pandemic and is shaped by the findings of the UK covid-19 inquiry and indicative findings from Exercise Pegasus, the largest non-military exercise ever to take place in the UK. The exercise tested the Government’s ability to respond quickly and effectively during a prolonged crisis, with a full report to be published in the winter of 2026.
The covid-19 pandemic demonstrated the crucial importance of Governments across the UK working together while also respecting, and taking full account of, devolved areas of responsibility.
In support of a joined-up approach to preparedness, all four nations endorse the principles of preparedness set out in the strategy, while individual nations will have their own plans to implement their preparedness.
These principles include protecting those most at risk, with Governments committing to tailoring their capabilities to protect all communities and aiming to deliver an effective and equitable response to pandemics.
The strategy contains commitments across a number of areas that outline how the UK Government will improve pandemic preparedness, many of which have been informed and shaped by the initial findings of Exercise Pegasus. They include to:
Take a dynamic approach to ensure access to vaccines and therapeutics, and address the perceived barriers to the development of novel vaccines and therapeutics for priority pathogens.
Develop the ability to rapidly develop diagnostics for a broad range of pathogens, with scaled up in-house capacity for laboratory testing and whole genome sequencing.
Develop UK manufacturing capacity for vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics.
Further strengthen surveillance systems to be comprehensive, activation-ready and drawing on diverse sample groups across settings and communities, so that we can detect threats, understand disease spread and enable the analytical capability to act effectively and equitably.
Replenish PPE stockpiles, refine plans for mobilising and distributing PPE, and prepare a cross-Government model for procuring and prioritising the distribution of PPE to critical workers in a pandemic.
Strengthen Government co-ordination mechanisms, drawing from early findings of Exercise Pegasus, including through regularly reviewing and exercising response plans. Guidance will be put in place for local responders.
Publish evidence reviews on the effectiveness of community protection measures and build a suite of measures to support decision making and prioritisation.
Expand communication channels for and improve our understanding of how to make communications relevant to different communities, and strengthen guidance provided to different sectors.
Review the data capabilities needed to support decision-making and evaluate the impacts of pandemic response measures, and enhance data sharing capabilities to enable faster and more transparent information sharing between organisations and with the public in a pandemic.
Co-develop an adult social care pandemic action plan to respond to future threats with sector partners. As part of this, we will focus on how best to support the wellbeing of those with care and support needs and how to improve the resilience and preparedness of the adult social care workforce.
Strengthen the flexibility and resilience of the healthcare workforce, improve the NHS baseline capabilities to manage infections, and develop plans to minimise the risk of cross-contamination across services and maintain continuity of routine care during pandemics.
By integrating our health, security and scientific capabilities, we will protect the NHS, safeguard our economy and save lives.
[HCWS1458]
Global Fraud Summit
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
My noble Friend the Minister of State, Lord Hanson of Flint, has today made the following written ministerial statement:
I am pleased to update the House on the recent Global Fraud Summit 2026 held at the United Nations in Vienna, sponsored by the United Kingdom and co-organised with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the Interpol.
The summit brought together over 1,400 delegates, with 40 Ministers, 115 countries represented, and 400 senior tech, banking and broader industry executives.
Fraud is the most experienced crime facing UK citizens and businesses. Of this, we estimate over two thirds to derive in some way from overseas as a product of transnational organised criminality. To drive down this crime, which costs our economy over £14 billion a year and threatens our economic and national security, it is essential to work with other Governments and multilateral forums.
Spearheaded by UK leadership, the summit delivered several key outcomes:
A UN “call to action” committing signatory member states to an intensification of efforts to disrupt fraud and to work closer with industry to achieve these goals.
A new UK initiative, signed by Five Eyes, G7 and industry partners, to work together and step up efforts domestically and internationally to protect consumers and to jointly disrupt transnational organised fraud.
With UK backing, an Interpol-led global taskforce was launched to disrupt the highest harm fraud networks. This includes targeting scam compounds where human trafficking and slavery is used to deliver industrial-scale fraud operations targeting UK citizens from overseas.
These actions follow the launch of the Government’s fraud strategy—Cmd 1523—on 9 March 2026. Within this strategy, we committed to working with all partners, countries and industry alike to collaborate and disrupt the organised criminals that enact so much financial and emotional harm on UK citizens and businesses. This summit demonstrated UK global leadership and resulted in agreed joint action to shut down sophisticated fraud operations and ultimately keep the nation safer from organised crime.
[HCWS1452]
Fire Safety: Approved Document B Consultation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
In my statement on 17 December 2025, I emphasised the Government’s commitment to addressing all 58 recommendations made by the Grenfell inquiry following the phase 2 report and noted that we have taken several significant steps already to build a more robust and trusted regulatory system and deliver safe, quality homes for everyone.
In February last year, the Government committed to put Approved Document B—the statutory fire safety guidance accompanying the building regulations—under continuous review. Today, the building safety regulator has launched a consultation on further proposed updates to Approved Document B. The consultation will seek views on: a provision for evacuation lifts in residential buildings above 18 metres in height; consideration of whether alarm coverage or sprinklers are provided in specialised housing; disapplication of Approved Document B for structures taller than 11 metres made from combustible material in structural elements; revision of guidance on fire spread across external walls and balconies; updated roof provisions including photovoltaic panel placement to support safe implementation of the future homes standard; fire resistance in car parks; and small technical clarifications and consideration of the Grenfell inquiry recommendation on BS9414 “Fire performance of external cladding systems”.
These proposals represent an important step in supporting inclusive design, safe evacuation strategies and robust fire safety standards across the built environment. The consultation has been published on the Citizen Space website, which is available at:
https://consultations.hse.gov.uk/bsr/review-of-approved-document-b-fire-safety
The consultation will remain open until Wednesday 17 June 2026.
[HCWS1460]
Local Government Reorganisation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
This Government are undertaking the biggest reform of local government in a generation, ending the two-tier system and replacing it with new single-tier unitary councils. This agenda is key to this Government’s vision of local councils that deliver good services for residents and are equipped to drive economic growth, but can empower their communities.
As a Government, our No. 1 ambition is growing the economy and putting more money in the pockets of working people. Driving economic growth means acknowledging that cities, towns and villages do not all perform the same roles in the national economy—they specialise in what they are best at. Public service demand also is not the same across the country. Some areas have high levels of homelessness and temporary accommodation, others have a high need for adult social care due to an older population. Local leaders, both in councils and mayoralties, need to be able to focus on the specific needs of their area.
Reorganisation presents a once-in-a-generation chance to make sure our councils match the modern realities of our places, making sure outdated boundaries are not constraining growth, particularly in our towns and cities. In too many places, council boundaries are misaligned with the needs of their local communities and how those communities live their lives. In Ipswich, for example, the boundaries have remained largely unchanged since the middle of the 19th century, even as the population has grown. These outdated and misaligned structures slow down decisions, stifle housing growth, and fragment public service delivery.
This is particularly important for key Government priorities on house building, like our target of building 1.5 million homes in England this Parliament. The housing needs of local communities are best met by councils who are closely connected to their communities and understand a place’s local identity. This connection is crucial in ensuring that local government can boost economic growth and design public services that respond to local residents.
Reorganisation must also respect local identity, and the distinctive nature of the rural, urban and coastal communities across our country. We want to see councils that are connected to their local residents and communities; councils that mean something to the people they serve.
Decisions
I am pleased to announce today the next step in our vital reforms to reorganise local government. On 5 February 2025, councils in the 21 areas of England that still have two-tier local government and neighbouring small unitary authorities were invited to submit proposals for unitarisation.
We invited six areas to put forward proposals by 26 September 2025—East Sussex and Brighton and Hove; Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock; Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton; Norfolk; Suffolk; and West Sussex.
My Department received 17 proposals in total across the areas. I would like to thank councillors and officers in these areas for their hard work. As the House was informed on 19 November, all the proposals received were taken to consultation, which closed on 11 January 2026. We have now considered each proposal carefully against the criteria set out in the invitation letter of 5 February 2025, alongside the responses to the consultation, all representations and all other relevant information to assess the proposals. In summary, these criteria are:
whether each proposal achieves for the whole of the area concerned the establishment of a single tier of local government;
whether the councils are the right size to achieve efficiencies, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks;
whether the unitary structures prioritise the delivery of high quality and sustainable public services to citizens;
whether councils in the area have sought to work together to come to a view that meets local needs and is informed by local views;
whether new unitary structures support devolution arrangements;
whether new unitary structures enable stronger community engagement and deliver genuine opportunity for neighbourhood empowerment.
Decisions on each area have been made on a case-by-case basis, on their own merits, respecting the differences of local circumstances and local people’s views. In two areas, I have not yet made a decision, and will make a decision as soon as practicable, so reorganisation can be completed on the planned timeline.
Today, I have written to the leaders of councils setting out decisions and/or next steps for all six areas. I have decided to implement the following proposals, subject to parliamentary approval, in these areas:
Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock: five unitary proposal, creating the councils referred to in the proposals as:
West Essex Council (current local government areas of Epping Forest, Harlow and Uttlesford)
North East Essex Council (current local government areas of Braintree, Colchester and Tendring)
Mid Essex Council (current local government areas of Brentwood, Chelmsford and Maldon)
South West Essex Council (current local government areas of Basildon and Thurrock)
South East Essex Council (current local government areas of Castle Point, Rochford and Southend-on-Sea).
Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton: five unitary proposal (option 1A) submitted by Eastleigh, Fareham, Hart, Havant, Portsmouth, Rushmoor and Southampton councils, creating the councils referred to in the proposals as:
North Hampshire Council (current local government areas of Basingstoke and Deane, Hart and Rushmoor)
Mid Hampshire Council (current local government areas of East Hampshire, New Forest, Test Valley and Winchester, less 11 parishes from all four areas)
South East Hampshire Council (current local government areas from East Hampshire, Fareham, Gosport, Havant, Portsmouth, three parishes from East Hampshire and one parish from Winchester)
South West Hampshire Council (current local government areas of Eastleigh, four parishes from New Forest, Southampton and three parishes from Test Valley)
Isle of Wight Council will remain as a separate unitary authority.
Norfolk: three unitary proposal, creating the councils referred to in the proposals as:
West Norfolk Council (current local government areas of Breckland, King’s Lynn and West Norfolk, and nine parishes from South Norfolk).
Greater Norwich Council (current local government areas of Norwich, 19 parishes from Broadland, and 16 parishes from South Norfolk).
East Norfolk Council (current local government areas of Broadland (less 19 parishes), Great Yarmouth, North Norfolk, and South Norfolk (less 25 parishes)).
Suffolk: three unitary proposal, creating the councils referred to in the proposals as:
Central and Eastern Suffolk Council (current local government areas of West Suffolk, 21 parishes from Mid Suffolk, and Babergh (less 31 parishes)).
Western Suffolk Council (current local government areas of Mid Suffolk (less 29 parishes), and East Suffolk (less 25 parishes).
Ipswich and South Suffolk Council (current local government areas of Ipswich, 31 parishes from Babergh, eight parishes from Mid Suffolk, and 25 parishes from East Suffolk).
In implementing the above proposals for reorganisation in Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and the Isle of Wight; Norfolk; and Suffolk, I will exercise my power to modify the base proposals received from councils, in order to make the boundary changes that the councils requested.
Further information on the decisions taken in these areas can be found in the letters to council leaders in the areas, which will be published on gov.uk later today. A summary of the responses to the consultations for proposals in these areas will also be published today.
In East Sussex and Brighton and Hove, and West Sussex, after carefully considering the four proposals received across the areas, I have not yet made a decision, due to concerns regarding all four of the proposals I received. But I would like to reassure the House that I am still fully committed to delivering reorganisation in these areas with elections in May 2027 and changes coming into effect from April 2028.
I am considering modifications that could address my concerns, including an option for potential modification of the proposals for further consultation. I have set out further details in a letter to council leaders this morning.
I would also like to confirm our commitment to repay in-principle £200 million of Thurrock council’s debt in 2026-27. This is a significant and unprecedented commitment which reflects an assessment of value for money for national and local taxpayers, given the significant unsupported debt at the council linked to historic capital practices. This follows the recent announcement in October 2025 as part of reorganisation in Surrey to repay in-principle £500 million of Woking borough council’s debt in 2026-27.
We have not taken these decisions lightly and they have not been made simply because debt is high at these councils. The decision for Thurrock council reflects an assessment of value for money and acknowledgement that, even after significant local action to reduce debt, the council still holds significant unsupported debt that cannot be managed locally in its entirety. I would like to thank the council’s current leadership for its grip of the financial situation and to recognise the progress that has been made to reduce debt.
Further detail on this can be found in the letter to Essex council leaders, which will be published on gov.uk.
To prevent failures like those seen in Thurrock and Woking from happening again, we will now bring into operation the statutory powers enacted in 2023—but never used by the previous government—which allow direct intervention where authorities take excessive risks in their borrowing and investment practices. These powers will ensure that essential capital investment in services, housing and growth can continue, but within a much stronger framework of safeguards to protect taxpayers from costly and avoidable failure. We will soon launch a consultation to engage with the sector and stakeholders in developing and implementing these powers.
I am pleased to be able to confirm how the £63 million in transition funding announced in February will be allocated—making this the first Government to provide funding for the reorganisation process. We will provide at least £900,000 for each new unitary authority to help establish effective services and governance arrangements, ensuring funding is provided fairly, consistently, and as quickly as possible. This will mean the Essex invitation area receives £4.5 million for five new unitary councils; the Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton invitation area receives £3.6 million for four new unitary councils; the Norfolk invitation area receives £2.7 million for three new unitary councils; and the Suffolk invitation area receives £2.7 million for three new unitary councils. We will also provide the Surrey invitation area with £1.8 million for two new unitary councils. This approach reflects the differing levels of complexity involved across areas and allows for a small central reserve to be used later for targeted support if needed. Funding will be issued through established, flexible grant mechanisms and my officials will be in touch with councils to confirm next steps.
Next steps
Delivering reorganisation for the benefit of all residents is a shared endeavour, and ongoing collaboration will be vital to ensure that these reforms are implemented with the interests of residents at their heart.
We remain committed to the timetable we have set out previously, with elections to the new unitary councils taking place in May 2027, ahead of them going live and delivering services in April 2028.
For the other 14 areas going through local government reorganisation, I would like to emphasise that the decisions taken here, and previously in Surrey, do not set any precedent. Decisions will be taken individually, based on the published criteria referred to above, the merits of each proposal we receive, and the local context.
I will deposit in the Library of the House copies of the letter and documents I have referred to, which are also being published on gov.uk today.
[HCWS1455]
Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
This Government are committed to strengthening our democracy and upholding the integrity of elections, as set out in our 2024 manifesto. We have already made progress on this, with our strategy for modern and secure elections published in July 2025, setting out the actions that we will take to simplify, protect and promote our valued democracy.
The Representation of the People Bill, currently being considered by Parliament, will bring in protections against foreign interference, improve political funding transparency, add tougher checks for political donations and close loopholes—increasing public confidence in the integrity of our democratic institutions.
However, we cannot ignore the fact that vulnerabilities in the UK’s political and electoral systems, particularly with politicians being targeted by foreign states, were exposed in the sentencing for bribery in November 2025 of former MEP Nathan Gill, alongside other recent cases. It is therefore right that we urgently consider whether our firewall is enough.
In December 2025 I commissioned former permanent secretary Philip Rycroft to lead an independent review into foreign financial influence and interference in UK politics. Mr Rycroft has now provided the outcomes of the review to myself and the Security Minister, and today we have laid before the House, using the unopposed return procedure, and published on gov.uk the independent review into countering foreign financial influence and interference in UK politics.
The Government welcome Philip Rycroft’s comprehensive, thoughtful and well-reasoned report on foreign financial interference in our democracy. We are taking immediate steps to implement his recommendations for a cap on donations made by overseas electors and for a moratorium on donations made via cryptocurrency, which we will implement through the Representation of the People Bill.
Specifically, we will introduce amendments to the Bill to:
Cap the total value of donations or regulated transactions that an overseas elector can make to, or enter into with any, one or more regulated recipients at £100,000 per calendar year. This cap is a “per elector” cap, meaning that the value of any donations to, or regulated transactions involving, any regulated recipients during the calendar year involving an overseas elector will count towards the cap as it applies to that elector.
Establish a complete moratorium on the making of cryptoasset donations to any regulated recipient, until such point that Parliament and the Electoral Commission are satisfied that there is sufficient regulation in place to ensure confidence and transparency in donations being made in this way. The moratorium will apply to any donation of any value, including donations of a value that would ordinarily fall below the threshold for the controls on donations.
We intend for these measures to apply to all regulated recipients of political donations, and to apply to all elections in the UK. This means that it is intended that the measures will apply to:
Any donation to a registered political party regulated under part 4 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA);
Any controlled donation to a member of a registered political party, a members association or the holder of a relevant elective office—i.e. an MP; a Member of the Scottish Parliament, Senedd or Northern Ireland Assembly; a police and crime commissioner; a member of a local authority or the Greater London Assembly; the Mayor of London or an elected mayor—regulated under schedule 7 to PPERA;
Any regulated transaction involving a registered political party, a member of a registered political party, a members association or the holder of a relevant elective office regulated under part 4A of or schedule 7A to PPERA;
Any relevant donation to a recognised third party regulated under schedule 11 to PPERA;
Any relevant donation to a candidate at any election in the UK—i.e. a candidate at a UK parliamentary election, a Scottish parliamentary election, a Senedd election, a Northern Ireland Assembly election, a local government election in England, Wales and Scotland, a local election in Northern Ireland, a Greater London Assembly election or an election of the Mayor of London, or an election of a police and crime commissioner in England and Wales—regulated under schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983, schedule 3A to the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962 or equivalent provision under secondary legislation;
Any relevant donation to a permitted participant to a referendum to which part 7 of PPERA or the Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020 applies;
Any relevant donation to an accredited campaigner at a recall petition under the Recall of MPs Act 2015.
In Scotland and Wales, donations to candidates—rather than parties—are devolved matters, but my intention is to seek a legislative consent motion for our amendments, to ensure that there are no gaps in our safeguards. I will also speak to my counterparts in the Scottish and Welsh Governments to emphasise my commitment to work together to protect our electoral system across the UK.
Critically, the amendments to the Representation of the People Bill will make it clear that, when the legislation comes into force, both of these changes will be applied retrospectively from today. The measures will therefore apply in respect of donations received from today and regulated transactions entered into from today—and for the purpose of the cap on donations from regulated transactions involving overseas electors only such donations or regulated transactions are to be taken into account when determining whether the cap has been reached in respect of any overseas elector.
Political parties and other regulated recipients will need to consider carefully any donations or regulated transactions to which these measures will apply from today until the provisions in the Bill that relate to these measures come into force. A regulated recipient should refuse any donation—or choose not to enter into a regulated transaction—where the donation or regulated transaction would be considered impermissible as a result of these two measures once enacted.
Once the provisions of the Bill for these two measures come into force, a regulated recipient will then have 30 days to return any unlawful donations that they may have received and inadvertently accepted in the interim, or to pay back any money owed under transactions inadvertently entered into or rendered void, after which enforcement action can be taken.
The Government support the wider conclusions drawn by Philip Rycroft on the risks in our system and will reflect swiftly on how best to take these forward, given their more technical nature. We will respond, formally and in full, in advance of Commons Report stage of the Representation of the People Bill.
[HCWS1459]
Rail Reform: Wales and Borders Area
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
I am publishing, alongside the Welsh Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales, the memorandum of understanding provided for under clause 24 of the Railways Bill. The publication of this MOU marks a major milestone in the delivery of rail reform and demonstrates our shared commitment to deliver a simpler, better and more integrated railway for the Wales and borders area.
This MOU reflects the strong and constructive collaboration that has taken place between the UK Government, the Welsh Government, Network Rail and Transport for Wales. Our officials and delivery bodies have worked closely and positively throughout its development, underpinned by a strong relationship between UK and Welsh Ministers. We have moved from a shared ambition to building a practical shared approach to the delivery of rail services and infrastructure in Wales and its border regions. The MOU reflects the priorities and ambitions of both Governments, establishing a clear foundation for how we will work together to deliver the railway in Wales and the borders into the future.
The MOU sets out a clear framework for how our Governments will collaborate in the delivery of a more integrated, user-focused railway, with transparent roles, responsibilities and governance. It empowers joint working between TfW and Great British Railways, supports empowered local decision making, and provides a platform for more coherent system planning and improved outcomes for rail users.
Key elements of the MOU include:
Shared objectives and funding period planning for the Wales and borders area—A commitment to develop and publish a set of shared objectives for each funding period, establishing a jointly shaped strategic direction for rail delivery in the Wales and borders area.
Access, use and whole-system planning—Commitments to ensure that decisions on access, capacity and charging reflect the shared objectives and recognise TfW’s multimodal responsibilities. This will allow GBR and TfW to plan together more effectively and support a seamless passenger experience.
GBR Wales and borders/GBR Cymru a r Gororau—An empowered, locally focused corporate structure within GBR, aligned closely with TfW and operating with clearly delegated authorities. This is a significant step in delivering a more joined-up system that reflects the needs of Welsh passengers and cross-border communities.
Partnering arrangements between GBR and TfW—A commitment to develop a formal partnering arrangement between GBR and TfW to support integration of track and train, reduce interface complexity, and promote a more coherent and responsive railway.
Cross-border services—A clear framework for developing, managing and funding cross-border services collaboratively, ensuring continuity, transparency and shared oversight of changes that affect communities on both sides of the border.
Core valley lines (CVL) interface and simplification—Shared ambition to reduce unnecessary regulatory complexity on CVL, and a commitment to develop jointly agreed interface arrangements that support smooth operation of CVL and the rest of the rail network.
Governance of enhancement investment—The continued recognition of the Wales Rail Board as a strategic forum for reviewing funding, business plans and delivery of enhancements; reflecting the continuing maturity of Welsh rail delivery capability.
The publication of this MoU represents the culmination of months of intensive, collaborative work. It signals the strong and practical partnership that will underpin how our Governments deliver rail reform in Wales and the borders. It offers greater transparency for Parliament, the Senedd, industry and the public, setting out clearly how each Government will work with their respective delivery bodies and with each other.
Looking ahead, Network Rail and TfW will now begin work on developing a formal partnering arrangement on behalf of GBR, building on the commitments in this MoU, to allow for closer joint planning, clearer accountability, and stronger alignment across infrastructure and train operations. This work, coupled with the shared objectives for the next funding period, will support the delivery of a more integrated railway that meets the needs of passengers and communities across Wales and the bordering regions of England.
This MOU represents a significant step forward in the journey to deliver rail reform across Great Britain, and to address the existing challenges faced by the Wales and borders railway both now and in the future. We are confident that the MOU will provide a basis for deeper collaboration between the UK Government and the Welsh Government—and, in future, between GBR and Transport for Wales. It will improve reliability and performance, strengthen cross-border connectivity, and deliver a modern railway that better serves passengers and freight and the communities in the Wales and borders area for decades to come.
[HCWS1461]
Ethnicity and Disability Pay Gap Reporting
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Equalities (Seema Malhotra)
This Government are clear that equality and opportunity are at the heart of our programme of national renewal. Three principles guide our approach: opportunity, fairness and growth. We are committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity and improving outcomes for everyone. Everyone deserves to go to work and achieve their full potential, regardless of their ethnicity or disability. By introducing ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting, this Government are supporting employers to create more inclusive workplaces, so that, regardless of background, everyone can thrive.
As set out in our manifesto and in the King’s Speech in July 2024, we are committed to introducing mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting for large employers—those with 250 or more employees. Our aim is to develop a reporting framework that is workable for employers and leads to improved outcomes for ethnic minority groups and disabled people. We held a public consultation on these measures between 18 March and 10 June 2025 and conducted extensive engagement to seek views.
Today, we are publishing the findings from the external analysis of the consultation responses and the Government response. As part of the Government response, we have included indicative clauses, which we have developed to illustrate how the primary legislation may work in practice—this is in place of publishing a draft Equality (Race and Disability) Bill. We are also publishing the regulatory impact assessment alongside these documents, which outlines the expected costs and benefits of mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting.
The consultation findings show strong and widespread support for each proposal set out in the consultation. The Government response summarises the key findings and sets out further details on our intended approach towards mandatory reporting. This includes aligning ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting with the existing requirements for gender pay gap reporting, which have been in place since 2017. The proposed approach would require large employers to report their ethnicity and disability pay gaps, and the overall composition of their workforce by ethnicity and disability—also known as workforce reporting—as well as the proportion of their employees who have declared their ethnicity and disability data, and actions to address any ethnicity and disability pay gaps.
We have engaged extensively with business and want to acknowledge the positive work they are already doing to achieve more inclusive workplaces. Many businesses have been vocal supporters of mandatory reporting and have already been reporting their ethnicity and disability pay gap data on a voluntary basis, in recognition of the benefits that this can have on their workforces and their organisations more broadly.
Increased transparency on ethnicity and disability pay gap differences will help employers to identify and tackle pay disparities across their workforces, remove barriers to opportunity for ethnic minority and disabled staff, and support low-income households. We are committed to continuing to work closely with employers and stakeholders as we move forward.
This comes as part of the wider Government commitment to break down barriers to work, including a £3.5 billion package of employment support by the end of the decade to help more sick or disabled people into work. We are expanding WorkWell across the country, supporting up to 250,000 people to return or stay in work, and this is backed by £250 million.
We are also providing 300,000 sick or disabled people with tailored help through Connect to Work by the end of the decade, partnering with employers to transform how disabilities are managed at work, following the “Keep Britain Working” review, and have put in place the equivalent of over 1,000 full-time Pathways to Work advisers across Britain to support disabled people into work.
A copy of the Government response will be placed in the Library of each House and will be available on gov.uk.
[HCWS1453]
Crisis and Resilience Fund
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Dame Diana Johnson)
This Government recognise that greater certainty helps local authorities to design and deliver sustainable plans for local welfare.
As announced by the Chancellor as part of the spending review, from 1 April 2026 the crisis and resilience fund will come into effect in England, providing £842 million per year—£1 billion including Barnett impact—to reform crisis support, while maintaining discretionary housing payments in Wales. This will be the first multi-year settlement for locally delivered crisis support. Alongside this, the Government have made an additional £27 million available through the fund to local authorities in England for 2026-27, to support people in crisis following the sharp increases in oil heating prices, which is targeted at areas with higher reliance on oil heating.
The fund brings together existing provisions by replacing the household support fund and incorporating discretionary housing payments in England when both schemes end on 31 March 2026, simplifying crisis support into a single, streamlined fund. This will make it easier for local councils to deliver help and for people to access it, while ensuring that vital assistance remains available for those who need it. DWP will continue to administer discretionary housing payments in Wales and regulations have been amended to reflect this change.
The crisis and resilience fund is designed to respond to sudden and unexpected financial expenses that place people at risk of hardship, including sharp, unforeseen increases in essential costs. The fund will provide a safety net for people on low incomes who face financial crisis and need immediate support, including help with housing costs. Crucially, it also represents a significant opportunity for local councils to move beyond short-term responses, by enabling investment in preventive approaches that strengthen financial resilience and reduce repeat crisis. The fund supports local councils to work with voluntary and community sector partners to strengthen local support networks, so that crisis support can act as a gateway to wider help that addresses the underlying drivers of hardship, supporting the Government’s wider efforts to reduce poverty, prevent homelessness and end mass dependence on emergency food parcels.
The Government have worked closely with local councils and stakeholders on the detailed design of the fund through a structured co-design process. With scheme guidance, and allocations now published, the crisis and resilience fund gives local councils the clarity and confidence to plan for delivery from the outset.
[HCWS1446]
Employment Support Funding: DWP and Welsh Government
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
The UK and Welsh Governments have agreed how they will deliver the UK Government manifesto commitment to devolve employment support funding to the Welsh Government over the course of the current UK Parliament.
That devolution has already begun with the agreement to transfer up to £20 million for the economic inactivity trailblazer pilots across two years, 2025-26 to 2026-2027.
Further funding from agreed new employment programmes being delivered by the Department for Work and Pensions will be transferred to Welsh Government to design and deliver employment support schemes closer to the communities they affect using the Welsh Government’s employability support programme. UK Government employment support already available or with a funding agreement in place will continue and will not be in scope.
This funding will strengthen the Welsh Government’s ability to assist people in Wales to move closer to employment and enter the workforce, helping to improve living standards across Wales and support economic growth.
The memorandum of understanding is available online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2026-03-25/HCWS1454/
[HCWS1454]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
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. For the convenience of the Committee, perhaps the Government Whip would like to say a word.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
I just remind your Lordships that there is a hard stop at 8.15 pm because of Hansard, so that is when the Committee must end. I think everybody knows that there are going to be numerous votes this afternoon—noble Lords have just heard what the procedure will be. The advisory speaking time is 13 minutes, but we will lose some time for votes, I am sure of that—so noble Lords are not obliged to take the full 13 minutes, if I can put it like that. I add that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, will be joining us online.
Northern Ireland After Brexit (Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee Report)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Carlile of Berriew
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee Northern Ireland after Brexit: Strengthening Northern Ireland’s voice in the context of the Windsor Framework (1st Report, HL Paper 182).
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, has pulled out of the debate because she has a Motion in the Chamber.
It is a great privilege to chair the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee, which was appointed in January 2025. In October 2025 we produced our first report—the one we are dealing with today—examining the Windsor Framework. If those two words, “Windsor” and “framework”, conjure in the minds of noble Lords castle-like, symmetrical architecture, a secure moat and fine gardens, think again. We are here under a remarkable Victorian painting of Moses bringing down the tables from the mountain. It is a piece of strong evidence that, if you produce a document that is short, it lasts rather longer than one that is much more complicated—but I do not think that was part of the thinking when the Windsor Framework was created.
In reality, the Windsor Framework is a complex amalgam of diplomacy, politics and sheer necessity, conjured from shakily designed foundations. To me, it bears all the characteristics of having occurred, rather than having been designed. However, it is what Northern Ireland has to live with; it affects everyday life at every level, from the esoterics of company and competition law to the humble task of everyday shopping for it affects consumers above all others, probably. I shall give a small example. Somebody who wishes to buy new socks or a mixing machine from a GB supplier may not be able to do so, because of the duties on the packaging in which their purchase would be brought and because of the bureaucratic complexities that make it all too much trouble for some suppliers in Great Britain to supply to Northern Ireland.
As the committee, we devoted ourselves from the very beginning to the interests of consumers, producers and everything in between, but above all to the public in Northern Ireland. We relied for our report on a large body of evidence and spent time in Northern Ireland talking to stakeholders, including businesses large and small, and, importantly, social enterprises, which are also affected.
I thank my parliamentary colleagues on the committee for their assiduous attention to the evidence, and their constructive and purposeful contribution to the discussion. I know that members of the committee will share this: I particularly thank the clerk of the committee, Liam McNulty, our expert advising counsel, Tim Mitchell, our organising genius, Breda Twomey, and all the secretariat, for their extraordinary contributions. The newly established committee functioned efficiently, was properly briefed on all relevant subjects and was able to produce a full and reasoned report. We are very fortunate in your Lordships’ House to be blessed with staff of such quality to help us in what we do.
The committee’s membership includes a wide range of views on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland and on the protocol and Windsor Framework. Despite colleagues’ divergent views and strong opinions on some issues of principle, I emphasise that it is notable that the report was agreed unanimously. This imbues added force in the conclusions reached by the committee.
We are grateful too for His Majesty’s Government’s positive response to the report—mostly, at least. We recognise the care and attention that Ministers and officials have given to our deliberations in expressing some continuing concerns. I look forward to the Minister’s contribution later in the debate. As noble Lords know, the noble Baroness has a large fan club in your Lordships’ House, and I am one of its members. I ask her not to disappoint me.
We look forward to the EU-UK reset agreement. In that context, I point out a serious matter: the relevance of our report for the formation of some important reset subjects, such as the arrangements for energy supply in Northern Ireland, and the shape and detail of the proposed sanitary and phytosanitary, or SPS, agreement—a phrase I have become used to since I began to chair the committee—which I hope will simplify border and related arrangements for agri-food products between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The issues we have covered and reported on concern Northern Ireland’s voice and stakeholder engagement. I hope that the report will provide important lessons for the prospective dynamic alignment between Great Britain and the EU, which the European Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House is examining as part of a current inquiry. Our report endorsed proposals to ensure that Northern Ireland’s voice is enhanced at an early stage of every relevant part of the EU’s complex legislative process. This can be done, in particular, through greater resourcing and capability in the United Kingdom mission in Brussels, working closely with the Northern Ireland Civil Service to shape relevant European Commission proposals.
The importance of these points is that, despite the restoration of Northern Ireland’s power-sharing institutions in February 2024, witnesses to our inquiry told us that issues relating to the Windsor Framework, as currently administered, have the capacity to create instability if not handled carefully by the Government and politicians. Thus, our report seeks to improve on the current situation for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland as a whole. The emphasis of our approach is on the experiences of real people, notwithstanding the vagaries of political life and institutions.
I am delighted by the presence in this debate of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen. He is an admired former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—even better, we were Welsh MPs together—whose statutory Independent Review of the Windsor Framework was presented to Parliament last September. Unsurprisingly —I know that the noble Lord was not at all surprised—our report and his very good report, which has been accepted fully by the Government, have a great deal in common.
The noble Lord focused, as did we, on the increasingly complex governance structure of the framework. A snapshot of the effect of that structure is to be found on the organogram on pages 24 and 25 of our report—I know we are not supposed to hold up illustrations in Grand Committee, but I will—which sets out in magnificent graphic confusion the numerous locations across the EU, the UK Government, the UK Parliament, the Northern Ireland Executive, the Northern Ireland Assembly and elsewhere where the mechanisms of the Windsor Framework can be found. It illustrates the confusion, rather than accessible solutions, and we have clearly identified the need to solve the problem of accessibility.
We followed and amplified several of the findings of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, particularly in relation to the timing and resourcing constraints under which the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee, the DSC, has to work. We are delighted that in one of its many positive responses to both the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and ourselves, the Government have undertaken to re-examine the timescales and required information under which the DSC has to work. It is difficult being a member of the DSC under current arrangements.
We are grateful to the Government for their full response, dated 6 February 2026. Many of our recommendations found favour with the Government, but not all. On the negative side, the Government told us that for stakeholders who have difficulties with European legal provisions and issues, the EUR-Lex website provides an accessible and acceptable digest of information on EU law. Those legal provisions are important, because they may affect everyday trade, particularly for SMEs trying to make their way in business. However, in taking evidence recently, since our report was published, it has become very clear that in reality it is accessible for exploration only by highly paid, black-letter lawyers and provides little assistance to businesses and social enterprises who do not wish to line the entreating pockets of my learned friends.
One very positive development is the Government’s acceptance of the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, of a one-stop shop for Windsor Framework-connected inquiries. This was a leading recommendation of his report. The one-stop shop, especially its triage system, uses the best available practices, including the services of artificial intelligence, and should enable businesses quickly to find the answers to real, everyday questions that are asked, but we need to know more about it. Who will run it, the Government or private enterprise? When will it start? It has been suggested that it will be created during the 2026-27 tax year, so will Northern Ireland traders have to wait another 18 months or two years before it exists in any meaningful form? Is it going to be trialled and tested by real people in real industries, so that they can show whether it works?
Whether the business concerned is selling organic eggs to Great Britain or wishes to purchase raw materials in the EU for product manufacture in a bigger supply chain, the one-stop shop and increased legal clarity will, we hope, be a beneficial outcome of the reports from the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and ourselves. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who is a valuable member of our committee, is unable to be with us today. He has made two valuable points, which I have told him I will pass on.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I was just dealing with some points about the one-stop shop that our colleague the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, had raised. First, the one-stop shop really must emphasise its services to traders in Great Britain who wish to trade with Northern Ireland. It is important that they should know what is available to them. Secondly, if the one-stop shop happens to give a trader advice that is wrong, as long as that trader is acting in good faith on that advice, there should be a waiver of any consequent penalties—for example, tax penalties that arise from the actions of the trader in question.
I turn next to the issue widely described as the democratic deficit arising from the 2019 protocol. The history, political institutions and social and community context of Northern Ireland make the democratic deficit an extremely important issue. In our report, we make it clear that, in our view, not enough has been done to mitigate, let alone resolve, this fundamental issue, which causes profound political division in Northern Ireland. With this in mind, our report focuses positively on the ways in which Northern Ireland stakeholders can more effectively participate in the Windsor Framework structures. We believe that our proposals, if followed, will enhance Northern Ireland’s voice in the operation of the framework and promote greater transparency, and not just greater public understanding but some public understanding of the framework.
On behalf of our committee, I express the hope that there will be an easing of complexity as a result of the contributions that we and the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, have made and that real-world business on the ground will find it easier to work with partners in the European Union and Great Britain. The future of the Windsor Framework’s functionality requires a new impetus, with a fresh sense of purpose wisely advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and our report. I commend the report to the Committee.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, it is an enormous pleasure to follow my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the way in which he outlined and gave the details of his report. My report and review entirely paralleled the inquiry held by the committee. Much of it is the same. I thank the members of the committee who produced that report. It was not easy. They come from different political backgrounds and have different views on the issue, but the consensus that arose from it was almost completely the same as the recommendations that I eventually made.
I thank the Government and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for accepting every single one of my recommendations. I will come later to the practicality of that side. I thank the 100 bodies and organisations that I talked to, both in Northern Ireland and here in Great Britain, which gave me great insight into the workings of the Windsor Framework.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, my review was triggered by the fact that there was disagreement, towards the end of 2024, on what to do about the Windsor Framework. The Assembly voted, but not on a cross-community basis. The result of that was that it automatically triggered the review that I was to undertake some months later.
That reflects, in many ways, the disastrous process that followed Brexit. I make no comment on Brexit itself. I was not in favour of it, but it is not about that; it is about the effects of Brexit on Northern Ireland, which simply were not debated enough at the time. The people who decided these things and those who debated the whole issue of Brexit underestimated the impact that it would have on Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland voted in favour of remaining a part of the European Union, but of course, that does not work, because you go in as a member state or not. My own country, Wales, voted the other way, against my recommendations. The consequence of all this is that Governments have to find a way around this unusual situation. One bit of the island of Ireland is in the European Union and the other bit is outside. Inevitably, as a consequence of what we decided 26 years ago in the Good Friday agreement and whether we should have a hard border, this caused enormous complications.
The other thing that I emphasise to your Lordships is that, in my view, if the institutions had been up and running at the time of Brexit, there would have been a much better resolution of this. I am not saying that it would have been easy, but people in Northern Ireland would have made their own decisions about their own future. One thing that I have learned over a quarter of a century of dealing with Northern Ireland business is that imposition in Northern Ireland is always disastrous and that effective solutions to problems have to come from the people in Northern Ireland through their elected representatives all the time. It did not happen. As a consequence of that, we had a protocol that, strangely and bizarrely, was denounced by the Government who created it. That was not very good. Then we had the Windsor Framework, which was undoubtedly better than that. That is what we are debating today.
One problem that I faced during my review were the very deep feelings about the constitutional impact of Brexit and the Windsor Framework. Unionists take a very different view from nationalists on the effect of the Windsor Framework on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. That was well beyond the remit of what I was allowed to report on; I am not sure that I would have wanted to report on it, but I would have had a bash, even if I would not have got very far in the end. A fundamental problem with my review was that I could not touch those views that every unionist party or representative made to me about the constitutional impact of the Windsor Framework. I very much accept that it is an issue.
It was also made clear to me that the vote in Northern Ireland to accept the framework was not done on a cross-community basis. As a consequence, it went against the spirit of the Good Friday agreement. I am not completely convinced about that, but I am convinced that it went against the spirit of parity of esteem. Whether you are a nationalist, a unionist or neither, parity of esteem means that your views are regarded to the same extent. I am not sure—in fact I am unconvinced—that the parity of esteem principle has not been overlooked in all this. At the end of my remarks, I will come to why I think that that should be looked at again.
There were two issues from looking at the report, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said. One was the democratic deficit. I will not go into the detail of the recommendations that I made, to which the noble Lord has referred, but the Democratic Scrutiny Committee did not and does not operate as well as it could. It operates under great burdens: it does not have enough time, staff or expertise. There is insufficient liaison with the Office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels. Great changes can be made to make that work better. Those points were made to me by everybody, whether nationalists or unionists. The Government have accepted the principle of those recommendations, but we need to see them working in practice.
I am not sure that the Stormont brake has got anybody anywhere. It was regarded as being hugely significant. In theory it probably is, but in reality it has not proved to be the saviour of the situation that people expected. We will wait to see what happens on the Stormont brake, but it was certainly a genuine attempt to try to overcome the difficulties. But these are complex mechanisms, which an ordinary voter in Northern Ireland would find hard to deal with.
I had the pleasure of meeting the Democratic Scrutiny Committee, which wrote to me as well and indicated the difficulties that it faced. I also met the Committee for the Economy of the Northern Ireland Assembly. They were both extremely good meetings and the points made by all members from all political persuasions were very valuable.
One point that they all made was that, if you want to influence a decision on legislation, do it early; do not wait until later. It is the same here: if you want to influence legislation in this Government and Parliament, try to resolve it at an early stage. That is why it is important that the Office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels is properly manned by specialists who can deal with this at that early stage and catch problems before they ever get to Belfast.
The other big issue was the enormous burden on businesses that the framework has brought—not on big ones, which have lots of money and can employ people to deal with the complexities of the bureaucracy, but on small and medium-sized businesses, which cannot do that. Interestingly, I just came back yesterday from the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, which was meeting in Tralee. I was talking to a nationalist MLA who was describing to me the problems that her constituents were having, including small businesses. She quoted a women’s hairdresser, who was probably going to pack up because she could not deal with the bureaucracy surrounding all this. That was interesting because the person saying this to me was from the nationalist community; I get it regularly from the unionist side of things, of course.
Probably the most significant recommendation that the committee and I have made is on the one-stop shop. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, made the point that that is so important for Britain, as it is for businesses in Northern Ireland itself. Very often, a British business simply will not bother with the bureaucracy to send stuff to Northern Ireland to be sold. The organisation chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, InterTrade UK, will have a significant part to play in that, to try to explain those burdens to British business.
There is a definite case, for example, to have trusted trader status for the haulage industry in Northern Ireland—that is one of my recommendations, and I hope it is acted on soon. There is a case for the duty reimbursement scheme to be improved so that businesses do not have cash-flow problems. I made some other recommendations regarding Article 2, dealing with human rights.
The electronic travel area—ETA—regulations that operate on the island of Ireland are not part of my recommendations, but I touched on them in the report because of the importance that people felt they had. They are causing severe problems for the hospitality and tourist industry in Northern Ireland. Again, at the BIPA conference in Tralee this week, I asked the Irish Government Minister, and it was a matter of debate.
I will not go into any more of the details, suffice it to say that you could not put a cigarette paper between my report and the report of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. They say the same things because they are the obvious things to say. I conclude by saying just three things. First, I say to the Government that it is wonderful to have the recommendations agreed, but we now await the action on those recommendations, and the sooner the better, particularly on the one-stop shop.
Secondly, the SPS agreement is absolutely vital. The quicker that happens, the better, because my experience of these things is that Europe is not exactly quick in dealing with various negotiations, and the sooner that happens, the better.
Thirdly, all these recommendations are about making the current scheme better, making it work and helping businesses, but they do not go to the heart of the political disagreement on this. That needs to be addressed too. I am not sure how that will be done because it is not easy—but it is never easy in Northern Ireland. When we drew up the Good Friday agreement all those years ago, who would have thought we could have resolved those enormous issues? But we did eventually resolve them. So, if we can do that, perhaps we can also resolve the issues that surround the Windsor Framework because, as long as they are untouched, it will be a running sore.
In the meantime, we have to be practical and make it better for individual business, better for people and better for Northern Ireland. The sooner we have the Government’s recommendations, the better.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Lords, Lord Murphy and Lord Carlile. I do so with some temerity; I cannot understand why I have been put so high up the list, since my expertise in these areas is probably less than almost everybody else on this Committee. But I pay tribute to the committee for producing a report that is thorough and detailed in its analysis of a labyrinthine problem. Every tree in the forest of issues has been identified and described, but the report stopped short, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, mentioned, of examining why this forest of problems exists and whether there is some way of removing them or finding a permanent route through the forest.
The basic reason for the impenetrable barriers that we have to get through and which prevents the people of Northern Ireland having a proper say, or even a veto, over the laws that govern them is that Northern Ireland is, effectively, a condominium. We should recognise that fact. It is governed jointly by the EU and the UK in many respects. It is a bit like the old condominium of Sudan and Egypt, which was an Anglo-Egyptian condominium, or, more recently, the New Hebrides, which was jointly controlled by a Franco-British condominium. It was such a nightmare that it was known as the pandemonium, not the condominium. I suspect that the consequences of trying jointly to govern Northern Ireland by EU law, 300 areas of law and UK law elsewhere, and a consultation between the UK and EU authorities are inevitably bound to create pandemonium. It is impossible, under that arrangement, to give voice to the local people any more than it was possible in Sudan or the New Hebrides.
That raises two issues. Is this situation permanent? If it is not, is there an alternative that would provide a much more satisfactory long-term arrangement that would allow democracy to return? I was struck when I bumped into some young people from Northern Ireland who said how insulted they felt that they were not allowed to vote for people who would determine the laws in large areas of life that affected them. We have to deal with that issue.
We all agree that there should not be a hard border in Northern Ireland. That is the basis of the present arrangement. The only body ever threatening to erect a hard border with physical facilities and carrying out checks at the border was, of course, the EU itself. The EU has a perfectly legitimate objective, which is to prevent goods that do not conform to its rules entering its territory. It has to maintain the integrity of the single market. To do that, it insisted and persuaded at the very opening of the negotiations on the withdrawal agreement that there should be no hard border. Effectively, that led to the continuation of EU law north of the border. The EU insisted that all goods produced in Northern Ireland must conform to EU rules and all those entering from GB must conform to EU rules if they go into the Republic. This is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
I want to see whether there is a case for removing this present situation before I come to an alternative. Let us think back to the time when the withdrawal agreement was negotiated. Mrs May—now the noble Baroness, Lady May—asked to negotiate the trade arrangements that would follow on from us leaving the European Union alongside the withdrawal arrangements. She was refused by the EU, which said that it was not possible for it to do that under EU law. It could not reach a permanent agreement on trading arrangements with us until we had left, because the EU had powers to reach agreements only with independent countries—non-members. So we needed first to have left the EU before it was possible to reach any agreement with us.
The EU then went ahead and agreed the withdrawal agreement before it would start proper negotiations on the trade and co-operation agreement, but it insisted on including trading arrangements with Northern Ireland in the withdrawal agreement. Whenever I raised this and said, “Well, hang on, I thought you couldn’t reach trading agreements”, the EU said, “Oh, we can, as long as it is temporary and designed to deal with the problems that may arise if Britain leaves without a permanent trade and co-operation agreement”, or other transitional arrangements to do with us leaving. But it is intrinsically temporary. We need to remember and remind ourselves of that.
This was all discussed in the House of Commons at the time. The then Attorney-General, Geoffrey Cox, explained to the House that
“article 50 of the Treaty on European Union does not provide a legal basis in Union law for permanent future arrangements with non-member states”.
He went on to say that, if European traders felt disadvantaged by aspects of the protocol in future, they should,
“beat a path to the door of the Commission and the Court, and there to say, ‘Didn’t you say that article 50 is not a sound legal foundation for this arrangement?’ And I tell you frankly, Mr Speaker, they are likely to win”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/18; cols. 547-55.]
So the Attorney-General, who rarely expresses opinions on the possible outcome of hypothetical legal cases, thought it was absolutely clear-cut that this is a temporary arrangement that cannot continue permanently.
The withdrawal agreement, which is based on Article 50 of the European Union treaties,
“does not aim at establishing a permanent future relationship between the EU and the UK”—
that was the wording in the original protocol. It was not in the second protocol, but that does not mean that it did not apply, because the second protocol was bounded by exactly the same aspects of the treaties of the European Union. So it is temporary and it must sooner or later be replaced. With what can it be replaced that will meet the legitimate objectives of the European Union to maintain the integrity of its single market, the people of Northern Ireland to have a say in their government and the United Kingdom as a whole to maintain the integrity of its own market?
It has been suggested by very distinguished people, such as a former director-general of the EU Commission, Sir Jonathan Faull, and distinguished professors of EU law at both Harvard and Madrid, Joseph Weiler and Daniel Sarmiento, that we should collectively agree mutual enforcement. We do not need to go even that far. We can have unilateral enforcement. Britain can pass a law that will prohibit the export of goods that do not meet EU laws, checks and standards from our territory to the EU.
In the normal way, that law would not be enforced at the border. Indeed, existing export controls to the rest of the world are rarely, if ever, enforced at the border, port or airport. Applications to export goods, or likewise to import goods under customs duties, are analysed electronically. If analysis or intelligence suggests that a company may be exporting or importing non-compliant goods without having obtained an export or import licence, enforcement action would normally be at the point of production or dispatch, not at the port or border. Likewise, should the UK suspect or be informed by the Irish Government that non-EU compliant goods were being or planned to be dispatched across the border, enforcement would take place at the trader’s premises in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, or in transit, not at the Northern Ireland border.
So there is a perfectly workable and enforceable system that we could introduce. We would like it to be reciprocated by similar arrangements for goods coming into Britain from the EU, but we do not need that. HMRC said repeatedly in all our debates and discussions that there were no circumstances in which it would need to carry out checks at the border to maintain the integrity of the United Kingdom internal market.
I congratulate the committee again on having looked at ways to try to ameliorate the problems that are inherent in the present situation, but let us not forget that the present situation is temporary. It legally must be replaced, and there are alternatives to replace it with that meet the legitimate expectations of the EU, as well as the needs of the people of Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, it is an honour to speak in this debate and to be a member of the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I thank our chairman for how he outlined the contents of the report today and, more broadly, for how skilfully he guides and chairs our committee. It is no mean feat to bring so many diverse views to some form of consensus, as his predecessor the noble Lord, Lord Jay, did, on the letters and reports that we look at. They make a valuable contribution to the overall debate and I pay tribute to him, to his predecessor, and to our clerk and our excellent staff and secretariat, who are across all the details and make our life so much easier.
I come to the contents of this report. It is entitled Northern Ireland after Brexit: Strengthening Northern Ireland’s Voice in the Context of the Windsor Framework, so the first thing we need to do is look at the Windsor Framework itself: it is in that context that we have to look at all these ideas and proposals. So what does the Windsor Framework do? We need to remind ourselves about what it does. It means that foreign laws made by a foreign legislature—a foreign polity, which makes laws in its own interests—are imposed on a third country, part of the United Kingdom, which is the fifth-largest or sixth-largest economy in the world. No Member of Parliament, Member of the Legislative Assembly or citizen in Northern Ireland has any say in the development, amendment or formulation of those laws.
The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, talked about condominium status—it is a form of colonialism. For a part of the United Kingdom and its citizens to be treated in such a way in the 21st century is, quite frankly, an appalling situation, and it does not cover just trade. The 300 areas of law in Articles 2 and 5 of the protocol all deal with various aspects of trade—state aid and so on—but it goes much wider than that: our committee proposes to look at the Dillon judgment and the effects on equality, human rights law and all the rest of it. So it is much wider than just trade; it affects every aspect of society in Northern Ireland, with large swathes of our economy governed by laws not made by us and not capable of being made by us but made by the European Union.
Our committee has wrestled with this notion of the democratic deficit, which really should be described as a democratic denial. It is the denial of democracy; it is not just a deficit. The fourth paragraph of our summary on page 4 says:
“This report examines the action that has been taken to mitigate the democratic deficit, and makes clear that what has been done so far is insufficient to resolve this fundamental issue”.
So anything that we suggest in this report can be only a mitigation of a disastrous situation that all self-respecting lawmakers should be appalled at and should seek to do something about.
What have we ended up with? We have ended up with, as has been described, this labyrinthine and opaque set of arrangements. The diagram on pages 24 and 25, which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, referred to, shows this complex web of interlocking organisations and bodies, all set up with different purposes, rules, legal responsibilities and obligations.
Part of this is deliberate: every time a problem was raised, a committee was thrown at it. This was done in relation to horticultural movements, for example, which was raised with the Government during the talks leading up to Safeguarding the Union. It was pointed out that we cannot get seeds and certain plants moved to Northern Ireland. It is not just that it is complex; it is a complete bar. They said, “Well, we’ll set up a horticultural working group”. But what has that group done since? We cannot even know the names of some of the people on it. When I have asked the Government for the names—the Minister has replied to me on this—we are not even allowed, as legislators and people in Northern Ireland, to know who is on the committee, yet they are supposed to be coming up with ideas and solutions. It is totally ludicrous, but not just ludicrous: businesses are confused and angry—it is not just that people are bemused—at the unnecessary complexity and at the fact that the EU is insisting on full international customs border arrangements and complexities for internal trade between one part of the United Kingdom and the other. It is just not suitable or appropriate, and it is imposing great difficulties.
We heard evidence from the chamber of commerce in Northern Ireland over the last couple of weeks that this has been one of the most challenging years that it can remember. The FSB representative talked about the chilling effect on small companies and so on. This is happening now, even after the Windsor Framework, Safeguarding the Union and all these step changes that were supposed to make things better. Costs are increasing for consumers. Our committee heard evidence about the restrictions on choice for consumers in Northern Ireland. Many items available in the rest of the country are not available to consumers in Northern Ireland, for no good reason. I advise people to read the excellent recent report from the Federation of Small Businesses, which outlined a lot of these issues in detail.
We have called for the simplification and streamlining of these bodies. I think that it is important that that should be attempted, although I have to say that I have little faith that the EU side will look at this seriously, given the way that it refuses to contemplate any change in the current arrangements. Its attitude seems to be, “We’ve agreed this, everything’s fine, it’s up to the UK Government to deal with it, nothing to do with us”.
Turning to some of the specific recommendations, we heard evidence that the Northern Ireland Government cannot really influence EU legislation upstream early enough, before it is adopted, and that they are largely confined to reactive scrutiny after proposals are made. This is something that the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, addressed in his report. It would be an improvement if there were an increase in resourcing for the UK mission in Brussels, for greater engagement between the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the mission and, through that, with Brussels, but I have to caution that we have a problem, because getting a settled Northern Ireland position in the first place is often not achievable.
We had an illustration of this when our committee tried to get evidence from the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, on behalf of the Executive, about what the Northern Ireland Executive Office in Brussels was doing and what the Northern Ireland Government thought of all this. One would have thought that they would have been interested, but it was vetoed because there has to be agreement between the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The Deputy First Minister was quite happy to come and the First Minister vetoed it. So how are we going to get settled positions in terms of Northern Ireland’s view? That has to be factored into the equation. It is not very helpful, and it is to be regretted, that we did not hear from representatives of the Executive.
The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, mentioned proposals to improve the Assembly’s Democratic Scrutiny Committee. I think that everybody agrees that that committee is not able to do its job, lacks sufficient access to information and is struggling to gather evidence within the timescales. I support the proposals that have been suggested to reform that committee. It is something that we should return to in a few months and ask whether this has made any difference, because if the Northern Ireland Assembly scrutiny committees cannot do the job properly and it is left to Westminster, either in the other place or in your Lordships’ House, then that is unsatisfactory. Elected representatives in Northern Ireland should be able to do the job properly.
We also looked at measures such as the Stormont brake and applicability Motions, which we referenced in our report. I have to say that these measures were sold very heavily in order to get Stormont back. We were told that this would give legislators in Northern Ireland the long-awaited answer to their democratic deficit complaints, but what has happened? They have almost disappeared from the political viewpoint. Nobody mentions them any more, because when they were tried the Government knocked them back, doing serious damage to political confidence. Those who warn about instability in Northern Ireland are right to do so, because if these issues are not properly addressed, there will come a reckoning at some point. As I have said before, some people say, “We didn’t see this crisis at Stormont coming”. I think that these issues are going to contribute to future instability if not properly addressed.
For instance, on the Stormont brake, at the end of the process the Government can veto it, and they did. On the applicability Motions, they can veto the process from the start. If they say that no new regulatory border will be created, this disapplies the applicability Motion from being heard in the Assembly. The Government can veto both the major safeguards—one at the start and one at the end. That has caused real concern in Northern Ireland among those who were told that this would be a major plank in getting Stormont restored. It is a disrespectful position, as far as the Assembly is concerned.
We have always been strong on the need to set up a register of applicable EU law—an office where regulatory divergence can be highlighted and exposed. That is something that both the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and our own committee have highlighted. The Government need to take that on board and set up a database and an office that can look at this. The one-stop shop has been an important addition to the ideas that have been brought forward. I thank the Government for their engagement on that matter. As the chairman mentioned—I am not going to go through all the issues that have already been highlighted—we need to see this up and running as quickly as possible. I am glad that the Government are taking it seriously.
I come back to the fundamental point, on which the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, ended as well. We can mitigate all we like; we can introduce tweaks here and changes there; and we can have a whack-a-mole approach, where one issue crops up and we knock it down and another one that we have not foreseen comes up and we try to deal with it. European law is dynamically aligning Northern Ireland all the time, sometimes to the detriment of our trade with Britain and sometimes not so much. Unforeseen things will happen and we will have to address the fundamental problem, which is that you cannot, in a modern democracy, expect people to live in a society where other people, in their interests, decide laws for them. Unless we wake up to that reality, we will have a real problem in the Assembly and the Northern Ireland political set-up. I hope that that does not happen, but it is incumbent on all of us who take an interest in these matters to make sure that it does not.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I will not delay the Committee in repeating what both the chairman and the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, said, with which I am in complete agreement. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, for working with us on his report. It was wonderful to have these two reports going simultaneously. I thank the clerks of the House of Lords for working with the members of the committee, because it has been great fun and hard work, of course. I thank the organisations, both non-profit and enterprise organisations and companies, that have been in touch with the committee and me to put forward their case on what they feel is the deficit for them within Northern Ireland. I thank the businesses that we had the pleasure to visit and the other ones that invited me.
The one answer that we cannot give them, as others have said, is that we need a one-stop shop. The Government, in their reply to us, have promised this. It should be now, not in 2026-27. It is needed now and it must liaise with Brussels as well. It cannot just be about Britain and Northern Ireland; it must have Brussels’ input.
At the moment, there is a big deficit of goods going to Northern Ireland. We know that there are empty shelves, problems with getting parcels and problems with deliveries. I heard from haulage organisations and the committee heard from large supermarkets and others that they cannot get the goods, fresh goods in particular, across the border in good time to be delivered. There are problems at the ports and everywhere. This is an urgent issue. I know that the Government have heard us going on and on about it, but it is up to us, and it is destroying people’s lives every day, when they cannot get what they need. These are very basic goods: parts for cars and washing machines. There are problems with combi washing machines. These are daily lives. These are not just fancy goods.
Another issue that we need to look at is that, while this is going on, we will not be able to get people to invest in Northern Ireland from other parts of Europe and the world. We desperately need good investment to come to Northern Ireland. Under the Biden Administration, we had support from Joe Kennedy III to bring jobs and employment to Northern Ireland but, under the new regime in America, that has come to a halt. I would very much like to see the Government look at that again. Northern Ireland needs not only good employment but jobs that will bring apprenticeships, and it needs companies that have long-standing agreements that will want to do that. There is a deficit of skilled workers, as we talked about earlier and many times before.
If we do not have that for Northern Ireland’s GDP and education, its people will not have a future. I ask that we look at that as part of the one-stop shop, by having it appendaged to it in one way or another, so that we work on bringing employment and good jobs to Northern Ireland—not just back-office jobs but much more important ones. I hope that we can look at that for the future, because we need it. We also need everybody to work together and no longer in silos. We have started having engagements, but we need more engagement, clarity and transparency. We need the bodies all working around the same table. Now that we have come to this, it has to happen.
Further, as a committee, we should not be doing the scrutiny for Northern Ireland. There has to be some infrastructure in the Northern Ireland Assembly so that it can do its own scrutiny, employing people as clerks and other staff who can help it to do so. We can do the scrutiny, of course—it is a pleasure to do so, and it is interesting—but it is wrong for us to do it, and we said that in our report. I hope that, in the long term, we will be able to support the Northern Ireland Assembly in its scrutiny. We have had joint meetings with its scrutiny committee, but it is important that that comes in the future.
I do not want to delay the Committee any more. We need clarity and more engagement. The one-stop shop, with Brussels as well, must happen now, because this cannot go on. At every meeting we have had we have been told from the outside that there is no proper way of finding out what is going on—how the legislation is working. The Cabinet Office is trying, but there are not enough civil servants and there is not enough contact between Northern Ireland, Brussels and us on these clear issues that could make Northern Ireland go further.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie. As a newish member of the committee, it is with some trepidation that I rise to speak in this debate. Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that, at this early stage, I will keep my remarks relatively brief.
I commend the committee on its report. It is a shrewd analysis of the challenges faced by people and businesses in Northern Ireland, and it provides sensible solutions to help them navigate their way through the situation they now find themselves in. As others can speak with far greater insight on the report than I can, I will focus on a couple of reflections—the things that I have been most struck by since joining the committee three months ago. They are all symptomatic of the problems identified in the report.
The overriding issue, which has been mentioned, is the way in which the Windsor Framework affects so many aspects of day-to-day living. I am slightly embarrassed to say that in the present company, but the truth is that I had vastly underestimated just how pervasive it is. I suspect the same goes for the majority of the GB population. I am not talking about the high-stakes policy areas, such as CBAM or the deforestation regulations, although they are obviously significant. What has struck me is the constant drip feed of impositions that chip away at businesses and, in turn, affect consumers in terms of price, choice and availability.
For example, even in my short experience we have seen explanatory memoranda on everything from the school fruit, vegetables and milk scheme to possible labelling changes for poultry meat, unique device identifiers for spectacle frames and handling charges on parcels. The memoranda themselves are telling because some are very thorough and pay proper attention to the possible impacts, but others are cavalier as to the potential costs and burdens. If it were not for the work of the previous committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, the scrutiny of the current committee and its dedicated chair, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the exceptional secretariat, which must get another mention, one cannot help but wonder how much worse things would be.
On that note, the £16.6 million commitment is welcome, and the increased support for businesses, but I am afraid that, like others, I am now going to mention the one-stop shop. Everyone agreed that it is essential that, as per its name, all the information is gathered in one place. However, it is not just about what information and the information itself, but about how people can access and interpret that information. Obviously, this is crucial for small businesses because they do not have the resources to employ specialists in the Windsor Framework.
As the Minister knows, I am a big fan of the new interactive public inquiries recommendations dashboard, and I applaud the Government for implementing it; we tried and tried and failed—so well done. I just want to ask the Minister this. We do not know who will set up the one-stop shop—whether it will be Cabinet Office in-house or whether it will be contracted out—but can the Minister ensure that that very same, very user-friendly, easy-to-access approach will be employed for the one-stop shop? It has now been proved that it can be done, so it can be done again.
I will very briefly repeat a point made by others about the fact that the onus seems very much to lie solely on Northern Ireland businesses when, in fact, it is equally incumbent on Great Britain to get to grips with the current trading landscape. Trade associations have repeatedly highlighted the major lack of understanding on the GB side. Will the Minister therefore also make sure, in rolling out the one-stop shop, that it is not just focused on Northern Ireland, and not even just that it is UK-wide, but that there is appropriate engagement early enough, and that takes place where it is most lacking, which is in Great Britain?
Talking of user-friendly approaches, I agree: EUR-Lex—no. The Government say that we do not need a new tool because EUR-Lex can be used to
“read and consider detailed legal texts”.
That is slightly disingenuous because it simply cannot be used to “read and consider”. If it is the Government’s view that such a database is not necessary then just say so, but if they believe that such a database is important then they need to provide one that is in an accessible form. As it stands, EUR-Lex is just no help at all to anybody.
Finally, I know that the Minister is a strong advocate for Northern Ireland, and the Government should be credited with trying to ease some of the frictions of the framework, which in turn tried to ease some of the frictions of the protocol, but this really comes back to the reality of life for the people of Northern Ireland. The truth is that there is no getting away from the fact that there are real and present dangers in the current trading environment, and there are consequences to that. Even just in my short time on the committee, the businesses and the people of Northern Ireland have shown great forbearance in the many frustrations that they face on a daily basis, but ultimately, they have an absolute right to be on an equal footing. This report, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, says, does not fix everything but it helps to mitigate that inequity. I therefore hope that the Government will perhaps just give further consideration to some of the very good recommendations in the report.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. I agree with all that she had to say in relation to the issues in the report.
I am delighted to speak to this report as a member of the scrutiny committee. I declare my interests, in particular as chair of InterTrade UK and of Boyce Precision Engineering, and as a member of Co-operation Ireland.
I thank the chair, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for the way in which he set out the detail of the report and I echo his thanks to our wonderful committee staff. I want to concentrate on the action taken to mitigate the democratic deficit for Northern Ireland and its people, given that, as we have heard, aspects of EU laws apply in Northern Ireland without the consent of parliamentarians either here or in Stormont.
It is clear from the evidence that we took in our committee and indeed from reports of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee in another place that the arrangements set up to try and mitigate the democratic deficit have, to date, been insufficient. We can never truly deal with the issues arising from the Windsor Framework or the protocol until they are replaced with much more realistic and proportionate arrangements and agreements. Until that happens, we must try to make the mitigations as effective as they can be within the constraints set by these flawed agreements.
When I was reflecting on the comments of the noble Lord the chair at the start of his speech around the Windsor Framework, it reminded me of the old joke: a tourist comes along a country road, sees a farmer hanging over a gate and asks for directions, and the farmer replies, “Well, I wouldn’t start from here”. I think that is certainly the feeling of a lot of us but we have to start from here because that is what we have at the moment.
Lord Bew (CB)
I support what the noble Baroness has been saying. There is a problem with democratic deficit but it is perhaps worth reminding ourselves that the leading thrust of the Windsor Framework is not the democratic deficit. It is about the move away from the British Government’s commitment to supporting an island economy. That is there in the 2017 May Government agreement and the 2019 agreement. It is partly concerned with the democratic deficit but it has transformed the shape of, and the debate about, the Northern Ireland economy. These problems of the democratic deficit absolutely remain, as so many speakers, including the noble Baroness, have said, but they are now in a different context. When the NIO Minister, Matthew Patrick, spoke at the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, it is striking that when he talked about the relative success now of the Northern Ireland economy he was stressing areas—most obviously defence and fintechs—that are unambiguously part of the British economy.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. I agree that that is an important part of the Windsor Framework but, unfortunately, the current architecture of the framework is the product of a number of political developments to try to make it more workable for businesses and consumers. When you try to retrofit solutions on to an already-flawed agreement, it often does not end well. That is, unfortunately, where we are today.
The number of bodies that have been set up have led our report to say that it is,
“a complex and opaque set of arrangements which makes it difficult for Northern Ireland stakeholders to engage effectively with key decision-makers and have their voices heard”.
We attempted to construct a diagram of all the bodies in the report, as the noble Lord the chairman has pointed out, but even that does not do the situation justice in terms of the complexity.
The first task, of course, when there are problems and barriers to trade within the UK internal market, is to have those recognised by our own Government and the European Union. But denial, I have to say, has been a huge source of frustration for businesspeople and consumers alike across the UK: “Barriers—what barriers? Costs—what costs?” That is what you are dealt. When there is an air of denial, the problem is not going to go away. Of course, the difficulties are still there. There are small businesses in particular in GB that have decided to stop supplying goods into Northern Ireland altogether. That was the evidence from the Federation of Small Businesses, which carried out an effective and timely survey across the UK, which it was able to share with the committee. I think members will agree that it was very useful at that time and is surely something that should concern His Majesty’s Government.
As we have heard, some new bodies were set up under the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper, which allowed the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive to resume operation after a two-year hiatus. The independent monitoring panel looks at data and trade flows in the UK internal market, then provides evidence on the workability of the internal market guarantee, while the organisation I chair, InterTrade UK, provides advice to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on issues relating to the operability of the Windsor Framework, as well as looking at connectivity across the UK. InterTrade UK started life without a budget line and with the burden whereby many believed that it had the same powers and resources as InterTradeIreland—it does not. We now have a small budget, for which I am grateful, but it will not be able to match the wherewithal of InterTradeIreland, as the two bodies are totally different entities; InterTrade UK is a non-statutory body.
One of the suggestions from our evidence to the committee is that InterTrade UK should have representation from Great Britain as well as from Northern Ireland; that is the recommendation at paragraph 301—the noble Lord, Lord Empey, was very strong on this issue. We have a lot of trading difficulties with small GB-based companies selling into Northern Ireland, therefore there should be GB representation on the board of InterTrade UK. As the chair of that organisation, I fully support that recommendation and hope that the Government will act on it in their response. The response said that the Government “will give further consideration” to the recommendation at paragraph 301, and I hope the Minister has an update on that.
The work that InterTrade UK has undertaken thus far has been to raise issues of concern to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on general policy. In the absence of another vehicle, we have also been raising specific issues that have come directly to our attention. The most recent letter in my name to the Secretary of State was on the availability of white goods in Northern Ireland and the price of pet prescriptions. Incidentally, they have doubled in the instance that was brought to my attention. I hope that the much-anticipated one-stop shop, which has to get going as quickly as possible, will help consumers and businesses alike when it is set up. We await a clear timeline and design—I hope as soon as possible.
One of the most impactive evidence sessions that we had as a committee is not actually in the report before us, because it came after the report was concluded. It was from the Road Haulage Association, which brought forward some very important evidence that I will briefly mention. It told us that the latest Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency trade data indicates a sustained decline in GB-NI freight volumes. The increasing administrative and regulatory burden associated with moving goods from GB to NI is acting as a deterrent to operator participation. It showed us that the number of GB-based fleets operating in Northern Ireland has declined by approximately 36%, and that GB-to-Northern Ireland journeys undertaken by GB-registered vehicles had fallen by 52% in 2024.
The Road Haulage Association brought forward a number of issues to us. First, there were issues with commodity codes, particularly for groupage movement and haulage. In this system, each pallet in the truck can belong to a different sender, as Members know, which contains many individual items. While that is efficient commercially, it creates complexity for customs because every item requires its own commodity code. That is why groupage movements face higher administrative burdens and delays, which can cause real issues for an entire truck.
The complexity of that system has been made even worse, because the UK internal market scheme allows businesses with a turnover of under £2 million to use the simpler green lane with some exemptions for certain sectors. Although that is higher than the previous £500,000 limit, it is still far below the UK’s SME classification threshold of £44 million. As a result, many small and medium-sized businesses are excluded from the UK internal market scheme. Of course, larger companies are not affected by all this, because they can manage it, but it is a real issue for the smaller companies.
The recommendations made by the RHA go some way to help mitigate the problems of the Windsor Framework. I ask the Minister, if she cannot respond today, to think about some of these issues and revert back to me. First, the RHA would like to see the introduction of a trusted haulier scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, also referred to this. It would reduce frictions for logistics and haulage businesses and allow qualifying hauliers to move goods with greater ease at a reduced cost to businesses trading between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Secondly, the RHA would like to see that £2 million threshold for the UKIMS removed.
Lastly, and most importantly, the RHA wants to move the determination of “at risk” from the Irish Sea border to the point of sale. Hauliers often do not have the information required to resolve problems when they are bringing goods across the Irish Sea, but determining which goods are at risk at the GB-NI border will always cause costly and disruptive delays, especially for just-in-time goods, which a lot of these are. It brings additional cost and delay in moving goods that risks unbalancing Northern Ireland’s dual market access and trade diversion.
Determining risk at the point of sale would mean that goods’ end destination would be known for sure and that customs processes could be applied only on goods that are leaving the UK and going into the single market of the European Union. Information about the buyer and seller is already required for all movements of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, so there is no lost information from allowing goods to move freely across the Irish Sea.
I have managed to speak to only some of the issues raised in what is a very comprehensive report. I am sure other colleagues will deal with the other issues contained therein. But, in concluding, I always come to these matters in a pragmatic way to try to find solutions to problems, because that is what I think politics is about: trying to find solutions. However, to attain solutions to problems, you first have to acknowledge that there is a problem. I am not sure that there is a willingness in either HMG or the EU to admit the scale and nature of the problem that currently exists. With the much-vaunted reset on its way, I hope the closed mindset on what is happening in Northern Ireland can be lifted and that a more open and balanced dialogue can begin, for the benefit of those British citizens who live in Northern Ireland and businesses right across the UK.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, as we just heard, the noble Baroness speaks with great expertise and eloquence, as she has consistently in meetings of our committee, of which she is a valuable member. It is a delight to have madam chair presiding over this meeting, and the fact that it is so well behaved must be a consequence of her skills.
I welcome and thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for chairing our committee so ably—it is a very diverse committee in all sorts of ways, as he knows better than anybody else—with the expert backing of his excellent staff, two members of which are sitting here watching. They are incredible in unpicking these detailed memoranda. As the noble Lord, Lord Jay, will remember from his time chairing the committee, this stuff is complicated and sometimes impenetrably boring. It may be boring, but it is still important, and they provide us with the expertise to deal with it.
I want to get one thing off my chest, and it will cause some disagreement. I believe that the enormous problems that first the protocol and then the Windsor Framework have saddled us with—Northern Ireland citizens in particular—are a direct result of the hard Brexit implemented by the Government and supported by a minority of the parties in Northern Ireland. That has left a huge set of problems for Northern Ireland by putting a border down the Irish Sea, dividing Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom and betraying, in my view, the unionist cause. That is my own view. I am not a unionist—I am not anything. I am an honest broker, as a Secretary of State. It has betrayed the unionist cause and saddled Northern Ireland with a number of problems that are almost insoluble in some respects. On that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, who also makes a valuable contribution to the committee. It is the only part of the United Kingdom bound by the rules of the European single market and customs union, yet it is unable to directly influence those rules. That is the fundamental problem that our committee has sought to wrestle with. In his own excellent report, my noble friend Lord Murphy also sought to wrestle with it, and the Government have to manage it.
That set of problems needs to be remedied. The key for me, as an ardent devolutionist, is to empower the Northern Ireland legislature—the elected legislature of the citizens of Northern Ireland—so that its voice can be heard directly through consultation, as the UK’s voice was heard. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, will remember from his time in the Foreign Office that the UK had a very effective United Kingdom representation unit in Brussels, through which the UK’s voice was heard at the earliest possible stage. That was direct representation. The only option now for the Northern Ireland Assembly is to ensure that its voice is heard through consultation.
As a number of people have mentioned, and as my noble friend Lord Murphy stresses in his report, early consultation is the key. You will not be able to influence something once it is formally part of the process. But as I recall, especially having been UK Europe Minister for two years, and in other Cabinet and ministerial posts, you can influence proposals in Brussels if you get in early, and when we had UKRep we had the ability to do that. Well before things are formalised and start getting set in stone, you can influence through early consultation. That is crucial.
The UK mission in Brussels—I think the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, stressed this as well—needs to be strengthened in its Northern Ireland capabilities and capacity. It is too weak at the moment and it needs to have Northern Ireland officials moving to and fro, listening to officials in Stormont and directly inputting their views and the views of MLAs into the heart of the decision-making process. At the early consultation stage, when something is proposed by the European Commission, typically, a proposal is floated and there is considerable opportunity to influence it. Once it is formalised, that becomes much more difficult. Therefore early consultation is vital, and the UK mission, as I say, must have its Northern Ireland capability massively bolstered in order that Northern Ireland citizens, their MLAs and their officials can influence matters affecting them directly.
I would also like to see the Northern Ireland Office strengthened. To be frank, at the moment it is a shop-window office for Northern Ireland, but, welcome though that is, it is inadequate in representing and expressing all the kind of views that we have heard about so far in this debate and which are explained in a very detailed way in our report. Above all, however, the UK mission in Brussels needs to have its Northern Ireland capabilities massively upgraded.
In my view, MLAs—Members of the Legislative Assembly in Stormont—should be offered a channel of consultation with the European Parliament. They cannot have formal representation because we are not a member state of the European Union, but there are various opportunities and mechanisms through which MLAs, and perhaps their committee in other forms, could be listened to in the consultation process with the European Parliament. In addition, remember that the European Parliament has co-decision rights now; that has evolved over the last decade or so. That means that it can be influenced, and it needs to be influenced, by Northern Ireland if these myriad regulations and matters affecting Northern Ireland as a result of this Brexit process are to be influenced.
The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, told our committee—I do not think I am breaking any sort of rules by revealing this—that, as I think she put it, Ministers are seen but not heard properly; she was of course a very able First Minister for Northern Ireland. I think she is indicating that that is an accurate representation of what she said. That is not good enough. In my view, Northern Ireland Ministers should be directly consulted within the Joint Committee process, either by the committee itself or its detailed sub-committees—it is quite a complex animal—so that again, ministerial input can go directly into the process of formulating these rules and legislation where they affect or are intended to affect Northern Ireland.
I just conclude by saying this, which some members of the committee will disagree with: I do not think that this relationship can be fixed or that Northern Ireland’s interests can be protected on an EU-UK basis alone. I know that the Brexit deal was done by the UK Government negotiating with the European Union and the European Commission but, in my view, the elected representatives of Northern Ireland, who are directly elected through their legislature, need to have their voice heard.
I realise that this is a problem for some members of the committee, because they think that the relationship needs to be UK-EU alone. Northern Ireland citizens and their businesses—the small business sector in particular have been terribly affected by this whole set of arrangements—often do not have the capacity to deal with it. Small businesses in Great Britain simply stop trading with Northern Ireland because the complexities are so enormous. Those problems cannot be fixed by a UK Government-European Union arrangement alone; that is too high up and high-level. It can only be really fixed by Northern Ireland’s voice, and that requires its Ministers to start agreeing with each other and working hard—harder than they are at the moment—to make sure that their voices are heard. Members of the Legislative Assembly’s voices also ought to be heard. The Democratic Scrutiny Committee in Stormont ought to operate more effectively, and Northern Ireland’s officials need to bolster their own capabilities and expertise, so that they can be heard with some conviction and some respect in Brussels, in a way that is sadly not happening at the moment. If that can be tackled—and I hope that my noble friend the Minister, in her reply, will make some remarks on this—the whole problem will not be as formidable and almost impossible as it currently is to many small businesses in Northern Ireland especially, and to many consumers and others. If that is fixed, the problem could at least be remedied.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hain. Noble Lords will understand that I do not agree with everything he says. In fact, he does not always agree with me either. I declare my interests: I am member of the Ulster Farmers Union and a farmer. One day, he questioned about me actually being a farmer. Some people at home would probably question that as well. I was not on the committee when the report was brought forward, but I enjoy being on the committee now, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. The staff are excellent and make an excellent contribution to what we do.
The Northern Ireland protocol, Windsor Framework and Safeguarding the Union—whatever document you want to look at—promised so much for the people of Northern Ireland, but they have not delivered. That is the problem that everybody faces here. Today, we are all trying to address some of those shortfalls, particularly within the Windsor Framework. At this stage, I commend the businesses, farming community and the sectors of Northern Ireland, which have been extremely resilient in the face of adversity, in relation to trying to make their businesses and the economy work and doing it under so much stress and with many difficulties. The reality for businesses on the ground is that there is a fog of uncertainty within that process, and that is something that we need to address.
I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, being here and I welcomed his report, because it went into some of the detail, similar to what the scrutiny committee worked out. But the one recommendation that was mentioned here before the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, brought that out was the one-stop shop. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, that we cannot wait an overly long time for that to be implemented, because businesses just cannot afford that time. If you run a business that is struggling in Northern Ireland, and you are told that you will need to wait another 18 months to two years for a one-stop shop to give you advice, that is not going to be any help to you at that stage. That is one aspect that needs more urgent attention and delivery.
Uncertainty is not a neutral condition; it corrodes investment, deters expansion and punishes smaller firms in particular. Yes, we have heard that larger firms are also impacted, but they can absorb it slightly more easily than the smaller firms, which have huge difficulty within their sector. In the Ulster Unionist Party, certainly, we have vociferous in our opposition to the border in the Irish Sea; it inhibits any trade between GB and Northern Ireland. That is, in effect, what we have. I am sure that we all know loads of people that have tried to order goods online and they cannot get them because that business in GB has stopped trading with Northern Ireland—full-stop.
I want to raise the issue of the importation of machinery from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. There has been a huge impact on that industry and economy in Northern Ireland. Lots of the machinery may be sold outside Northern Ireland, but there is no reason why the inspections could not be simplified and why they could not be done in Northern Ireland for goods that are moving on to the Republic of Ireland or other parts of the EU. It is nonsensical that the inspections have to be done in GB before the goods come to Northern Ireland. There needs to be a much better process for that.
Another issue is veterinary medicines, which has been a problem for a long time. We got the human medicines sorted out at a very early stage in the process; why could we not also sort out the veterinary medicines at a similar time?
I have heard so much talk about the Democratic Scrutiny Committee in the Northern Ireland Assembly, but it is just not working. I accept the point from the noble Lord, Lord Hain, that MLAs in the Northern Ireland Assembly need a bigger role, but we need to persuade the Government and EU that they be allowed that additional role, because at present my understanding is that they are not permitted that extra responsibility. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hain, I feel that they should be. There is a job of work there, whether it is for the UK Government, the European Union or both together, to allow greater input from the Northern Ireland Assembly. The MLAs are the people on the ground who hear daily from businesses and, on most occasions, try to assist and help them.
The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, made the point that this process is temporary. It may be temporary, but it is here. The fact is that we have businesses trying to manage their way around it, and they are finding it so difficult without that one-stop shop. It is temporary until the reset takes place. We hear a lot about what is happening at present. One of the faults of the Windsor Framework—or of implementing it and the protocol before it—was that little or no preparation was done, and the people of Northern Ireland have been the fall people. That is why it is so important that we now start preparation for the UK-EU reset.
I am not hearing much—others may be—from the Government about what is taking place and what process is in place around that EU-UK reset. What is happening and what processes can we expect? Now is the time to get the information, evidence and foresight from those businesses that have had to comply with what we have in Northern Ireland. They should have an input into the reset, and it should be codesigned in parallel with them. Now is the time to start preparing for that, otherwise—I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley—unless we find a better mechanism, it will not improve things, even though this is temporary. Whatever the more final process is, we need to ensure that it is much better.
The list of barriers continues. I have mentioned agricultural machinery and veterinary medicines, but the movement of livestock—sheep and cattle—from GB to Northern Ireland is also a huge problem. That is within the United Kingdom, and it should not be an issue. In particular, people are purchasing pedigree animals on mainland GB and cannot get them imported into Northern Ireland. I know farmers who have bought extremely expensive animals that have now been sitting in what we would call storage or in farm isolation units in Scotland or England for almost 18 months. That is totally unfair to those farmers who are trying to do their best for not only the economy of Northern Ireland but the entirety of the UK.
What is most striking is that we still have not found a resolution to all this, even though we have been at it for a number of years. Most businesses have found their own resolutions in many aspects—they have just got on with business and found ways around it—but the one thing that they find extremely difficult is that they still cannot import some goods that they need from GB into Northern Ireland. They have to look for those goods from other sources, which is not always easy. That is going to be an aspect, as this year goes on, for veterinary medicines, because those arrangements already been implemented. There are quite large stocks within vets, but as those start to run down it will be much more difficult for the veterinarians first and then for the farmers to access the medicines they need. They will have to find other sources that are probably much more expensive and in different bulk sizes. They may have to buy veterinary medicine for 500 animals when they need it for only 50, because they cannot get it in that smaller size.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, I intervene in this debate not as a Northern Ireland specialist or representative, which I am clearly not, but as someone who has taken a strong special interest over many years in the economy and economic growth, and in the trading patterns of our great United Kingdom. I am not surprised that much of the debate so far has been about these economic issues. We have heard eloquent testimony to the barriers and difficulties that small businesses in particular but also some big businesses are experiencing as a result of the dreadful settlement of the so-called Northern Ireland problem, embedded first in the protocol and subsequently in the Windsor Framework.
I fully support what my noble friend Lord Lilley said and will explain to the Committee that my noble friend and I, and other Conservative MPs and Peers, held regular meetings over the Brexit years to discuss how our country can get the most out of the freedoms we can enjoy and could develop now that we have left the European Union, and how the £17 billion we are now saving in annual contributions can be best spent to our wider benefit and related issues. We have often, as a result, had joint meetings or exchanges of MPs and Peers with our unionist colleagues here today.
In our meetings, we took on board that Northern Ireland had a particularly bad deal out of the form of Brexit entry that the EU cajoled or persuaded successive British Governments into accepting. There is no doubt that absorbing so much European Union law into Northern Ireland is a constraint on growth, on small businesses and on trade. I urge the Government to think carefully about this, because they wish to align the whole United Kingdom with more of these laws, charges and impositions. Yet it is the case that where it is being tried in Northern Ireland, far from being a golden scenario, as some suggested, it is clearly a negative that is causing trouble.
In a previous speech in the Chamber of the House of Lords, I set out my own research findings for the period 1952 to 2020—from 20 years before we entered the EEC, from the 20 years in the EEC customs union from 1972 to 1992, and from the 28 years in the single market from 1992. The data is overwhelmingly convincing that the closer the alignment—the more European law, costs and taxes we absorbed—the slower we grew. I fully accept that there were other factors affecting our growth rates over those long periods, but you cannot reach a conclusion from the data that there was ever a time when aligning more closely helped and gave us a boost. There was no boost when we joined the customs union. On the contrary, because a lot of our industry was not fully competitive and was being protected by tariffs, when the tariffs came off, the Labour Government, who had to face the problem, saw mass closures and destruction of large parts of our industry because Italian, German and French textile companies, steel mills, engineering works and vehicle makers were so much more efficient than our own. The shock was too much.
There was also no visible extra growth—indeed, quite a lot to the contrary—after 1992, when the EU had completed its so-called single market, which was actually a major power grab and a whole series of laws that were often negative to the conduct of business. Again, there was no sudden improvement or growth in our economy. In many ways, the problems got worse after the single market had been completed. Of course, it was completely misleading to say that the single market was completed in 1992 because, for the following 28 years of our membership, there were ever more laws, ever more rules, ever more charges and ever more taxes, which had a direct impact on British businesses and clearly did no good.
Northern Ireland is right to say that there are two problems with the settlement we have been persuaded or forced into by the European Union. There is the problem of economic growth, prosperity, and business and trade success, but there is also the fundamental democratic accountability problem, which is a direct result of the EU’s chosen solution of putting Northern Ireland under European Union rules.
The report is wonderfully written. When I first came to it, I found it quite heavy going, complicated and difficult, and I then realised that, in a way, that was a wonderful parody of the issues that the report had to deal with. The authors of the report clearly understood it perfectly well and were showing, by the way they described it, what a dreadful mess there was: just how many contradictions and complexities were built into it, all to the advantage of the EU and not to the United Kingdom or Northern Ireland. I pay great tribute to the committee and to the work done.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, pointed out the wonderful organogram, which was meant to be a simplification so that those of us who found it hard going could see a picture. It tells you all you need to know: the thing is quite unworkable, completely incomprehensible and, by any external judgment, completely mad. No sensible country would ever behave like that or have accepted it, yet this is where we have got to by having all these agents and institutions involved in negotiating.
The solution offered by my noble friend Lord Lilley, hammered out as it was with a lot of colleagues—we had the benefit of two expert lawyers in this field, who very kindly worked pro bono for us because they felt, as we did, that things needed to change in a radical direction for the benefit of Northern Ireland—would, of course, resolve the democratic accountability. If, either by agreement or unilaterally, we no longer have to impose European Union laws on Northern Ireland, then the democratic accountability problem vanishes.
However, we are rightly told in the report that an attempt to resolve the problem was the partial solution of saying that, if a law is really so bad that Northern Ireland cannot put up with it, then Northern Ireland should have the right, through the Stormont procedure, to say that it will not apply in Northern Ireland—an override. Although that does not get you around the table to influence and vote on all the other laws that you can put up with—so it is not a full answer to democratic accountability—it is a very good partial answer, because not only would you be able to strike out anything that was really bad but the fact that you had that power would start to influence European Union opinion and attitudes, so that when representations were made on other matters, the European Union would have to bear in mind that you could just decide that it was all too much.
This takes me back down memory lane, which I am normally reluctant about, but on this occasion it is relevant. I remember, as a very young man, that when the 1975 referendum occurred and the British people voted to stay in the European Economic Community, we were assured by the then Labour Government and by the Conservative and Lib Dem opposition parties that our sovereignty would not be taken away or damaged in any way. We were joining a trading arrangement; it was a free trade area, and they called it the common market—they would not even call it the EEC. I made the mistake of reading the treaties and felt that this was an unlikely explanation of what was going on.
When I found myself, some years later, as Single Market Minister, I remembered that we had been told that no sovereignty had been lost, but my job was a visible demonstration that a huge amount of sovereignty had been lost, because I had to spend all my time trying to construct alliances with member states to stop a law being imposed on our country that did not make any sense or could even be positively damaging. I remembered that, over the years, in an attempt to persuade us that we had not been cheated over sovereignty, something had been developed called an emergency brake—language rather similar to the Stormont brake.
Faced with this avalanche of draft laws that I did not want or wanted to change dramatically, and recognising how much work it was to construct an alliance of member states sufficient to dilute or delay in each case, I decided on one—I cannot remember which I chose now—and let it be known that I was going to use the emergency brake. This was just to show Brussels that this was all getting out of hand and that I was prepared to take action to stop its extreme legislative ideas. As soon as I mentioned this within the privacy of government, I could feel the quiver of fear and annoyance that this idea created. The great British governing establishment—the civil servants and quite a few of the Ministers—were so pro the EU having its way on everything that they thought a Minister going maverick, as they saw it, and trying to negotiate from a position of strength was a very bad idea. It was, of course, vetoed before anyone outside government ever knew about it. I conspired with the rest to make sure nobody knew about it, because I did not think it would reflect well on me that I had lost the argument to use the emergency brake, or reflect well on the Government, because they were clearly throwing away a very powerful negotiating tool that could have got us an answer that was a lot better.
I give this as a salutary tale. I know that Northern Ireland bravely got a bit further than I did and once suggested that it was going to use the emergency brake. Once again, the great governing establishment knew better and decided that it was not going to be allowed to. I do not think that the Stormont brake will be used. The European Union does not think it is going to be used, which does not give you any negotiating heft as it tries to put more laws upon you.
My conclusions are this. This is advice to the Government that is heartfelt and well meant, and that would actually help the Government. I fully support the Government’s aims to have a growth strategy for the whole United Kingdom that levels up those parts that need levelling up, and is driven by more trade, industrial activity and small business developments. The Government will not get that in Northern Ireland unless they address this issue. The way to address it is to take up my noble friend’s suggestion: this is a bogus problem; there does not need to be a hard border. In the past, the big trade flows have always been east-west, or GB to Northern Ireland, not north-south, or Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland. The big trade flows are being damaged. This has to be lifted and we have to put it to the EU. If the EU is a friendly and sensible neighbour, it will see that it makes sense. If it is not, we should do it unilaterally.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, although I do not agree with absolutely everything that he said. It is a pleasure too to take part in today’s debate and to resume that focus on Northern Ireland that I had as chairman of the Sub-Committee of the European Affairs Committee on Northern Ireland—the predecessor of today’s committee. I learned a huge amount about Northern Ireland from the members of that committee, many of whom are present and speaking this afternoon. I was going to tell the noble Lord, Lord Hain, that I will try not to be impenetrably boring, but, fearing that I am going to be impenetrably boring, he has left his seat. However, I very much welcome the report and its recommendations, the excellent report by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and the Government’s reply.
I was struck when I chaired the committee, and I am struck now, although I listened carefully to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bew, by the real risk of a democratic deficit in the implementation of the Windsor Framework and the need for the people of Northern Ireland and its institutions, particularly Stormont, to be properly involved in forming and making decisions under the Windsor Framework that directly affect them. The excellent report that we are discussing today makes a number of eminently sensible suggestions. If it does not happen, an already complex and contentious scene will become ever more difficult to progress satisfactorily, with potential implications for the government of Northern Ireland. For that to happen, the process of implementing the framework needs to be transparent and comprehensible.
Over my career in public service, I have worked in many different government departments and embassies. Before, of course, I joined your Lordships’ House, I was steeped in bureaucracy. I thought that I understood bureaucracy, but nothing quite prepares you for the labyrinthine charts on pages 24 and 25 of the report that we are now considering. There is a crying need for more simplicity and clarity in substance and form. It would help greatly if the Government were to maintain and publish a record of regulatory divergence in the implementation of the Windsor Framework between Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the one hand and the United Kingdom and the EU on the other. This is not a new point, and it is a point on which I remember the noble Lord, Lord Empey, used to speak eloquently in the committee. I cannot see that the Government have accepted that recommendation from the committee, and I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify that later.
The implementation of the Windsor Framework is of course a dynamic process, as the shifting political scene in Northern Ireland and more widely shows. The establishment and the developing operation of Stormont’s Democratic Scrutiny Committee and the report by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, following the democratic consent vote in December 2024 show that. I am glad to see that the Government have accepted the recommendations in the report from the noble Lord, Lord Murphy.
What is also changing are the Government’s relations with the European Union, not least given the uncertain relationship at present between the United Kingdom and the United States. I personally welcome the more constructive relationship between the UK and the EU—it is in the interests of the United Kingdom—but the evolving UK and EU relationship will have implications for Northern Ireland. I hope that we will have learned the lessons of the past and that both the UK and the EU will consider the implications for Northern Ireland of such closer relations up front, not as an afterthought.
Finally, on a wholly tangential point, there is not much good news in the world at the moment, but the elimination of the predators of puffins and other seabirds on Rathlin Island, to which I sailed in a small boat more than 50 years ago—I hope that the Minister will approve of that—is unquestionably good news. The puffins of Rathlin Island may not have read the Windsor Framework, but their future is at least assured.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I commend the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee on producing such a comprehensive and well-considered report. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, for his independent review, which was carried out with the levels of diligence and common sense for which he has been renowned over many years. Given the presence of several members of the committee here tonight whose individual views I was keen to hear, I will keep my remarks relatively brief.
Despite the best efforts of the committee and the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, Northern Ireland continues to find itself in nothing short of a mess. In common with several of my unionist colleagues here today, I supported Brexit. I felt that it was right for the United Kingdom to regain responsibility for its own future and to become a rule-maker rather than a rule-taker, removing the dominant role played by Brussels. I believe that Brexit offered gilt-edged economic opportunities for Northern Ireland, with its highly educated workforce. I regarded the return of undiluted British sovereignty as a primary means to copper-fasten the Province’s cherished place in the heart of the union.
Unfortunately, in the decade since the UK voted to leave the EU, Northern Ireland’s position in our union has been diminished. The Irish Sea border, the extent of which a former Secretary of State in the previous Conservative Government famously denied, remains in place, causing untold chaos for businesses in the Province and in Great Britain. As noble Lords have noted, prices for Northern Ireland consumers have risen significantly as the range of products available to them has fallen through the floor. All the while, the EU continues to set the rules for so much of everyday life there, with its people having little or no say on new laws being thrust upon us.
The Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, have done the Province a service in highlighting the areas of the Windsor Framework where improvements can be made. What we now need is clear evidence that His Majesty’s Government are sincere and serious about their commitment to implementing the many recommendations put forward. Tinkering around at the edges will not work, particularly given the prospect of more diktats from Brussels in the months and years ahead. There is an urgent requirement for Ministers to prove to Northern Ireland businesses and consumers that they understand the problems that the framework has caused for them, to demonstrate that change is on the way and to provide some degree of certainty on precisely when the most damaging aspects will be dealt with.
As we are all too aware, the Windsor Framework is remarkably complex, as we have seen this evening. However, one aspect of its operation that was trumpeted by the Government at that time was the so-called Stormont brake. In its report, the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee correctly highlights that some witnesses had questioned the Stormont brake’s effectiveness and suggested that it had been oversold. When the mechanism was triggered by unionist parties in the Assembly in December 2024, the Northern Ireland Secretary said that the conditions for using it had not been met, raising further scepticism about its very existence.
Out of respect for the work put in by the committee and the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, I am trying very hard to be positive. I therefore welcome, as many of the former speakers have done, the Government’s agreement to establish a one-stop shop facility for the Windsor Framework guidance and support. I agree that this has the potential to deliver benefits for businesses in Great Britain as well as Northern Ireland, with an emphasis on the Province’s dual market access.
The one-stop shop is due to be backed by more than £16 million in public spending, announced by the Chancellor in her November Budget. However, I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some clarity on precisely when she expects this to come into operation. The Government have previously indicated that it will be within the next financial year. Noble Lords will obviously be well aware that we are only a matter of days away from the new financial year, which potentially gives Ministers a 12-month window to introduce the one-stop shop. Needless to say, I trust it will be sooner.
When the Prime Minister visited Belfast last week, the Ulster Unionist Party asked him to consider pausing any further introduction of Windsor Framework legislation until the conclusion of the ongoing negotiations between the UK and EU. The reason for doing this was reports that Government Ministers had recently advised farming leaders in Great Britain to prepare for an SPS agreement in 2027. Then, delivering her Mais lecture last week, the Chancellor announced that UK divergence from EU regulations would be
“the exception, not the norm”.
Rather than forcing Northern Ireland into yet further costly and unnecessary divergence from the market in Great Britain, might it not be prudent for the implication of the new EU regulations in Northern Ireland to be halted until the direction of travel of the negotiations with Brussels is known? I would welcome a response from the Minister.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, although I cannot say that I agree with what he says. I declare my interest as a member of the Government’s Veterinary Medicine Working Group. I thank our chairperson, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and our staff for their direction and guidance in preparation, arranging witnesses and arranging inquiry sessions over that seven-month to eight-month period. It was a very interesting process. I come to this as somebody who supports the Windsor Framework, but I freely acknowledge and recognise that many businesses in Northern Ireland and Britain are encountering difficulties that need to be resolved.
I thank my noble friend Lord Murphy for his detailed report. He was circumscribed by certain conditions set down by the Government, on the basis that he had to find points of agreement within his report. The good thing was that what he brought forward was implemented by the Government, but now we want to see it happen and not just be words on paper. We want to see action and help for businesses.
I come to all this as somebody who supports the Windsor Framework. I want to see businesses being able to avail themselves of the dual market access, which means the Government, the Northern Ireland Executive, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the EU utilising and promoting the benefits of dual market access. There is a role there for the community and businesses in doing that.
I believe that there is an opportunity to leverage market opportunities by promoting the unique benefits of dual market access to attract foreign direct investment. There are significant economic benefits to be realised in raising awareness among businesses in Ireland, Northern Ireland and Britain of the competitive advantages offered by the access that they can have to both the UK internal market and EU single market. I do not regard this in any sense from a negative point of view; I think businesses want to get on with the job that they are involved in—business—and do not want to get involved in the politics. We have to be mindful of that. It is important that we, through our political machinations, do not undermine or deny their business opportunities.
Only last week, I was at the EU-UK Parliamentary Partnership Assembly in Brussels, where there was a reaffirmation of the commitments to the full implementation of the withdrawal agreement, including the Windsor Framework and the TCA, because they believe that they remain the foundation for the continued strengthening of relations between the UK and the EU. Of course, as my noble friend Lord Hain said, all this is a result of Brexit. Those who argued for Brexit must remember that this is what we have ended up with. If we had not had Brexit, we definitely would not be having today’s debate.
We must not forget that businesses urgently want a resolution to those bureaucratic challenges and trade frictions between Britain and Northern Ireland, including those taxation matters—some things are very complex—and they do not want to get involved in that political point scoring. With the support of government, they just want to grow the economy through building and expanding their enterprises, recruiting more people and helping the employment situation.
Notwithstanding this, the US tariff situation and the wars in Ukraine and Iran impact all this in terms of the difficulties that our agri-food industry will meet, because the vast majority of fertilisers that are used in the farming industry in Northern Ireland come through the Strait of Hormuz.
As identified through our subsequent evidence sessions after our report was published—we took evidence in the last few weeks—progress has been made through the £16.6 million allocation in the Autumn Budget for the implementation of many of the recommendations in our report and the report by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, improvements to the Trader Support Service and the establishment of the Northern Ireland business support group, which should include membership for InterTradeIreland. It should be involved, as it has people with certain levels of expertise and already has a hub and one-stop shop, so things could be co-designed there. If it could be availed of in these early stages, that would be of benefit.
On the democratic deficit, I agree with my noble friend Lord Hain that Assembly Members and Northern Ireland Ministers need to be directly involved, because they are at the coalface and they know exactly what those issues are and what the best forms of solution are. So far, they have not been. They need to be seen, heard and part of the decision-making process.
We need a database or register of ongoing EU legislation established in the Cabinet Office to assist businesses and others. I ask my noble friend the Minister when this will happen and what work has been done to assess the impact of regulatory divergence. This issue was raised in our committee and in our previous committee. I am very pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord Jay, who chaired that committee, is present. We put that point, and we need to see this, because I believe in dynamic alignment.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, already referred to, the Road Haulage Association, which gave evidence to us, has three particular issues that need resolution: the complexity concerning community code classification; the £2 million turnover threshold for the UK internal market scheme, which restricts access to the green lane and introduces delays for many operators; and the implementation of Import Control System 2, which will add further administrative requirements. Therefore, I ask my noble friend the Minister what further useful work the Government will undertake to resolve these issues. What further discussions will take place with the RHA to resolve or mitigate the impact of those trade frictions?
As already referred to, InterTradeIreland’s specialist knowledge of Northern Ireland and the Ireland economies is fully recognised. It was born out of the Good Friday agreement, of which my noble friend Lord Murphy was one of the principal architects, and it deals with north-south trade. There needs to be movement between north-south and east-west, and all that knowledge needs to be garnered and utilised so that things can be resolved. It deals with customs issues, including commodity codes, customs duty waivers and the correct use of UKIMS declarations, including the “at risk” distinction.
I also urge that the one-stop shop is implemented with clear timelines as quickly as possible. I know that the start of the next financial year is just over a week away, but we need to see it implemented. On staff, is the work going to be contracted out or will Cabinet Office staff do it?
The other issue is the UK-EU reset. We need to see the successful conclusion of these negotiations, with full sight of the implementation of the legislation in the new parliamentary Session.
I should like to see a route back to full membership of the EU. I realise and acknowledge that others have a different viewpoint, but I want to see the implementation of the SPS agreement and that is what our Ulster Farmers’ Union wants as well. There are other issues, such as the legislation that needs to be implemented that will mandate that vehicles placed on the market in Britain must hold GB and EU type approvals and markings to enable their sale in both Britain and Northern Ireland. I was a victim of that in the last few years, and we received evidence on it whenever we visited Newry. When will that legislation be published? Will it be in the King’s Speech or will it be through secondary legislation? What is the expected date of implementation?
With veterinary medicines, much progress has been made but we need to look around the issue of optimal medicines and the costs thereof, and to ensure that there are no impacts on our agri-food industry. So I ask my noble friend the Minister to talk to her colleagues in Defra and DAERA to ensure that any paperwork issues are resolved as quickly as possible, and that farmers and veterinarians can use the correct veterinary medicines that bring benefit to the animals, the agri-food industry and food security. Of equal importance is a need for the authorities with responsibility for the EU deforestation regulations and CBAM to be identified and affirmed. Again, I ask the Minister to identify those authorities.
Finally, all of us want to copper-fasten and underpin the Northern Ireland economy. We want promotion of our assets and selling points. We want food security, less trade friction and less regulatory divergence. We want that centre of our regulatory divergence and to see that EU register updated, so that we know what we are talking about. For my part, I prefer dynamic alignment, which I hope would be achieved through the UK-EU reset. In the meantime, we want to promote Northern Ireland and its business, and do so in a positive and effective manner for the benefit of all the community, for job creation and to further solidify our local economic base.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I speak in the gap. I was a member of the committee when this report was written. I wanted to be here to support it and suggest that it should be read, particularly by those who perhaps have only a peripheral knowledge of Northern Ireland. We were greatly assisted by our staff. I had the pleasure of being on the previous committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Jay. With him and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, we have been well served by two excellent chairs and a great team to back it up.
My first point is to suggest that the committee’s remit is temporary; it is only two years since it was set up. I cannot see circumstances in the immediate future when there will not be a necessity for this committee to carry out scrutiny of Northern Ireland issues. While I know it is not the Minister’s responsibility but a matter for the House, I want to put it on record that this committee should continue. It is inconceivable that such significant matters, affecting not only constitutional but economic areas, should not be looked at somewhere in Parliament. I commend that to the parties in the House.
The issue that is now called the one-stop shop, from the sub-committee that was formed in 2021, has been a consistent theme. How is it that we cannot record each divergence as we go along? Now we will have to go back five years, but it should have been obvious to anybody at the beginning that there should be somewhere that a business or a member of the public can go to see what the divergence is. Or, if you are going to a potential inward investor, you should have somewhere to show them that this is how we do it here and how we do it there. It is not rocket science and I hope that we can resolve it, because it has been a unified theme throughout this debate.
I have to say that the Minister has just been accorded a well-deserved promotion to the Cabinet Office. She is roaring with power; now is the chance to strike and get a commitment that this will be dealt with and that she will deliver the response.
I gently remind the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, of the phrase—attributed, I think, to Dr Johnson—that there is nothing as permanent as the temporary. I fear that this problem will be around for some time. He is right to say that the European Union is entitled to protect its market, but I have to say that we have gone OTT. There is the potential for somebody to bring goods into Northern Ireland that are inappropriately manufactured and inconsistent with European regulations, they could theoretically get across the border, but to do that the person would have to go through two or three different sea journeys at enormous expense. I think there is an alternative way. The noble Lord mentioned one, but there are others that could involve the Northern Ireland Assembly and perhaps other institutions that have been set up in recent years. There is no reason why we should have to punish our local businesses and consumers. I am quite sure that, with the right attitude in the negotiations, that can be achieved.
I have asked several Parliamentary Questions about this. Under the trade and co-operation agreement, 2026 is a year of review. I would like to believe that the Government have a clear strategy for this review and that these issues will be in it—not simply in the reset but in the review that is under the terms of the treaty.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to take part in this debate, although I was not a member of the committee until January, so did not have the advantage of taking part in the drawing up of this report, which, as our chairman noted, was agreed unanimously. I share in the tributes to our staff, our chair and the other members. As not only a new girl on the committee but one who does not come from Northern Ireland, I am confining myself, certainly in my early days, to comments that are mainly, I hope, relatively non-controversial and constructive.
Of course, as committee members, our views on Brexit and its aftermath differ. Mine have been expressed vocally over the past decade, but I will not be tempted to repeat them here, despite the naughty example of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, let alone the noble Lords, Lord Redwood and Lord Lilley. I will focus on how I can contribute to understanding and trying to resolve the practical challenges and difficulties for businesses, other organisations and consumers in Northern Ireland. The noble Baronesses, Lady Foster, Lady Goudie and Lady Ritchie, described those practical problems so well, as did the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, who highlighted farmers in particular.
The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, had a point when she said that she thought there is a culture of denial about the existence and extent of some of these problems. I was struck by a comment, reflected in the report, from Ian Jeffers, CEO of the charity Co-operation Ireland—of which the noble Baroness is, I understand, a board member. He said that the Windsor Framework
“is to some extent opening up old wounds, or reminding us of some of the things from the past … We are in some ways isolating, as a result of the framework and Brexit, the largely Protestant, unionist, loyalist community. The feedback that I am getting from community groups that we work with in the PUL … community is a feeling of loss”.
That is something I note for my own awareness and understanding, not to either endorse or contest it or, of course, to exclude other views.
I admit that some things have surprised me, not least how long it seems to be taking to set up promised structures since the TCA and the Northern Ireland protocol six years ago, and the Windsor Framework three years ago, though I acknowledge that, for part of that time, there was no Northern Ireland Assembly or Executive. I was also surprised to learn that the First Minister declined to engage with our committee and, since she does so decline, that also bars the Deputy First Minister from engaging with us. I will no doubt be reproached for being either ignorant or naive—I am probably both—but, since there was a Sinn Féin member on the delegation from the Irish Parliament that recently visited and met our committee, I would have hoped for more flexibility in attitudes.
On the information and support services for businesses, there is frustration about delay. We learn from the Government’s response that the promised and much-needed one-stop shop requested by the excellent review from the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, which is designed to answer queries and assist businesses, gets its £16 million funding only in the next financial year, 2026-27. It will presumably be at least 2027-28 before that is up and running. Others, such as the noble Baronesses, Lady Sanderson and Lady Foster, have talked about the one-stop shop, so all I add is that our witnesses stressed, for both the trader support service and the one-stop shop, the need to avoid total reliance on AI and chatbots and to provide what is becoming a vital but vanishing resource in customer service, which is human beings to talk to with specific queries.
I turn to divergence between UK and EU law, and hence between applicable laws in GB and NI. The committee stressed the need for legal clarity on regulatory divergence for Northern Ireland businesses and those in GB. It pointed out:
“The former Windsor Framework Sub-Committee”,
whose chair the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, helpfully contributed to this debate,
“repeatedly argued (and recommended) that the Government should take responsibility for monitoring regulatory divergence both within the UK (GB/NI) and between the UK and the EU, and place that information in the public domain”.
The report we are debating insisted:
“This should take the form of a database of EU law which applies in Northern Ireland … This is vital if the public and businesses are to understand the regulatory landscape and the laws which apply to them in Northern Ireland. We recommend that this work be the responsibility of a new unit”,
or office, which might sensibly be located
“in the Cabinet Office responsible for regulatory divergence”.
Such a call predates the UK-EU reset, but surely acquires even more urgency and scope with it.
Dr Lisa Claire Whitten, research fellow at Queen’s University Belfast School of Law, told the committee that for
“policy-makers and stakeholders seeking to understand which laws currently apply to Northern Ireland under the Windsor Framework there is no authoritative, agreed and updated source available”.
That is a pretty shocking state of affairs. Unfortunately, the Government’s response to the report says
“we would not be pursuing a specific UK-developed database of EU rules as we do not believe this would deliver the same value that a significantly enhanced support offer for SMEs could from the funding available”.
I contend that this is to misunderstand; it is comparing apples and pears. Traders need both a database of laws and a centre staffed by people who can answer specific queries. They are not alternatives to be set against one another.
The reset that the Government are pursuing in the relations of the whole of the UK with the EU, which I thoroughly welcome, could help reduce divergence between GB and Northern Ireland, as has been said by others, particularly with an SPS agreement. Perhaps it could even remove the infamous “not for EU” labelling. Crucially, however, it will not cover the customs obligations which weigh so heavily on GB-Northern Ireland trade.
It will be interesting to see whether the reset influences the Government’s thinking and action on engagement and consultation, on how to make information on applicable legislation transparently available and on capacity for monitoring and scrutiny, not least in this Parliament. At present, only our Northern Ireland Committee does this monitoring job in Westminster, so will the Government encourage the reincarnation of a European affairs or scrutiny committee in the other place?
The committee rightly wondered
“whether the commitments made at the UK-EU summit regarding ‘decision-shaping’ deliver opportunities for the UK to engage effectively at the pre-legislative stage”.
Whatever one’s scepticism about “decision-shaping”, of course any opportunities that might arise can be exploited only if businesses and others actually know what is coming up so they can engage with the Government and the European Commission. Awareness needs to be followed by transparency of work and ease of access. SDLP MLA Matthew O’Toole remarked that some of the UK-EU structures, such as the Joint Committee, Specialised Committee and Joint Consultative Working Group—I have already mentioned three committees—
“are a little opaque and convoluted”.
DUP MP Gavin Robinson noted of bodies such as the Joint Committee and the JCWG—I am sorry, I have lapsed into acronyms—
“you will not find an address, contact point, published minutes or an agenda for those. In the specialist groups, you might find a published minute, and it will be so high level and repetitive it is thoroughly useless”.
Oh dear, that is a harsh judgment—but probably true. It is obviously not good enough and hardly helps reconcile people to the structures and processes of the Windsor Framework.
The committee explains that it sees its task as
“not to argue for or against the Windsor Framework itself, but rather to scrutinise its operation in an objective and evidence-based manner”.
I will try to take my inspiration from that. However, I can say, not least as I did not take part in drawing up this report, that I believe it has done a very valuable job, including in highlighting how the aspirations of transparency, participation, engagement and dialogue are being met only patchily in the operation of the framework, and that improving that record is essential for business, the whole community and the economy in Northern Ireland, as well as GB as a whole.
The experience of Northern Ireland will be either a beacon or a lesson for the whole UK as the reset proceeds, so a lot depends on getting things right in the operation of the Windsor Framework. Unfortunately, we will all then be in the fax democracy, not just Northern Ireland, and we must at least be informed in a transparent manner. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, commented in his review that the Government should not only be transparent about the functioning of the Stormont brake and applicability Motion, but
“should also go further to acknowledge the impact EU legislation is having on Northern Ireland, and where it has acted to address those concerns”.
This seems to me not only to be very wide advice but to have wider relevance to the process of reset. Otherwise, we are going to lose the support of people. The fact that the Windsor Framework arrangements can be described to the committee as being of “labyrinthine complexity” and “extraordinary complexity” is not only a poor service to the people of Northern Ireland, to put it mildly, but a poor omen for reception of the output from the reset.
I conclude by saying that the Government therefore need not only to try to implement a Rolls-Royce information system for Northern Ireland but to be ready for the demands of dynamic alignment with EU law for the whole UK. We might not get a say or a voice, which of course would be my solution, but we need at least to know what it is all about.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure, on behalf of the Official Opposition, to congratulate the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee, so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, on producing such a comprehensive and stimulating report. In addition, I put on record our thanks to the distinguished former Secretary of State the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, for conducting his independent review of the Windsor Framework, commissioned following the democratic consent vote in the Assembly in December 2024. Both the committee’s report and the noble Lord’s review contain a number of important recommendations that complement each other and which should be read side by side.
It was a privilege to be a Northern Ireland Office Minister when both the Windsor Framework and the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper were negotiated and published. As such, I was responsible for—some might say guilty of—taking a number of the measures contained in both documents through your Lordships’ House, including the Stormont brake, to which reference has been made today and which I genuinely hope that I did not try to oversell.
Like my noble friend Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee, I, too, would not start from here. However, the origins of the Windsor Framework were of course in the desire of the previous Government to deal with the consequences of the flawed and highly defective protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland that had been negotiated in October 2019—although I am of course fully aware of the context in which that negotiation took place. Within a short space of time from the coming into force of the protocol in January 2021, those consequences had become all too apparent. As I put it in a debate in Grand Committee on 13 September 2021, while a member of the former sub-committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme:
“It has disrupted trade, damaged businesses, hit consumers and contributed to growing political instability … we now risk rushing headlong into a full-blown political crisis from which the institutions established under the 1998 agreement could take years to recover”.—[Official Report, 13/9/21; col. GC 253.]
That crisis manifested itself only a few short months later, in February 2022, when the DUP First Minister resigned, triggering the collapse of the institutions—I should add, just weeks after I had taken through legislation as a Minister, part of which was designed to make it more difficult for that to happen. Instead, and as a result of the DUP’s decision, devolved government ceased to function for another two years.
The Windsor Framework was, therefore, an attempt—a valiant one, in my view—by the Sunak Government to address these issues, motivated, as I can assure noble Lords, by a desire significantly to reduce checks on goods that the protocol had introduced, protect Northern Ireland’s position within the UK internal market, and of course copper-fasten Northern Ireland’s place as an integral part of our United Kingdom. Taken with the subsequent Command Paper, Safeguarding the Union, in January 2024, it ameliorated some of the worst impacts of the protocol. It has led to the freer flow of goods coming from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and vice versa, while at the same time ensuring that Northern Ireland has unfettered access to the EU single market—a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick—so vital for industries such as the agri-food sector. In addition, both the framework and Safeguarding the Union in particular facilitated the restoration of devolved government at Stormont in February 2024—and we should not lose sight of the importance of that.
However, that is only one side of the story. When I took the Stormont brake regulations through your Lordships’ House, I said, rather too candidly for the Cabinet Office officials, who sought to censor my speech, that
“the Windsor Framework is not a perfect document”,
but that it
“represents very significant improvements on the old protocol negotiated in 2019”.—[Official Report, 29/3/23; col. 318.]
Taken alongside Safeguarding the Union, I still hold to that view. However, I fully accept that we clearly did not get everything right or solve every problem—although, given the unfortunate history of the protocol and the joint report of December 2017, it might be argued that it was the best we could have achieved in the circumstances. Anyone with experience of dealing with the EU, of which there are a number in the Committee today, will testify as to just how difficult it can be to persuade the Commission even to consider reopening agreements, especially ones that have only recently been reached.
As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, despite our best endeavours as a Government, significant problems remain. There is clear evidence of trade diversion, and my noble friend Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee highlighted figures from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency just this month that I was going to cite in full to support this. What consideration are the Government giving to the sensible proposals put forward by the Road Haulage Association that could reduce the burdens deterring operators from moving goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland? I agree that a trusted haulier scheme, also endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, lifting the existing £2 million turnover threshold for the inclusion of SMEs into the UK internal market scheme—and, crucially, moving the determination of at-risk goods from the point of entry into Northern Ireland to the point of sale—would be important and welcome measures. My noble friend Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard also raised significant problems around the movement of agricultural machinery and ongoing problems over veterinary medicines.
On democratic scrutiny, whatever the measures to improve this in the Windsor Framework and Safeguarding the Union, such as the Stormont brake and the applicability Motion, it is at least arguable—I put it mildly—that these have not necessarily worked as effectively or strongly as we might have hoped at the time. As a result, as many noble Lords pointed out, Northern Ireland, uniquely in the United Kingdom, has to accept and implement laws put forward by a supranational body of which we are not a member and over the shaping of which it still has little or no influence. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, put that point powerfully in his contribution, as did the noble Lord, Lord Hain.
We have never taken the view that the Windsor Framework was the final word or beyond improvement in what is an evolving or, as the noble Lord, Lord Jay, put it, dynamic situation. We will always look at constructive proposals for change and reform. It is in that spirit that the Opposition approach both the committee’s report and the independent review. I will confine my comments to a few of the recommendations.
I fully accept what the report describes as the “labyrinthine complexity” of the arrangements under the framework, highlighted graphically by the impenetrable charts on pages 24 and 25, to which the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Jay, drew attention. Like my noble friend Lady Sanderson of Welton, I sometimes wonder how a party whose instinct is, or at least always should be, to make life for business and consumers easier could have settled for such a mind-boggling set of arrangements.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Empey, who said that we had gone completely OTT on this, and with my noble friend Lord Lilley, who described the current arrangements as a “sledgehammer to crack a nut”—a phrase I used in the debate to which I referred earlier, in 2021. There must surely, therefore, be scope to streamline and reduce the number of bodies involved in the implementation of the framework, and anything that simplifies matters for business, particularly for SMEs—which are the overwhelming majority in Northern Ireland—has to be welcomed.
Like everyone else who spoke, we particularly support, therefore, the establishment of the one-stop shop, also recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, as a place where business can seek advice and support to assist with problems that arise during the course of its trade and transactions. I strongly agree with the points transmitted to the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in this respect. Like others, I invite the Minister to give an update on progress towards establishing that one-stop shop when she winds.
The Government have accepted that the Democratic Scrutiny Committee should have more time to decide whether to launch an inquiry into replacement EU legislation, and will legislate when parliamentary time allows. Can the noble Baroness give us an assurance that this will take place in the next Session, which we anticipate beginning in May?
On commitments in Safeguarding the Union, which is covered by the committee’s report, will the Minister commit both to the long-term funding and longevity of the principal bodies established under the Command Paper: the independent monitoring panel, InterTrade UK and the east-west council? Can she also tell the Committee what is the status of the pledge in Annex B of Safeguarding the Union to publish a series of papers by sector that highlight the benefits of Northern Ireland’s place within the union? This is something that I have pursued through Written Questions but, sadly, the replies have been hardly enlightening.
Time prevents me from commenting on the so-called reset and proposed future dynamic alignment, although these will obviously have significant implications.
In conclusion, the recommendations in both the committee’s report and the review from the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, are to be welcomed. They are overwhelmingly positive and should, if taken forward, make a number of improvements to the operation of the framework, including maximising Northern Ireland’s influence in Brussels and ending a number of the complexities regarding the current arrangements. But looking ahead, it is clear that at some point more fundamental changes are going to be needed to deal with the outstanding problems, and a number of noble Lords, not least my noble friend Lord Lilley, put forward suggestions in that respect. As a constructive Opposition, we are open to ideas and meaningful dialogue with all interested parties and organisations as to how this might be done, consistent always with the economic and constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom, which we hold so dear.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, there are many parts of the Windsor Framework, and every time I have a conversation or a briefing about it, there is always something new, and a new part of that world. However, puffins was not where I believed today’s debate was going to go. I hate to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Empey, but I have been in post for three weeks and the power part may still yet be lacking—but I will see what I can do for him, because I would never seek to disappoint.
We have had a truly substantive and insightful debate this afternoon. I begin by thanking my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for securing this debate and for his stewardship of the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee. I also take this opportunity to wish my noble friend Lady Ritchie a very happy birthday.
The report we are considering today is very important, not just because of the detailed work clearly undertaken but because the engagement of businesses and civic society with Northern Ireland’s trading arrangements is important at both a constitutional and economic level. Similar themes were also developed by the very thoughtful review of the Windsor Framework conducted by my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen, and I am grateful to hear his further reflections today. There is something so special and addictive about Northern Ireland that means that those of us exposed to it become completely addicted and can never walk away from it. I think that is reflected by the fact that we have two former Secretaries of State participating today.
I have listened with great care to the contributions made from all sides of the House and I want to thank the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Caine, for reminding us of the stakes at play in Northern Ireland, both economic and cultural. Although noble Lords have different views across the diverse range of issues discussed today, a common thread has been our collective pledge to Northern Ireland’s prosperity, security and economic success, and a shared agreement that businesses, civic society, organisations and public authorities alike should have their voice heard in the very trading arrangements that necessarily underpin that success. Many specific points were raised today, and I will reflect on Hansard to see if I have missed any, but I shall endeavour to answer all the points raised.
I think it will be helpful if we place today’s discussion in context. I should first like to set out the Government’s ongoing commitment to the Windsor Framework and protecting the UK internal market—I assure the noble Lord, Lord Caine, that my speech has not been doctored—while appreciating that there can always be room for improvement. As we have heard today, not least from the noble Lord, those commitments were set out in our manifesto, and we consider them vitally important. They guide our reset with the EU, and they are our guiding approach to securing a vital new agreement with the EU that will smooth trade flows of agri-food goods. Those twin commitments are also important as they reflect the importance of trading arrangements that respect Northern Ireland’s place in the union, avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland, and which work on an agreed basis with the EU.
It is only through this approach that we can give certainty to businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland on the rules that apply, as they trade uniquely across two markets. That is why it contains important mechanisms to enable participation and facilitate that voice; the ability of the Northern Ireland Assembly to scrutinise EU rules; structures for businesses and civic society to engage with the UK and EU on the framework’s implementation; arrangements for the Government and Northern Ireland Executive to work together and ensure that Northern Ireland’s voice is heard; and a periodic vote in the Northern Ireland Assembly on continuing these arrangements. The first such vote, as we heard, triggered a review of the framework that was carefully and thoughtfully conducted by my noble friend Lord Murphy with a wide range of stakeholders. The Government are now taking action on all the recommendations set out in that review.
That brings me to the real topic of today’s debate: the one-stop shop. Noble Lords are very aware, it seems, of the announced £16.6 million for an enhanced one-stop shop regulatory support service, designed to navigate the knowledge gap facing small and medium-sized enterprises. This will be operational in the next financial year, which I gently remind noble Lords begins next week. We are working to make sure that this can work. I assure your Lordships’ Committee that the one-stop shop will support GB businesses as much as it will support businesses operating in Northern Ireland. I will come on to some of the other points that were raised in relation to that shortly.
Progress has also been made on veterinary medicine—something I will again touch on, in terms of the detail raised today. The UK Government worked extensively with industry in the run-up to the end of the grace period. I am pleased to say that the transition has been without significant disruption—I am not saying there has not been any—and there have been no significant supply issues or other impacts, although we continue to monitor this closely.
It would be remiss of me not to mention that the Government have also allocated £2.25 million in funding to InterTrade UK over the next three years, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster—funding that will allow it to continue its vital work in advising on and promoting trade within the UK. I am sure that the work of InterTrade will assist in continuing to boost the economy of Northern Ireland, as outlined by my noble friend Lady Goudie. I remind noble Lords that Northern Ireland is the fastest-growing part of the United Kingdom. I place on record my personal thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, for her work at InterTrade UK.
My noble friend Lady Ritchie raised an important point about the role of InterTrade UK and the one-stop shop. I hope and would expect that the one-stop shop will work with InterTrade UK and other stakeholders to support trade and that this will be something that works together.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for addressing that issue, but what about InterTradeIreland, which already has a hub and could provide some beneficial information?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Given the nature of InterTradeIreland, that is a matter for InterTradeIreland and is not something I can comment on from the Dispatch Box.
With regard to the specifics of the report, in short, a lot has been done, but there remains more to do, as this report by the committee highlights. Indeed, the Government’s response to the committee’s report following the independent review shows as much. This leads me to our next steps. We are ensuring that the stakeholder engagement landscape captures a broad spectrum of businesses in a new Northern Ireland business stakeholder group—just to add to the wonderful flowchart that we saw earlier today. We are also looking at how the Government and devolved departments can conduct engagement and capture the views of industry, so that this is joined-up and gets the right outcomes earlier on.
The Northern Ireland Executive participate in all structures under the Windsor Framework, yet we acknowledge that there is more to be done between the Government and the Executive to ensure that public authorities link up and address issues with changes to regulatory proposals earlier in the process. We are therefore implementing new processes to address that and facilitate better engagement at all levels, beyond the Cabinet Office executive office working group.
Lord Redwood (Con)
Can the Minister say whether the United Kingdom will be tabling proposed improvements to the Windsor Framework as part of the reset negotiations?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord, who has been a Member of the other place and only recently of your Lordships’ House, will be aware better than me that I am not in a position to give any detail of ongoing negotiations while they are currently ongoing. The noble Lord will be aware that the impact on Northern Ireland is key to some of the negotiations, which is why we are focusing so much effort on the SPS deal.
We will continue to welcome contributions from the Executive, including at the Joint Committee—the governing body for the Windsor Framework and the withdrawal agreement as a whole. More broadly, looking at the committee’s report, we are taking forward a new phase of the Trader Support Service, which provides vital support to businesses with goods movements. Those issues were covered in the committee’s report and, in December 2025, we set out more information on the consortium to deliver it. We are working to give greater discretion to the Democratic Scrutiny Committee; it will be allowed greater discretion over how it conducts its scrutiny and the timelines for it. We are backing this up in Brussels, increasing resourcing, as requested by the Office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels, so that it can provide vital perspective to the institutions there as proposals are developed and considered.
I move on to transparency and awareness. Our approach seeks to ensure that the broadest range of voices from across Northern Ireland is heard, including from business and civic society. It also ensures that there is the right space for technical engagement between government departments and their counterparts in Northern Ireland and the EU institutions. It seeks to ensure that devolved departments are equipped with the right information about regulatory proposals to consider their impacts and advise the Assembly further on Northern Ireland’s interests.
Where issues are identified, we have already shown our capacity to take action, whether domestically, where we have announced consultation activity on toy safety and chemicals labelling and ensured that the UK internal market is protected in response to concerns from industry; or bilaterally, such as on dental amalgam or the arrangements to protect the supply of pharmaceuticals. On all these issues, we have listened to stakeholders, whether they are business organisations, civic organisations or the vital work of the Democratic Scrutiny Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Just as we will continue to support the scrutiny of the Windsor Framework arrangements and the rules that apply in the Assembly, and by the Independent Monitoring Panel, so too will we support the work of InterTrade UK on promoting the economic bonds and strengths of all parts of the UK, and the east-west council in developing the ties across it.
I move on to some of the specific questions in the order that they were asked and not necessarily grouped by issue. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, touched on EUR-Lex. Although the EU’s EUR-Lex tool can be used to read and consider detailed legal terms, we recognise the need for businesses to have clear and accessible guidance. The enhanced one-stop shop we are delivering will do that, providing businesses with tailored advice to navigate those issues. We believe that this is the best way that we can support businesses with explaining the rules that apply.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I apologise for interrupting the Minister. Is she saying that something better than EUR-Lex will be part of the one-stop shop, and that legal problems will therefore be solvable through that structure?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I am. Noble Lords heard it here first. Perhaps I do have a little power, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said—or rather, the people behind me do.
My noble friend Lord Murphy touched on the SPS agreement and how important it is. We are currently negotiating with the EU on an SPS agreement to make agri-food trade with our biggest market cheaper and easier, cutting costs and removing barriers to trade for producers and retailers across the whole of the UK. The agreement will benefit Northern Ireland through the interplay with the Windsor Framework, by making a more consistent approach to agri-food and plants. We will smooth the flows of trade still further. On 9 March, the Government provided an update on the changes this would entail for businesses. This includes a call for information from businesses so that the Government can understand exactly what they need.
My noble friends Lord Murphy and Lord Hain asked about the Office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels and the investment provided. The Government have agreed to provide funding to this office to cover up to three additional posts to ensure that Northern Ireland’s interests are accounted for in Brussels and that EU policy-making is accounted for in Belfast.
Parity of esteem was raised by my noble friend Lord Murphy. This seems particularly apt given how close we are to the anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We are committed to the agreement in all respects, which of course includes parity of esteem for the identities and aspirations of both communities. The application of the Windsor Framework does not shake that commitment.
Gently, I want to touch on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. He raised many issues related to how we got to this point and the question of what is temporary. I was given a slight history lesson earlier today about how many pieces of legislation have the word “temporary” in them, and that has not exactly been an unusual part of our legislative framework historically. I gently suggest that the agreements we have been discussing today were signed by his party when in government, and my party is trying to make the Windsor Framework work for the people of Northern Ireland, which is why we are also currently in the process of resetting the relationship.
Lord Lilley (Con)
They were, of course, signed by the past Government, but they were described by the EU as temporary. That was the sole justification the EU gave for including trade with Northern Ireland in the withdrawal agreement. She cannot make a party-political point about it. She is either going to ignore the EU or believe it.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I believe my party is quite clear on our position on the EU, not least because I believe in international law and complying with our agreements.
One of the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, was on veterinary medicines and the prices going up. She raised a specific case. I should very much like to hear the detail of it because to date, we do not have any evidence of prices going up.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
I have written to the Secretary of State about the issue.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
I have not had sight of that question and, apparently, neither has the person who gave me the answer. But online retailers continue to operate in Northern Ireland. As in the rest of the UK, prices between online retailers may vary. We recommend pet owners and others do their research to see which retailer best meets their supply.
The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Caine, rightly raised the issue of haulage, logistics and the trusted haulier scheme. We have accepted the recommendations of my noble friend Lord Murphy, in this area and are looking at all possibilities to reduce frictions for logistics and haulage businesses on an ongoing basis. In parallel, we will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the available facilitations. The Government have also established a new Northern Ireland business stakeholders’ group as a formal means of engagement between the Government and Northern Ireland business organisations. This group includes representations from key sectors, including the Road Haulage Association, and provides a direct channel for input into technical UK-EU fora.
The noble Lord, Lord Elliott, raised the issue of animal and livestock movement. He will also be aware that I have met the Ulster Farmers’ Union and some young farmers, and this issue has been raised. The noble Lord will be aware that the best way in which to manage this will be through an SPS agreement and that is why we are seeking to move quickly to deliver on this issue, but I have heard both him and the representations made by others.
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, who previously chaired the committee, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and noble Lord, Lord Rogan, touched, as did other Lords, on the record of regulatory divergence. The Government’s priority is to deliver the enhanced regulatory one-stop shop to advise and support businesses in trading across the whole UK market. We believe that this one-stop shop is far better placed to support small businesses that face challenges. We will seek for this one-stop shop to provide regulatory alerts to businesses on changes to the rules, which we would expect to be accessible to them. The Windsor Framework and a set of online tools provided by the EU can already be used to find regulations of relevance to Northern Ireland. It is for these reasons that our response to the independent review of the Windsor Framework set out that a one-stop shop would be our focus going forward.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I apologise for interrupting the Minister again. I am a bit like a dog with a bone on this question of a database, because I am still not entirely clear that a one-stop shop answering specific queries is the same thing as a comprehensive database of all applicable laws being kept up to date, which is not static but dynamic. They are two different things, and I am not reassured by the Minister. I am sure that she responds in good faith, but I tried to suggest in my remarks that the two were conflated. I am not sure that her earlier answer to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, fully removes my doubts on the subject.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The Government have made a decision that we will focus on helping people work with it, rather than keeping a list, so that we can make sure that people have the support they need as they try to navigate the impact on their businesses and on their trade.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I apologise for intervening again, but will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss a way in which EUR-Lex change can be incorporated in the one-stop shop, possibly including some very simple ways of using existing techniques to simplify complex legal issues?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
How could I ever turn down an invitation from the noble Lord? Of course, I am more than happy to meet him to go over the debate. More importantly, officials can be there to make sure that what he wants is reflected so that we can actually make this work. We are taking a pragmatic approach to try to make this work and make it as easy as possible, while at the same time hoping to negotiate an SPS deal that takes away a great many of the issues we are talking about.
No one could doubt for a second the commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Caine, to the people of Northern Ireland and to trying to make these issues work. He touched on the issues of Safeguarding the Union and his PQs—obviously, I sign off every one. I realise that I am now over time, but I am more than happy to have a meeting with the noble Lord to discuss Safeguarding the Union, if that is acceptable to him.
I want to reassure noble Lords on some points, starting with noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, whom I assure that the interface will be user-friendly—or else—and will be focused UK-wide. The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, asked about hauliers, and I hope I have responded to her in full. If I have not, I will look at what she said and come back to her.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked me about parliamentary committees in the other place. She will be aware that how it chooses to engage is a matter for the other place, and for Parliament as a whole, but I am delighted that noble Lords had the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee doing this very important work. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and the noble Baroness that we have accepted all the noble Lord’s recommendations and are seeking to implement them—one of the questions touched on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Caine, asked me about future legislation. I reassure him that we will talk about this—I would suggest in this Room, but possibly on the Floor of the House—in the next Session, subject to me now getting told off by the Chief Whip.
In conclusion, the message from this debate is clear: we must continue to listen to and act on the voices of businesses and civic society in delivering Northern Ireland’s trading arrangements. I give the Committee the continued commitment of the Government today that we will always take practical actions on concerns to protect the UK internal market and flow of goods, be that east-west or north-south. As we do so, our focus will remain on the prize of delivering real prosperity, where Northern Ireland remains one of the fastest-growing economies of the UK, in part thanks to its unique trading position and businesses having certainty about the facilitations available to move their goods under the Windsor Framework.
However, I am aware of the ongoing complexities of how this is operating on the ground and, on that basis, I will visit Northern Ireland very soon. Noble Lords, especially those in Northern Ireland, will be aware that I am not allowed to say exactly when, but I will be in Northern Ireland imminently to see how the Windsor Framework is operating on the ground. I will meet key stakeholders who are delivering this, as well as businesses, to see what next steps the Government should consider.
The Government will support only those trading arrangements for Northern Ireland that protect its place in the UK and its internal market, avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland and can be agreed. While there is more to be done to ensure that Northern Ireland’s voice is heard in London, Belfast and Brussels, the Windsor Framework really does provide the best basis for that, and we are committed to working alongside our partners in the Northern Ireland Executive and the EU institutions as we take it forward, alongside new agreements with the EU, so that we may build an even brighter and more prosperous future for people in Northern Ireland and across the whole United Kingdom.
I again thank the committee for its report and I look forward to continuing to work with it in the coming months—I really hope that I did not disappoint my noble friend Lord Carlile. On that final note, I wish all members of the committee a happy Easter and chag Pesach sameach.
Lord Empey (UUP)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, I ask for clarification on one point, and if she does not have it right now, perhaps she could write and put it in the Library. There are two parallel processes here. There is the EU reset and there are the specific conditions in the trade and co-operation agreement, where it is specified that there will be a review in 2026. I have asked the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and others a number of times whether the Government were preparing for those. We have two separate processes, one a treaty obligation and one a set of political negotiations. We need to know what we are doing, otherwise we are going to get confused. If the noble Baroness does not have the minutiae of it at hand, I would be more than happy if she would write to me.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I will give a short wind up, because we have had a very full debate and I am very grateful to all those who have spoken. I start, however, by correcting an earlier omission. I failed to thank my noble friend Lord Jay for the work that the previous sub-committee did, which helped to set us up, and indeed for what members do not know, which was his kindness to me when I was appointed chair of this committee. He gave me what was a very well-concealed short tutorial, which was of enormous value to me, so I thank him very much. I am very grateful particularly to the Minister, of course, who has not disappointed me at all, and to the noble Lord, Lord Caine, who showed his objective commitment to these issues.
The Division Bell is ringing, so I shall curtail my wind up into a couple of sentences and then we can go and vote. I thank everyone for the part they played in this debate, and in all the issues we have considered. I do not believe that we are looking at pandemonium, a word coined by Milton to describe living hell. I think Northern Ireland is a very good place these days. I have known Northern Ireland through the time I was Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation; it was not always the great place it is now, and we are simply trying to make things better by asking the Government to take the steps that are necessary, and which they appear to accept, to make Northern Ireland that much better a place.
House of Lords
Small Boat Deaths: Cranston Inquiry Report
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, this was a sobering report setting out the circumstances that led to the tragic loss of over 30 lives. Our sympathies remain with all those affected. Significant improvements have been made since 2021, including more people and assets, new technologies and strengthened departmental oversight. However, we must learn from the inquiry and do everything we can to prevent anything like it happening again. We are carefully considering the report and plan an interim response by the end of May.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend—he has answered half my question already. The report has highlighted that there are very serious deficiencies in our ability to rescue people at sea and that we compare unfavourably with Italy and Greece, which have more and better-equipped boats. The RNLI and Border Force do a wonderful job in trying to save lives, but they are not well equipped with their boats to do so. I hope the Minister will do all he can to implement as much of the Cranston report as possible as quickly as possible before the summer comes along and more people are liable to drown in the channel.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, the first thing to say is that crossings of the English Channel in these circumstances are extraordinarily dangerous. Notwithstanding that, more than 152,000 people have been successfully rescued since November 2021. There are now five dedicated Border Security Command vessels in the channel available for search and rescue tasking; these successfully conduct approximately 93% of the rescues in the channel and are supported by RNLI vessels when required. I pay tribute, as I am sure the House also does, to the RNLI volunteers and indeed all those who contribute to life-saving in the English Channel and elsewhere. The Government recognise the gravity of the matters Sir Ross Cranston has reported on and are determined to take all actions necessary following his report.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, this report follows on from a statement made by the UK Government on 4 February at the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. On safety at sea, it says that
“it is essential to promote a common, coherent and effective implementation of the legal framework for search and rescue policies in Europe and to help member States to strengthen their solidarity”.
In respect of England and France, can the Minister tell us how that statement will be put into effect?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that collaborative action with our neighbours is key to making the sea safer in these circumstances. It is clear to me from the actions taken before the report was published and from what has been going on since that relationships with the French in particular, and the Belgians, are being pursued very seriously with a view to making sure that if there are any gaps, they are closed as much as possible.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I was pleased to have commissioned Sir Ross to conduct this inquiry and I place on record my thanks to him for his excellent report, which highlights the danger of channel crossings, the appalling organised crime groups that exploit vulnerable people and the difficulty for any Government in balancing border security and protecting life at sea. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that the Government are going to come forward in May with an interim report. I urge him to look at the fantastic work His Majesty’s Coastguard does with its partners in the RNLI, and at strengthening its resources to make sure that we can protect life at sea while also ensuring that we have secure borders.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I compliment the noble Lord on instituting the report when he was Secretary of State, because losing more than 30 lives at sea is clearly a very serious matter. I have already said that there are now many more resources for Border Force, the coastguard and, when necessary, the RNLI, with a view to making sure that such a thing is never repeated.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)
My Lords, the Cranston report runs to over 400 pages. What is the most important lesson to be learnt from it?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I spent most of last weekend reading the report—I do not claim to have read every word—but parts of it are extraordinarily harrowing because they comprise evidence from two survivors. It is clear that, as a consequence, a large number of actions are needed. Fundamentally, there were insufficient resources, and insufficient process was followed in the right way, which contributed to this tragedy.
On the other hand, on the night when this occurred, there was also a large number of rescues, and we should at least be proud that many people contributed to rescuing numbers well into three figures, so not all is wrong. As always, the trick with these things is to be positive about the changes that need to be made and recognise the heroism and bravery of those who go out to sea at night in very difficult conditions, but also to make sure that the backing and numbers are there for them to operate safely and do their jobs properly.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I think we would all agree that the best way to reduce the number of people dying in the English Channel is to reduce the number of unsuitable boats crossing the English Channel. The Government were elected on a pledge to smash the gangs. How is that going, and is the effort going to be helped or hindered by the sudden resignation after only 18 months of the head of UK Border Security Command?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The Government are taking strong, decisive action to do something about this issue. In particular, we are removing around 60,000 people who had no right to remain, and the historic deal with the French, which means that those who arrive are now being detained and sent back, is considerable evidence that the Government are not slacking on this matter.
We should pay tribute to Martin Hewitt, who established Border Security Command. In his time as commander, he has helped to deliver landmark legislation and put in place leadership and governance. We will make an announcement on his successor in due course.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Four years ago, the Government chose not to act on Alexander Downer’s recommendation to then Home Secretary Patel that responsibility for search and rescue in the channel pass from Border Force and the Home Office to the coastguard and the Department for Transport. The Cranston report now recommends that that recommendation from Downer be acted on. Will the Government act on it? If not, why not?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The Cranston report makes a number of recommendations. The actions to be taken my department in order to get the best possible outcome must consider all the recommendations together, so I am not going to mention any one particular action at this moment in time. However, the department is committed to taking serious note of everything Sir Ross said and to answering all the points made by him, both in the interim report and thereafter.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, since 2024, the Government have given the French gendarmerie £500 million plus. Does the Minister feel that the French have done enough to make good use of that money?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am not going to comment on the actions of our near neighbour. There is more collaboration now than there was. The number of boats that arrived last year, in 2025, was half that in 2022. We need to get on with them sufficiently for both sides to deal with this problem together.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, we know that war and conflict is the key driver of the number of refugees and asylum seekers. Given the state of the world, what is my noble friend the Minister’s assessment of the impact of that on the resources that will be needed to ensure safe passage?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am afraid that this particular Minister is ill qualified to work out the effects of international conflict. What I should say in respect of those matters for which the department is responsible is that we have to be ready for all the numbers in order to ensure the safety at sea of all those who go to sea, however they go to sea.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, as is evident on the internet, social media is used to facilitate illegal migration in numerous countries globally, serving as a key tool for people smugglers to advertise their services. What are the Government doing to stop this advertising of illegal migration on social media?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The Government are committed to taking action in every way they can. Since I do not deal with social media—I have plenty to do with transport—if there is any more to say to the noble Lord on this matter, I shall write to him.
Media Freedom Coalition
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
To ask His Majesty’s Government what their priorities are for strengthening the work of the Media Freedom Coalition during their term as co-chair.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government recognise the need for a strong collective voice for countries committed to free media, especially in today’s fragmented world. The Media Freedom Coalition provides that voice. The UK will raise its profile and expand its reach as a truly global partnership. We will foster exchange of expertise and drive timely, effective advocacy. We will explore viable ways to support public interest media, to navigate the opportunities and risks that stem from AI and other new technologies, and address the challenges faced by women journalists.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, in extending the reach of the work of the Media Freedom Coalition, of which the Government are co-chair, what progress do Ministers expect to make with regard to securing the safety of journalists who are working in conflict-torn Sudan and also the Iranian journalists who are in exile, some of them in this country, who face threats to their lives every day?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
There are many examples that the noble Baroness could have selected, but those two are particularly pertinent at this time. Clearly, we do everything we can that is necessary to keep journalists safe in this country—that is a commitment that I do not think any Government of this country would ever shy away from. In Sudan, the situation is incredibly precarious. We work alongside our allies and partners on the ground to try and make sure that journalists there can do their jobs safely, because we are getting far too little information out of the country about what is happening. It is a very difficult situation, as the noble Baroness knows. We could equally talk about Gaza, or many other contexts, where we are having similar challenges. That ability to report freely is absolutely essential, in terms of us knowing what is happening but also holding those responsible to account.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that right-wing ownership of newspapers is one of our biggest threats, not just in this country but across Europe? Do we not need to make sure that we do not let more of our media outlets be controlled by right-wing zealots?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My noble friend puts his position across forcefully and clearly, as ever. My concern is with the Media Freedom Coalition and to make sure that the UK plays the fullest part it can in its role as co-chair. This is a vital international mechanism, and we intend to use it for good.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as I am sure the Minister will recognise, the previous Government—indeed, I was the Minister responsible—set up the Media Freedom Coalition. It currently stands at 51 members, and I hope that as the UK now assumes the co-chair, since we have not seen an increase in numbers, there will be a focus on increasing those. Secondly, can the Minister give the assurance that the money that is provided for both protecting and sustaining support for journalists, both in cases they have to fight and also in the protection they need, will be safeguarded?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I absolutely commend the noble Lord for the work he has done. It was in 2019 that this was set up, so it has gone from strength to strength. His point about expanding membership is really important. One of the things we seek to do, using the leadership we can provide, is to expand that membership, particularly into global South voices, because this needs to be a truly global effort.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, we all need to value the bravery and independence of journalists who operate in really difficult situations and who need the support of the coalition and Governments. What will the Government do to raise the UK’s position on the media index from 10, and on the international one from 23? Given the US is a member of this organisation, how can they square legal action against the BBC that, if successful, would destroy the BBC, the BBC World Service and BBC Media Action? Will the Government ask the United States Government to recognise that?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Obviously, what the United States Government choose to do is a matter for the United States Government. On the World Service, I am very pleased that last Thursday we were able to announce an uplift in our grant funding to the World Service of an additional 12%, even in the straitened fiscal circumstances in which we had to make that choice. It does vital work and I would not want to see anything jeopardise it.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a director at the Free Speech Union. In January, I pulled together a letter signed by about two dozen Peers, including two former national newspaper editors and the chairman of IPSO, asking the Secretary of State at DSIT when the free speech safeguards in the Online Safety Act are likely to be activated, given that it is now three years old. One of those safeguards is additional protections for journalistic content. I wonder if the Minister could let us know when we are likely to get a reply.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am very happy to take that up with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State at DSIT. I am sure she would be fascinated and interested in the points that the noble Lord raises and will wish to provide a response as soon as she can.
Viscount Chandos (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the Thomson Foundation. The Government have understandably prioritised work in this area in Ukraine, Gaza, Lebanon and Sudan. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that it is important that funding continues to be made available in other countries where the work may be more preventative and less reactive?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Just to make clear, the protected geographies that have just been described are for our official development assistance generally; our work on media freedom, though, goes much more widely—in a far greater list of countries, such as Mexico, the Philippines and Bangladesh. The noble Viscount can be assured that that will continue. Wherever we find an issue that needs to be addressed to do with media freedom, we will act.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, what is being done in particular to protect women journalists in the field? Probably many will agree with me that women tend to find the personal interest story more than the story about the guns and the manoeuvres, and that is absolutely vital when you are reporting. I would like to bring to the Minister’s attention the Marie Colvin network that was set up after the tragic death of Marie Colvin, in fact by the sister of my noble friend the Duke of Wellington. We provide aid to women, mostly in the Middle East, in terms of support and contacts and not being alone out in the field. Networks like this are absolutely vital. Is there any way that the organisation could look at things like that in other areas?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right to draw our attention to that. One of the key themes that we want to use our leadership to do is to address exactly those issues around women journalists: women journalists and the persecution that they face—online as well these days—and also, too often, the experience of journalists working in newsrooms, which can present additional challenges, if I can put it that way. We want to use our position on the Media Freedom Coalition to address, in particular, those issues that face women.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the efforts that my noble friend Lord Ahmad made in setting up the Media Freedom Coalition, which is, as the noble Baroness said, an excellent organisation. As she mentioned in her opening remarks, there are many countries and cases that we could raise, but one particular well-known journalist in prison, of course, is Jimmy Lai. I know the Government are doing all they can to raise his case. The last statement of the media coalition on that issue was in 2023. Could the UK use its co-chairmanship to continue to raise that with the Chinese authorities?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am sure that that will be the case. As we have said many times—I know that we all agree with this, but it is worth repeating—Jimmy Lai should not be imprisoned and should be released immediately.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, if the Government are going to use their position as chair of the coalition, what action will they take with regards to members who potentially break the founding pledge? Two members in particular—Serbia is one—have done things potentially in breach of that pledge. What action will the Government take to ensure that, if you are in the club, you have to abide by the rules of the club?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Welcome to multilateralism—it does throw up these issues from time to time. Personally, I take the view that being in the club gives you a greater chance of being able to exert influence and have those very direct conversations face to face rather than less directly. But each case should be taken on its merits, and the decisions on any such issues must be taken collectively.
Equality: Break Down Barriers to Opportunity Mission
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Nye
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to promote equality as part of their Break Down Barriers to Opportunity mission.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, our mission is to break the link between background and success, creating a Britain where ambition has no limits and opportunity is fair for all. That is why the recent Every Child Achieving and Thriving White Paper sets our ambition to raise standards for all children and to halve the disadvantaged attainment gap between poorer children and their peers at the end of secondary school, ensuring that where you come from does not determine where you are headed.
Baroness Nye (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her reply. Research shows that early years inequalities account for almost half of the disadvantage gap by the age of five, and that although the UK has historically high levels of employment overall, the Government have inherited nearly 1 million young people who are not in education, employment or training. Can the Minister say what cross-departmental strategy the Government are pursuing to ensure that children receive sustained support throughout childhood and adolescence, so that none risks falling through the gap at any stage?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
As my noble friend rightly said, the routes to success in adulthood start early in life. For this reason, we are working with the Department of Health, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, DCMS and the Treasury to deliver our ambitious agenda to give every child the best start in life, to enable an inclusive school experience, and to help young people develop their skills and talents. Our best start in life strategy and the Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper set out how we are delivering on early years and post-16 commitments.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, the Government have pledged that 1,000 Best Start Family Hubs will be operational by April 2026, with at least one in every local authority. Is that pledge on track and, if so, how many are currently in use? How many will be in operation by April 2026, which is days away?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I will get back to the noble Lord with that detail. A lot of local authorities are repurposing existing provision. Some local authorities did better at keeping previous Sure Start centres than others, so the introduction will be a bit patchy. However, the ambition is clear, and we are determined to deliver our objectives.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, when will the Government respond to the House of Lords Select Committee report on social mobility? That response is overdue. I appreciate that the Minister may not have the answer, but perhaps she could write to me.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The work that happens in Select Committees of the House is absolutely essential, and the noble Lord is right to ask about what comes next. On that specific issue, I will get back to him.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister say what consideration the Government have given to joining AgoraEU as a means of promoting equality? While she speaks about schools, we know that children have opportunities outside and around schools that can be very important in breaking down these barriers. She will know that AgoraEU combines three programmes, one of which is about citizens’ equality, rights and values. Does she agree that association with that could be a way not only to promote equality but to share best practice with countries with which we have opportunities, challenges and values in common?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
We have a commitment to look at what works and to make sure we put young people at the heart of everything we do. An example of something that happened post Brexit is that UK cities kept their relationships with European cities, even though we are outside of the EU. We are looking at what works and at how we can improve and enhance opportunities that will help take young people forward.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests as founder and trustee of the Health Equality Foundation and chair of The Pipeline, a gender parity consultancy. I welcome and applaud the Government’s commitment to break down the barriers to opportunity in this mission. The motherhood penalty remains a persistent barrier and a key driver of gender inequality. The latest report published by the Health Equality Foundation shows that 24% of women have either left jobs or reduced work due to childcare challenges. Can my noble friend the Minister say what the Government will do in this mission to address gender inequality and opportunities?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The aspect of gender inequality which my noble friend referred to has been well documented, and there is a lot of evidence to support what she described. That is why we are so focused on giving support during early years to help new mothers and young mothers cope with motherhood itself. We are also providing for more childcare and all the things that support and enable women to return, in full capacity, to the workforce.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the Government have told us that they will measure the impact of this mission by attainment at the end of secondary school. Obviously, for millions of children, parents and, indeed, voters, this is many years away. What leading indicators are the Government going to track to give them insight into whether or not they are going to achieve their mission?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
It is important to recognise the work that we are doing in tackling disadvantage. One of the key indicators is around preparedness for school. We know that too many young children are arriving at school unable to take part in the work that needs to be done. Obviously, indicators are just a form of progression. While we are doing a lot of work with early years, it is important that we focus on the children and young people who are in the system already and that we look at their trajectory against the exams. Through the curriculum review, we will be looking, for example, at attainment data and at all the different measures by which schools and individual young people are measured.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister speaks about the arrival of young children in primary school. Does she recognise the key role that school nurses and educational psychologists can play in delivering care to younger people and support and advice to families? Will she ensure that the Department of Health and regional and local health boards are involved in the strategy?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I completely agree. I would go back a stage earlier and stress the importance of health visitors. It is very disappointing that the number of health visitors has gone down in recent years. They are an incredible link to families. They are trusted and they can share information at a local level. My noble friend is absolutely right. As I stressed at the outset, the relationship with health is pivotal. We know that poor health outcomes often lead to low attainment. This is why we are determined to work in such a joined-up fashion.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, more than 170,000 children are currently living in temporary accommodation. Nearly half of them—47%—frequently have to move schools. They are living in conditions that are not conducive to their health and well-being. Having to keep moving, often far away from their support network, is another major factor. What specifically is being done to support this cohort of children and to prioritise their needs?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
This lends itself to one of the key vulnerabilities: families ending up in difficulties and children having to come into care. The Government are investing £39 billion in affordable housing and £13.2 billion in the warm homes plan, working with the existing housing estate. Housing is critical to well-being. The noble Baroness is right that kids having to move around a great deal adds to their vulnerability.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, a key part of this mission is focused on the first 1,001 critical days of a child’s life. Evidence shows that having a father involved at this time supports the child’s future social and emotional development, as well as their future academic outcomes. Our current system of parental leave offers no support for self-employed fathers, meaning that only one in six takes any time off at all when their child is born. This contributes to the motherhood penalty. What are the Government going to do about this?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right about the importance of the involvement of anyone who is in a parental position. Involvement starts before birth, in helping to prepare both parents for the huge changes that are about to happen. This is one of the factors that we will look into, to make sure that we create more opportunities where we can. I am not sure why men choose not to take up their parental leave offer, but I am happy to talk to the noble Baroness afterwards if I have misunderstood the tenor of her question.
Fuel Supplies: War in Iran
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord John of Southwark
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure the continuity of fuel supplies in the light of the war in Iran.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
The UK benefits from a strong and diverse fuel supply. The fuel supply industry has been clear that fuel production and imports continue as usual. The Government continue to monitor the situation closely and will act if necessary. The essential lesson of this conflict, however, is that while we are dependent on fossil fuel markets, we are exposed to volatile prices. The answer must be to go further and faster towards homegrown clean power that we control.
Lord John of Southwark (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his Answer. Two matters prompted my Question: first, reports that 20% of the world’s oil supply passes through the Strait of Hormuz, and, secondly, reports at the weekend and since that the UK has only four weeks of fuel supplies in reserve. Given that, can he tell me how much of the UK’s supply is dependent on the oil that passes through the Strait of Hormuz? If current disruptions to worldwide oil supplies continue, how long will it be before the Government are forced to introduce restrictions on or rationing of fuel supplies?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question. His first statistic is correct. His second statistic, not that it is necessarily one that has his support, is categorically untrue—it is categorically untrue that there are only four weeks of fuel supply in the UK. However, the Government are closely monitoring the situation to ensure that supplies remain resilient. The UK remains a net exporter of petrol, with domestic capacity sufficiently filling this demand, while diesel volumes are met mostly by domestic production and imports from trusted partners. Only a small percentage is obtained from the Middle East. The majority of crude oil used for UK production comes from the United States and Norway, with just 1% from the Middle East. The UK obtains a proportion of jet fuel from the Middle East, but the fuel supply industry has been clear that fuel production imports are continuing across the UK as usual.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as part of a consultancy that provides geopolitics analysis to the Government of Qatar. Does the Minister agree that the continuity of fuel supplies may involve negotiations with those who have de facto control of the Strait of Hormuz rather than with those whom we wish had control of the Strait of Hormuz?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The issue of fuel supply through the Strait of Hormuz is relative to world supply and world prices; that is, because the UK obtains only a very small proportion of its supplies from the Middle East, the effect is more likely to be on prices across the world as other people seek to make up their supplies from different sources. The noble Lord is right that how we clear the Strait of Hormuz for those supplies has to be a question of disengagement, détente in the present conflict, and negotiation not in an ideal world but with those with whom we find ourselves in a negotiating position.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, do the Government understand that they have already presided over the closure of two of our oil refineries with their high-carbon taxes and unfriendly energy policy? Will they take urgent action to avoid the closure of the remaining ones, which would leave us without domestic supply and with shortages?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with his analysis of why the two refineries that have closed in the UK have done so, but the four refineries that we have in the UK are all producing well and in a robust condition. The Government will continue to monitor that process, but there is no reason to believe that further refineries are likely to close in the near future.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that while the conflict with Iran has driven up oil and gas prices, this is not currently a fuel supply crisis, and motorists and households should therefore continue to purchase fuel and gas as usual? If the conflict persists and international supplies are further disrupted, what steps are being considered to safeguard aviation fuel supply and to prevent significant increases in aviation fuel prices in the longer term as we head towards the summer?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The noble Earl is right; this is currently, in essence, a price crisis and not a supply crisis. That will remain the case for quite a long time, depending on how long the war continues. If the war continues for a very long time, there obviously will be issues not necessarily of supply to the UK but offset issues relating to other people trying to eat the UK’s lunch, as it were, in their quest for supplies elsewhere in the world. The Government have already taken action in terms of taking part in the IEA’s release of substantial amounts of oil to make sure that that does not happen in the medium term and co-ordinating with efforts internationally to make sure that jet fuel, for example, is available on a world basis. Aircraft and other companies in that field hedge their supplies very long in advance, and therefore this is not an issue for the immediate future.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interest as declared in the register as chair of the National Preparedness Commission. It is not just oil that passes through the Strait of Hormuz. A third of global trade in fertiliser passes through the strait. I appreciate that this is not immediately within my noble friend the Minister’s portfolio, so if he does not have the information in his folder, perhaps he can write to me and place a copy in the Library, but what consideration is being given across government to the implications for farmers in this country but more particularly for global farming and long-term food supplies if this disruption continues?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
My noble friend is right that this does not fall within my brief particularly, but I do know a bit about the subject he is raising, which is synthetic ammonia supplies from the Middle East. We do not have ammonia production in this country at the moment, so there is potentially a long-term issue of ammonia supplies coming into the UK and into a lot of other countries across the world, as my noble friend mentioned. Part of the solution is to go for different sources of ammonia which are not synthetic, particularly green ammonia and other forms of fertiliser such as digestate, which can fulfil substantially the role played by ammonia in the farming cycle.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure that any of the figures we have heard in the last few minutes are correct or substantial. In fact, there is a huge amount around the world of spare oil capacity and oil production potential which can be and is being brought into play. There is the vast boost in American shale, obviously, from which we get a lot already. There are the reserves which have been released under the scheme which I chaired in 1979 at the IEA, and those reserves are only a small part of more reserves that can be developed at any time we wish. There are pipelines which bypass the Strait of Hormuz. All I am saying is that the situation can be overexcited by an ill-informed media. Does the Minister agree that we should be careful not to excite these dangers and realise that this is a manageable situation if we take a strong line on what can be done to reopen the Strait of Hormuz when we can and in the meantime do not get so worked up that everyone starts talking about rationing and other idiotic ideas?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I hope the noble Lord does not consider that the figures and other facts that I have presented this afternoon are all erroneous, because I assure him that they are not, but he is right to say that this is not a question just of whether stuff goes through the Strait of Hormuz or nothing. There are a great many other ways in which oil, petroleum products, gas and so on can be taken from their source to where they want to go without going through the Strait of Hormuz. For example, pipelines across Arabia are already beginning to take some of the oil that otherwise would go through the Strait of Hormuz out to port, and the same is true with gas supplies. It is not all about LNG coming in vessels going through the Strait of Hormuz. I totally agree with the noble Lord that we should not be too taken up by overexcitable, ill-informed press speculation but should concentrate on the real facts and the real opportunities that there are to gather ourselves a sustainable oil and gas supply, which also includes making sure that as much as possible of our energy supply comes from home sources in the medium and long term.
Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 10 February be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 23 March. Relevant document: 52nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).
Warm Home Discount (England and Wales) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 2 and 5 February be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 23 March.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:27 - Division on Amendment 2 (to Amendment 1) - Ayes: 306 / Noes: 145 - Amendment 2 (to Amendment 1) agreed.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to make a short statement on the position regarding the legislative consent Motion on this Bill. While the majority of the provisions in the Bill apply to England and Wales only, certain provisions apply also to Scotland and Northern Ireland. The provisions relate to a mix of excepted, reserved and devolved or transferred matters, and as such engage the legislative consent process in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I am pleased to inform the House that yesterday, 24 March, the Scottish Parliament approved a legislative consent Motion in respect of the Bill put forward and supported by the Scottish Government. The Northern Ireland Assembly approved three legislative consent Motions on 23 June, 2 February and 16 March. However, on 10 March the Welsh Senedd debated a legislative consent Motion put forward and supported by the Welsh Government, but the Motion was not supported by the Senedd. This is regrettable, given the measures in the Bill that engage the legislative consent process include a range of offences, such as assault on a retail worker, mobile phone theft, sexual exploitation and others. I cannot for the life of me understand why Plaid Cymru, Reform, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members opposed the consent Motion in the Welsh Senedd—but they did, and they will have to be accountable for that.
I believe the Bill should pass. We are in discussion with the Welsh Government and the Wales Office about the way forward, and we will set out the Government’s position when the Bill is next considered by the House of Commons after the Recess. In the meantime, I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Taking down intimate image content(1) The Online Safety Act 2023 is amended as follows.(2) In section 10 (regulated user-to-user services: safety duties about illegal content) after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) A duty to operate a service using proportionate systems and processes designed to take down—(a) content in relation to which an intimate image content report is made to the provider (see section 20A(2)), and(b) any other content identified by the provider as the same, or substantially the same, as that content,as soon as reasonably practicable, and no later than 48 hours, after the provider receives the report (unless subsection (3B) applies).(3B) This subsection applies if the provider considers that—(a) the content is not intimate image content, or(b) the person making the report is not—(i) the subject of the content, or(ii) a person acting on that person’s behalf.”(3) After section 20 (duty about content reporting) insert—“20A Reporting of intimate image content(1) The duty in section 20(2) includes a duty to operate a service using systems and processes that allow users and affected persons to easily make an intimate image content report to the provider.(2) An “intimate image content report” is a report which—(a) declares that content present on the service is intimate image content,(b) declares that the report is made by—(i) the subject of the content, or(ii) a person acting on that person’s behalf,(c) provides sufficient information about the content for the provider to identify it,(d) provides contact details for the person making the report, and(e) complies with any other requirements specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about how the requirements in subsection (2)(a) to (d) are to be met.”(4) In section 21 (duties about complaints procedures) after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) The duty in subsection (2) includes a duty to operate an expedited complaints procedure in relation to complaints within subsection (4)(a), (b)(i) or (b)(ii) that—(a) are made by users or affected persons who have made an intimate image content report (see section 20A(2)), and(b) are about the content to which the report relates.”(5) In section 27 (regulated search services: safety duties about illegal content) after subsection (3) insert— “(3A) A duty to operate a service using proportionate systems and processes designed to ensure that individuals are no longer able to encounter—(a) search content in relation to which an intimate image content report is made to the provider (see section 31A(2)), and(b) any other search content identified by the provider as the same, or substantially the same, as that content,as soon as reasonably practicable, and no later than 48 hours, after the provider receives the report (unless subsection (3B) applies).(3B) This subsection applies if the provider considers that—(a) the search content is not intimate image content, or(b) the person making the report is not—(i) the subject of the content, or(ii) a person acting on that person’s behalf.”(6) After section 31 (duty about content reporting) insert—“31A Reporting of intimate image content(1) The duty in section 31(2) includes a duty to operate a service using systems and processes that allow users and affected persons to easily make an intimate image content report to the provider.(2) An “intimate image content report” is a report which—(a) declares that search content is intimate image content,(b) declares that the report is made by—(i) the subject of the content, or(ii) a person acting on that person’s behalf,(c) provides sufficient information about the search content for the provider to identify it,(d) provides contact details for the person making the report, and(e) complies with any other requirements specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about how the requirements in subsection (2)(a) to (d) are to be met.”(7) In section 32 (duties about complaints procedures) after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) The duty in subsection (2) includes a duty to operate an expedited complaints procedure in relation to complaints within subsection (4)(a), (b)(i) or (b)(ii) that—(a) are made by users or affected persons who have made an intimate image content report (see section 31A(2)), and(b) are about the search content to which the report relates.”(8) In section 59 (meaning of “illegal content” etc) after subsection (10) insert—“(10A) “Intimate image content” means content that amounts to an offence under section 66B(1), (2) or (3) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sharing intimate image of a person without consent).””Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause amends the Online Safety Act 2023 to impose new duties about removing content which is reported to providers as intimate image content.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, government Amendments 1, 14 and 18 deliver on the Government’s commitment to ensure that the strongest protections possible on violence against women and girls online are in place. They seek to create a reporting mechanism for non-consensual intimate images and a requirement that processes and systems be in place so that such content, and any content which is
“the same, or substantially the same”,
is removed within 48 hours.
In moving these amendments, I pay tribute to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, in both raising and being a tireless campaigner on this issue in your Lordships’ House.
We all know that non-consensual intimate image abuse is utterly vile, and the Government are very clear that we will not allow the proliferation of demeaning and degrading images online. I believe that the House is united in recognising the profound and lasting harm that this form of abuse inflicts on victims, and we share a common determination to ensure that victims receive meaningful protection. The Government are committed to delivering a strong, clear, enforceable response across the online safety regime. I am very grateful for the constructive engagement that has been crucial in shaping this amendment, both by the noble Baroness and by my noble friend Lady Levitt.
The Online Safety Act already places robust duties on services to minimise illegal content, including intimate image offences, and provides effective reporting and complaints mechanisms for users. However, given the particular and often acute impact of intimate image abuse, the Government have now committed to going further to set out specific expectations of how platforms must respond when this content is reported.
That brings me to Amendment 1, which delivers on the commitment that we have made to ensure that the strongest protections possible on violence against women and girls online are in place. Amendment 1 seeks to create a reporting mechanism for non-consensual intimate images and a requirement that processes and systems be in place so that such content and any content which is the same or substantially the same is removed within 48 hours.
This builds on the work already undertaken to strengthen the Online Safety Act. The House has already agreed amendments that make requesting or making intimate images and sharing or threatening to share them primary offences under the Online Safety Act. This amendment will impose additional duties on all regulated services and will require platforms to prioritise, detect, mitigate and remove this illegal content more quickly and systematically.
Amendment 1 goes further and delivers on the commitment of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister at the end of February to put social media companies on notice to take down any non-consensual intimate images within 48 hours. The Government’s amendment will introduce a clear, enforceable, statutory duty requiring platforms to have systems and processes in place to remove reported information as soon as possible and within 48 hours.
The duty is designed to work with the Online Safety Act’s systems and processes framework, ensuring that Ofcom can enforce it effectively at scale and deliver for victims of intimate image abuse. This also means that the amendment will be subject to the full suite of enforcement powers at Ofcom’s disposal.
I want to tell the House that Ofcom is to consult on additional safety measures to support the removal of re-uploads, including work on a hash-matching regime, which would require relevant services to adopt technology to detect and prevent re-uploads of non-consensual intimate images. Together, the statutory take-down duty and the hash-matching measures will create a joined-up system that delivers a stronger and more sustainable protection for victims than a stand-alone 48-hour rule.
“(3AA) A duty to record and report the average time taken to take down content under the duty in subsection (3A) to OFCOM and to publish the information publicly.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that internet services must report the average time they take to remove non-consensual intimate images.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the government amendments and to the amendments in my name and in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. In doing so, I declare an interest as receiving pro bono legal advice from Mishcon de Reya on image-based sexual abuse.
I am grateful to the Government for working with me to bring forward their amendment in response to my amendment in Committee on 48-hour take-down. I am pleased they are working with me on the amendments that your Lordships’ House passed on Report on the creation of a centralised hash registry and hash sharing. I must add that it is disappointing that after months of speaking to the Government about the importance of hashing and 48-hour amendments working together that they cannot be scrutinised together.
While I am very pleased that government Amendment 1 addresses the concerns I brought forward on de-indexing and duplicates, I do not believe it is sufficient to achieve the mechanism I set out to create in my original 48-hour take-down amendment in Committee. My intention was to create a system where no victim is left behind. This requires the mechanism to be agile and for internet services to feel the consequence of not acting on each individual instance reported. The government amendment has done the bare minimum and simply updated the Online Safety Act where it already instructed internet services to swiftly take down such content, to now add,
“as soon as reasonably practicable, and no later than 48 hours”.
In reality, this represents very little change as the good actors will still move at pace and the bad actors will continue to ignore. One survivor, Jodie, who many noble Lords have met, responded to the government amendment by saying that
“it is hugely frustrating to see headline grabbing commitments without the substance needed to actually protect victims. A 48-hour deadline sounds strong, especially when delivered by the Prime Minister to millions on breakfast television, but without real enforcement it risks creating false hope”.
Another victim, Daria, said:
“As a survivor, I feel this is quite simply gaslighting”.
We must remember that Ofcom rules are about systems and processes, and not outcomes. If a service has followed the rules but individual violations still occur, an internet service will not be held responsible. Sophie Mortimer at the Revenge Porn Helpline confirmed this, stating:
“While the platforms that already act in good faith will meet these standards, the persistent bad actors who continue to drive the sharing of this content will ignore and the Government amendment does not give Ofcom enough weapons to respond”.
I am deeply concerned that the Government have not specified how Ofcom will even know if a service fails to act within 48 hours. Ofcom has confirmed that there is no automatic mechanism for it to know whether services are not meeting the 48-hour take-down requirement in any given case. Further, the only recourse the Government provide should a service be found to generally not comply are the long and bureaucratic business disruption measures. This means that women will still suffer ongoing trauma when platforms refuse to comply.
My amendments seek to address the gaps in the government amendments, and I will outline them briefly. Amendments 2 and 8 mandate services to publicly report—and report to Ofcom—their average take-down times.
Amendments 3 and 9 strengthen the government wording on finding duplicate images to ensure that services have to take all reasonable steps, instead of simply relying on what a service may identify.
Amendments 4 and 10 incentivise services to act by creating a more agile mechanism whereby they can be fined per violation, and this can increase for every 24-hour period in which they fail to act, thus ensuring there is a consequence for not acting on individual instances of abuse. I believe these amendments create a more agile mechanism and do not rely solely on business disruption measures. This amendment is based on the TAKE IT DOWN Act, which operates under the rules of the Federal Trade Commission in the USA. The sum I have chosen is based on the figure levied under FTC rules for continued instances of violation after companies have been notified.
Amendments 5 and 11 mandate the Secretary of State to create a mechanism whereby individuals can report to Ofcom in cases where the service provider has failed to remove the content within 48 hours. At present, it is not clear what a victim would do if they reported the content to a service which then failed to act after the initial 48 hours.
Amendments 6 and 12 ensure that services have “clear and conspicuous” notices of where victims can report NCII content. This uses the wording from the TAKE IT DOWN Act and gives more clarity to internet services. The government amendment and the Online Safety Act refer simply to being able
“to easily make an intimate image content report to the provider”.
Amendments 7 and 13 add provisions that seek to curb malicious reporting by requiring a statement that the report has been made “in good faith”. Additionally, this provides internet services with further assurances they need to act more quickly upon receiving reports.
I am grateful to the Government for coming to the table on this issue. However, victims deserve so much more than press releases that promise action but in reality represent little practical change in the most traumatic moment of their lives. I implore noble Lords to vote with me so that no victim is left behind. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, at Third Reading it is extraordinarily rare to find issues still in contest, and to be presented, as we have been today, with a choice on which we will have to vote. Normally, by this stage, the issues have been clearly discussed and the parties concerned—the Government on the one side and those proposing amendments on the other—have had enough meetings to be able to get to a point where they can agree on what is going forward.
Having said that, I am sure that the whole House is very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for bringing forward what he has brought forward. These are substantial changes to the Online Safety Act and they are extraordinarily welcome. They cover the ground very well, but, as has been pointed out, they perhaps do not go quite as far as they could do. We are at Third Reading, so it is therefore very difficult to find the time and space to be able to resolve what I think are relatively quite small differences between the two sides.
I point out simply to my noble friend the Minister that this places those of us who support the noble Baroness in her amendments in a difficult position about his amendments, which we want to support; but the only way to get them to resolution is probably to vote with the noble Baroness. I hope he will appreciate that, and I suggest to him that, when he comes to respond, he makes it very clear that the Government are still willing to talk about these issues and still willing to meet those who have concerns and views about what the Government have done. I hope he might be able to promise that action could be taken in the Commons to resolve this.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I too support the noble Baroness, Lady Owen. As ever, she has spoken fantastically convincingly to her amendments, which sit in a broader set of aims that we have heard in Committee and on Report—at many stages. While recognising that the Government have moved considerably, I believe that we are debating this again in the context of a flood of women coming forward as survivors of non-consensual image abuse. As the harms are ever increasing, I am putting my faith in the noble Baroness’s interpretation of what is still necessary. Her amendments do something really important. I have spoken about this before and will do so on a later Bill this afternoon, but we need to tackle the issue of enforcement.
We cannot keep on adding duties to the Online Safety Act and expecting something to be different at the other end. In fact, we are adding a burden for people without giving them the tools by which that burden could be alleviated. The noble Baroness’s amendments have sought to create a more streamlined and agile system by allowing for fines every 24 hours in which an image is not removed. We have to find an incentive for tech to come to terms with the regulator, and the noble Baroness is doing just that. Unless we put a ticking clock on online services for failing to respond to harms to children and women, we cannot hope that women and children will be safe.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I add my support to the noble Baroness, Lady Owen. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, puts her finger on it: enforcement is key here, and it is key because we all know that without serious enforcement, these companies, which will be acting in breach of the law, will simply not comply. What will make them comply are substantial fines to hit them in the pocketbook. That is the only thing that will make them comply, and that is why I support the noble Baroness, Lady Owen.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I point out briefly that the essence of where the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, is coming from is that she speaks directly from the experience of the victims who have suffered from this. It is the victims themselves who have been struggling with the existing system, often in vain and with huge amounts of frustration. It is the victims who have been looking at the Government’s well-intended amendment, and on the basis of their own experience and knowledge, bitterly won, they feel strongly that it does not go far enough. They want others who are being abused at the moment, and trying to get some sort of redress, not to go through the same agony and pain that they have. I implore the Government to listen carefully, because this is the victims speaking directly to them. It is not the regulator; these are the victims, and the victims who are coming through the pipeline should be prioritised above all.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, can I add one word? In my experience in dealing with a large number of offences where corporations were responsible, it is only fines—and fines of a substantial amount—that have any real effect. The fines in this Bill are modest, in my view. I hope everyone will realise that unless we put something by way of a fine in, we are making law without effect.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Owen. I will not repeat what others have said eloquently. I will just speak quickly to my amendments, which are procedural. I have tabled Amendments 15 to 17, which I should have formally moved on Report—human error there, apologies. They were agreed by the Government to be consequential on my original Amendment 297AA, which passed with the support of this House, regarding the banning of depictions of step-incest in pornography. I shall simply move them formally and will not revisit the arguments, apart from to say I am pleased that the conversations I am having with the Government are positive. I am hopeful that we will be able to reach an agreement that sees this appalling and abusive content made illegal, as it should be.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I really wish this Government would listen to common sense sometimes. Can the Minister please go back to No. 10 and explain that this is urgent?
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge. I rise to express our firm support on these Benches for Amendments 2 to 13, which the noble Baroness has brought forward and which I have signed, to the Government’s new clause. We also support the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, we acknowledge that the Government have moved “substantially”, which I believe was the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. By tabling Amendment 1 they have accepted the principle of a 48-hour statutory take-down limit for non-consensual intimate images. I was also pleased to hear what the Minister said about ongoing hash-matching work.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lady Owen of Alderley Edge and Lady Bertin, and the Minister, for their amendments. As my noble friend Lady Bertin said, her amendments were agreed as a package on Report and should have been moved then. We supported them at that time, and understand that the Government will accept them today.
While it is welcome that the Government have brought their Amendments 1 and 14, as they promised on Report, I join my noble friend Lady Owen in expressing concern about the drafting and the fact that the Government do not seem to know where they are going with this. The Prime Minister announced on 19 February that the 48-hour take-down for non-consensual intimate images would be government policy, but it is very clear that the Government do not actually know how they will implement the policy. My noble friend has explained why she believes that the Government’s amendment is defective. I hope that the Government will listen to her and accept the amendments. If they do not, we will support my noble friend in the Division Lobbies.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the Baroness, Lady Owen, for tabling her amendments and initiating this discussion. I feel like someone who has brought a birthday cake to a party, only to have someone else blow the candles out. On behalf of the Prime Minister, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office, I have tried my best to bring forward proposals that meet the objectives the Government themselves have set, as well as those of the noble Baroness.
Taken together, Amendments 2 to 13 would amend government Amendment 1 by introducing fixed penalties, public performance reporting and new escalation routes to Ofcom. I note the support for these amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, from the Liberal Democrat Benches; the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower; my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara; the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron; the noble Lord, Lord Pannick; and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. I also note the short, sharp intervention from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which I very much welcomed.
On the proposal to require services to publish average take-down times, I say to the noble Baroness and others that I recognise the desire for both transparency and public accountability. Ofcom already has the power to request information of this nature, which would also apply to the Government’s amendment. However, publicly benchmarking speed in this way risks hardwiring the wrong incentive into the system. This duty is not intended to be a race to remove any reported content at all costs, including where reports are mistaken, malicious or vexatious. Parliament is asking providers to act quickly and responsibly, which necessarily includes occasionally verifying that reports are valid.
A single, public average-time metric could encourage the unintended removal of lawful content, undermine procedural safeguards and, critically, ultimately undermine confidence in the regime among the very victims this Government wish to stand with the noble Baroness in support of. Ofcom has strong powers to require detailed performance data where there are concerns about systemic compliance. Regulator-led scrutiny is a more effective, credible and proportionate means of accountability that ensures a regime that best delivers for its victims.
Amendments 3 and 9 would require providers to take all reasonable steps to identify duplicates or substantially similar content. I share that objective on behalf of the Government. Providers are already required to take proportionate steps to seek out this illegal content under wider illegal content duties.
On the proposal of specific fines, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, mentioned that it is important that there are financial consequences for any illegal action. I say to them and to the noble Baroness that, as they know, the Online Safety Act already equips Ofcom with very strong enforcement powers. Ofcom can already issue a heavy fine of up to 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue in the event of contravention of regulations that Ofcom is empowered to monitor, and these fines can even be augmented with daily fines on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, it is not necessary to introduce an additional fixed-rate fine mechanism on the face of the Bill, given that a 10% fine on qualifying worldwide revenue is a significant and effective potential punishment from Ofcom, which has those enforcement powers.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
Can the Minister say what an individual woman should do if her content is not removed within 48 hours? Is the Minister suggesting that, without a mechanism to contact Ofcom, she waits for Ofcom to recognise that a website has failed in its duty, and therefore for the Secretary of State to mandate long and bureaucratic business disruption measures, and for Ofcom to seek 10% of the business’s worldwide revenue—and all the while her intimate image is left online?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The purpose of the regulation is to provide a disincentive to putting content up in the first place. If anybody who places that content on any online platform knows that Ofcom has the power to levy a 10% fine on worldwide revenue, there will be that disincentive. The purpose of that power is to deter people from breaking the law. Coupled with the powers in government Amendment 1, it will provide strong reassurance to anybody who has had illegal content put online by any particular organisation or individual.
There may be an honest disagreement between the noble Baroness and me on this, but I want to prevent any illegal content being put up in the first place. I would argue that a 10% fine of any worldwide revenue for the platform that hosts that content is a significant contribution. It would mean, ultimately, that Ofcom has the power to cause significant damage to any organisation that puts up that illegal content. I accept and understand the concerns that have been raised; I just hope that the noble Baroness can also understand that the Government are trying to support the very victims she speaks about.
We appreciate the intention behind enabling individuals also to report non-compliance. They can raise that concern through Ofcom’s reporting portal, and such reports can signal potential systemic issues and can be used for wider investigations, as I have just mentioned. I also recognise the urgency with which victims rightly expect this content to be removed—the very point the noble Baroness has just made. I consider that a systems and processes approach remains the most effective way to secure consistent compliance and deliver protection at scale.
On the amendment the noble Baroness has brought forward that would require providers to display reporting notices and routes, the 2023 Act already requires platforms to have clear, accessible reporting routes that allow users to easily make intimate image reports. Again, Ofcom is best placed to specify details about this in its code of practice. Turning to proposals for good faith declarations, the government amendment requires reporting individuals to state that the content is intimate image content and that they are the subject of that content or are acting on the subject’s behalf. Additionally, the Secretary of State has regulation-making powers to specify further requirements if needed. I hope that that satisfies the noble Baroness. I hope the House can recognise that the Government have moved significantly on this issue, but we will hear the noble Baroness’s response in due course.
Amendments 15 to 17, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, are accepted by the Government. They were, as she has said, tidying-up amendments agreed by the House on Report but sadly missed. As such, the Government will not oppose the amendments and will actively support them. This is, however, without prejudice to any further consideration of the substantive amendments carried on Report. We will set out the Government’s position on these and other amendments passed on Report when the Bill returns to your Lordships’ House after the Easter Recess, once it has been considered by the House of Commons.
I have tried to be constructive in my response on behalf of the whole of the Government—from the Prime Minister to the different departments that have contributed to this. I hope they were helpful engagements. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, for her amendments, and I hope that, having heard what has been said—it is, perhaps, with little hope—she will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords I thank the Minister for his response. I feel that, on this point, we have not reached an agreement. While 10% of an internet service’s worldwide revenue is great, a more agile system where no woman and no victim is left behind is much better. With that, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
“(3AA) In fulfilling their duty under subsection (3A)(b), the provider must take all reasonable steps to identify any other content that is the same, or substantially the same, as the content in the report.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that internet services must take all reasonable steps to find non-consensual intimate image content that is a duplicate of (or substantially the same as) reported content.
“(3C) Failure to comply with a duty under subsection (3A) may result in a fine of £39,000 for each 24 hour period following the 48 hours allowed to take the content down, payable to OFCOM.(3D) The fine payable under subsection (3C) may be increased by OFCOM following a review.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides an alternative to business disruption measures under the Online Safety Act 2023, so that fines can be levied more quickly, to incentivise content removal to happen faster.
“(3C) The Secretary of State must, by regulations within six months of the day on which the Crime and Policing Act 2026 is passed, establish a process for individuals to report to OFCOM that a service has failed in its duty under subsection (3A).(3D) The process under subsection (3C) must be easily accessible and must be identified by the service provider in their notice under section 20A(1). (3E) OFCOM must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the reporting process under subsection (3C) is easily identifiable and accessible.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that, where an internet service has failed to act within 48 hours, individuals can report this to OFCOM.
(a) is easy to read and in plain language, and(b) provides information regarding the responsibilities of the service under this section, including a description of how an individual can submit an intimate image content report.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that internet services have to clearly display notices which explain how non-consensual intimate images can be reported and removed.
“(4) A report made under this section must include a statement that the reporting person or authorised representative makes the report in good faith believing that the content is of the kind specified in section 20 and a statement that the information provided in the report is true to the best of their knowledge and belief.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to curb malicious reporting.
“(3AA) A duty to record and report the average time taken to take down content under the duty in subsection (3A) to OFCOM and to publish the information publicly.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that internet services must report the average time they take to remove non-consensual intimate images.
“(3AA) In fulfilling their duty under subsection (3A)(b), the provider must take all reasonable steps to identify any other content that is the same, or substantially the same, as the content in the report.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that internet services must take all reasonable steps to find non-consensual intimate image content that is a duplicate of (or substantially the same as) reported content.
“(3C) Failure to comply with a duty under subsection (3A) may result in a fine of £39,000 for each 24 hour period following the 48 hours allowed to take the content down, payable to OFCOM.(3D) The fine payable under subsection (3C) may be increased by OFCOM following a review.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides an alternative to business disruption measures under the Online Safety Act 2023, so that fines can be levied more quickly, to incentivise content removal to happen faster.
“(3C) The Secretary of State must, by regulations within six months of the day on which the Crime and Policing Act 2026 is passed, establish a process for individuals to report to OFCOM that a service has failed in its duty under subsection (3A). (3D) The process under subsection (3C) must be easily accessible and must be identified by the service provider in their notice under section 31A(1).(3E) OFCOM must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the reporting process under subsection (3C) is easily identifiable and accessible.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that, where an internet service has failed to act within 48 hours, individuals can report this to OFCOM.
(a) is easy to read and in plain language, and(b) provides information regarding the responsibilities of the service under this section, including a description of how an individual can submit an intimate image content report.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that internet services have to clearly display notices which explain how non-consensual intimate images can be reported and removed.
“(4) A report made under this section must include a statement that the reporting person or authorised representative makes the report in good faith believing that the content is of the kind specified in section 31 and a statement that the information provided in the report is true to the best of their knowledge and belief.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to curb malicious reporting.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Taking down intimate image content: consequential amendments(1) The Online Safety Act 2023 is amended as follows.(2) In section 10 (regulated user-to-user services: safety duties about illegal content)—(a) in subsection (4) for “and (3)” substitute “to (3A)”;(b) in subsection (5)—(i) the words from “each paragraph” to the end become paragraph (a);(ii) at the end of that paragraph insert“, and(b) subsection (3A).”;(c) in subsection (7) for “subsection (2) or (3)” substitute “subsections (2) to (3A)”.(3) In section 23(5) (record-keeping and review duties) for “or (3)”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, (3) or (3A)”.(4) In section 27 (regulated search services: safety duties about illegal content)—(a) in subsection (4) for “and (3)” substitute “to (3A)”;(b) in subsection (7) for “subsection (2) or (3)” substitute “subsections (2) to (3A)”. (5) In section 34(5) (record-keeping and review duties), for “or (3)”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, (3) or (3A)”.(6) In section 59(14) (meaning of “illegal content” etc) for “and “priority illegal content”” substitute “, “priority illegal content” and “intimate image content””.(7) In section 71(2)(a)(i) (duty not to take down content except in accordance with terms of service: exceptions) for “or (3)” substitute “, (3) or (3A)”.(8) In section 136(5) (confirmation decisions: proactive technology)—(a) in paragraph (a) for “or (3)” substitute “, (3) or (3A)”;(b) in paragraph (c) for “or (3)” substitute “, (3) or (3A)”.(9) In section 237 (index of defined terms) at the appropriate place insert—
(10) In Schedule 4 (codes of practice)—(a) in paragraph 9(1) for “or (3)” substitute “, (3) or (3A)”;(b) in paragraph 9(3) for “or (3)” substitute “, (3) or (3A)”;(c) in paragraph 13(3)(a) for “or (3)” substitute “, (3) or (3A)”;(d) in paragraph 13(3)(c) for “or (3)” substitute “, (3) or (3A)”.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause makes amendments to the Online Safety Act 2023 which are consequential on those made by my new clause (Taking down intimate image content).
Baroness Bertin
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(ma) sections (Taking down intimate image content) and (Taking down intimate image content: consequential amendments);”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the specified new clauses to have UK extent.
“(z4a) section 207(9);”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment gives UK extent to the specified provision, since it amends an Act which has UK extent.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment (and my other amendment to Schedule 2) corrects an amendment to section 78 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to refer to a closure notice instead of an extension notice.
Member's explanatory statement
See my other amendment to Schedule 2.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before we move on to the Motion that the Bill do now pass, I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, has tabled an amendment. I expect the debate on that to be brief and to be contained to the narrow subject it seeks to address, relating to an impact assessment. This is not the opportunity for another long debate about the general issues which have already been debated at length in this House and on which the House has made its mind very clear. I urge noble Lords to consider carefully whether a contribution is necessary, and to keep any remarks concise and focused on the amendment before us.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships’ House for the contributions that have been made on the Bill. We have spent over 88 hours in Committee, we have had a full day’s Second Reading and 44 hours on Report, and we have spent an hour on the Bill now—all of which is good, rigorous scrutiny, and a considerable amount of it. The Bill leaves the House with a few extra pages and some extra government policy based on manifesto commitments. In doing so, it will better support the delivery of the Government’s safer streets mission to halve knife crime and see a reduction in violence against women and girls within a decade.
I am pleased, overall, with the contributions and the degree of cross-party agreement there has been across the House. We will continue to reflect on a number of the amendments that were made, contrary to my advice, and the debates we have had to date. When the Bill returns to the House after the Easter Recess, we will examine what else will be done in relation to the view of the Commons, the Government and this House.
I could not have done this Bill without the unstinting help of my noble friends Lady Levitt and Lord Katz, and I am grateful to them. Scrutiny is a great thing—I have done it myself when in opposition. It is important to test the Government and to put forward alternative ideas. Despite our agreements on some issues and our disagreements on others, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower, Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Sandhurst, from the Opposition Front Bench, and to the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey and Lady Brinton, and the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, and to all noble Lords who have spoken in this and other debates.
Given that we sat late on a number of occasions, I put on record on behalf of the whole House our thanks to the doorkeepers and staff of the House. There were a few days when I did not know what time I was going home—and neither did they. It is important that we recognise their contribution to our parliamentary scrutiny. I must place on record my thanks to the Home Office team and the Ministry of Justice Bill team, to the policy officials from the Department for Transport, Defra, the Department of Health, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Ministry of Defence and DSIT, and to the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, No. 10 Downing Street and our private offices—all of whom have contributed and all of whom I and my fellow Ministers have spoken on behalf of in this Chamber.
This has been the largest justice Bill in a generation, and my goodness, does it not feel like it? It provides a number of measures for the Government on key issues to help prevent harms, to bring offenders to justice and to secure our community in a much safer way. There will be more parliamentary encounters to come after the recess but, in the meantime, I hope that we will help build safer streets, safer communities and a safer Britain. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness O'Loan
At end insert “but that this House regrets that no impact assessment was conducted in relation to clause 246, and that therefore the House has not been able to assess its potential effects on vulnerable persons, women’s health, criminal law, and policing”.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, the effect of Clause 246 of this Bill is to decriminalise abortion at any stage of the baby’s gestation where the baby’s life is terminated by the mother, but in no other circumstances. It is a matter of concern that we find ourselves today passing a Bill which contains Clause 246, given the dearth of information upon which noble Lords were asked to make a decision—hence my regret amendment.
The Cabinet Office Guide to Making Legislation states that an impact assessment is a vital tool to help Parliament understand the
“consequences of a proposed intervention
and to identify the
“associated risks of a proposal that might have an impact on the public … and wider society”.
Undeniably, Clause 246 required an impact assessment to identify the consequences and risks. That did not happen.
It is possible to be both neutral and objective and to respect conscience while considering policy implications and outcomes. This clause originated as a late Back-Bench amendment. As others have said, there was not enough scrutiny in the other place, or indeed here. Last week, many Peers were denied the opportunity to speak to amendments which they had signed or supported on this most fundamental and important of issues—the life and death of the baby and the danger to its mother.
We have been unable to evaluate adequately the operational impact of Clause 246 on policing. We lack clear evidence on how the removal of existing deterrents will affect the investigation of genuine cases of infanticide or the detection of women being coerced by a third party into dangerous late-term abortion. We have not been able properly to assess healthcare implications. There will surely have to be guidance issued to those who respond to a request for help in connection with such an abortion, which may turn out to require investigation as a criminal offence may have been committed by a third party, be that a coercive partner or a family member or other who does not want any child, or in some cases, unfortunately, a girl child, to be born.
During the debate, I asked the question: how is the mother to kill her child at these late stages so that she can abort it? I never received an answer. It seems to me that the Government must be aware that, if a woman decides to abort a baby herself after 24 weeks, she may need help to do so. Do the Government intend to publicise the fact that it will still be an offence to help a mother abort her baby in these circumstances?
Do they intend to highlight the fact that heavy bleeding, infection, damage to the womb and sepsis are all possible consequences of an abortion? What of the risks of prescription or over-the-counter drug overdoses as a woman seeks to abort her baby and to control her pain and that of her unborn child?
Paramedics responding to a 999 call where a woman is haemorrhaging or where a baby is stuck in the birth canal will have to try to save the life of both mother and baby, unless the baby is already dead. But there are a few precious moments when a baby who does not breathe automatically at birth can be encouraged to live and may well do so. What is the paramedic to do? Presumably, if the woman gets to hospital before delivering, it will be incumbent on nurses and doctors to attempt to save not only the mother but the child. Surely the child will not be left to die uncared for, as happens when babies are born alive after abortion. Guidance will be needed. What additional services—medical and mental health services—might need to be provided in these cases?
Finally, do we need some provision on what the mother can do with her little dead baby? Is she able to bury it? Can somebody else bury it? How will the police be able to determine whether a baby was born alive and killed after death if the baby’s body has been disposed of? What if the trauma of delivering the child is such that the mother is unable to bury the child? What if she was subject to coercion and is torn by grief? What can she do? What is to happen?
Today, I am sending an open parliamentary letter to the Home Secretary and the Minister for Health from some 80 Peers and MPs, articulating these and other concerns. These issues should surely concern His Majesty’s Government. Can the Minister say how the Government intend to take these matters forward to address these life and death issues?
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, regrets the failure to conduct an impact assessment in relation to Clause 246. Yet, as we have heard, the clause that decriminalises abortion up to birth will have the gravest of consequences for viable babies—now protected in law—for their mothers’ health and for our society. Including it in this Bill will render the Bill notorious.
Constitutionally, it is wrong. Laws, particularly on controversial and grave matters, are subject to two important conditions in Britain’s constitution. First, they must have a popular mandate, a condition that militated against the arbitrary exercise of executive power for hundreds of years, even before the 20th century brought universal adult suffrage, as Parliaments and leaders respected a popular wish. Secondly, they must meet the more formal requirements now in place for pre-election announcements, manifestos and pre-legislative consultation, including an impact assessment, detailed parliamentary scrutiny in both Chambers, revision, modification and, finally, some sort of legislative agreement.
Clause 246 is a highly controversial measure. Arguably, its consequences are the most serious of any legislation that this Government have passed. It has had neither a popular mandate nor parliamentary scrutiny. Clause 246 has been tacked on to a government Bill by a group of militant abortionists determined to manipulate parliamentary rules. It has had only 46 minutes of debate in the House of Commons. I am afraid it plays to the weakness of a Prime Minister orchestrating the factions of a divided Labour Party as he seeks to stay in power and fend off rival challenges.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
It reveals a Government unequal to the great task of governing the nation with which the electorate has entrusted it.
I particularly regret it because it brings disgrace to the Mother of Parliaments and, indirectly, to a country which, although it had no hand in the matter, could always hold its head high when its neighbours suffered instability, revolution and dictatorship. They could take comfort because, as has so often rightly been said, we have a constitutional way of solving our differences.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I know the noble Baronesses, Lady Lawlor and Lady O’Loan, feel very strongly about this matter, and they are perfectly entitled to do so. But we debated this at length in Committee: we had four hours-worth of debate then. We debated it for two hours last week on Report. Both noble Baronesses expressed their views very powerfully and at length, but the House did not agree with them. The House voted for this clause and I respectfully suggest that it is entirely inappropriate for us to debate it again.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
Before anyone else comes in, I will just say that we should be addressing only the narrow issue of the impact assessment and nothing else.
Lord Biggar (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak for no more than 90 seconds in support of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan.
When we in this House voted through Clause 246 last week, we had failed to consider an important logical effect. In voting to decriminalise abortion by the mother up to the eve of birth, we decriminalised the deliberate killing of a mature, foetal human being. Between the human foetus on the eve of birth and the human infant 24 hours later, there is no significant moral difference. In passing Clause 246, we chose to breathe down the neck of legitimising early infanticide.
The fact that the clause leaves in place a general prohibition of abortion after 24 weeks makes no difference. In declaring that the killing is no crime, we declare that it does not matter. The killing does not matter only because what is being killed does not matter. What applies to the mature foetus applies equally to the early infant.
Our failure to assess that significant implication is highly regrettable, and that is why I support the amendment.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I have great respect for the views of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. We understand where she is coming from. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, this has been democratically passed by both Houses. The very graphic descriptions of the physical aspects of abortion are intended to put us off, but those aspects apply to any abortion. Any abortion at any stage could go wrong and result in something very upsetting.
There is an assumption on the part of those who oppose this new law that desperate women will be reading the law in all its detail before they resort to what they do. I suggest that a woman in the very late stage of pregnancy, who has probably been abandoned by the man responsible for it and who has no support, is unlikely to take down the statute book and study what the consequences are. All this new clause does is remove the criminal element. It does not make anything better or worse. It just stops desperate, unsupported women going to prison.
Finally, as I always say in debates about abortion, it is all very well expressing great sympathy, but who is there when the poor woman on her own has to go home with a baby whom she cannot support? She is abandoned and unable to look after it. None of us here is going to volunteer to help her. We have to have compassion for a woman who is in that desperate a state.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I should have preferred that this particular clause had not been passed, but it was passed and we have to accept it. Following on very closely from what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has said, in my view it is time we moved on.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. We did not debate an impact assessment. We need a proper government impact assessment for this clause before it is made law. There are foreseeable consequences to taking down important guardrails within our abortion law for the sake of a relatively small number of people—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, will the noble Lord kindly give way?
Lord Farmer (Con)
I would prefer to get a move on so that everybody is happy that this comes to an end. Have we forgotten that hard cases make bad law and public policy should be a consideration? Knowing that she aborted a perfectly viable baby can haunt a woman for years. Even if we start and end with an individual woman, enabling her to procure her own abortion at an extremely vulnerable point in her life—the amendment points to vulnerability—without committing a crime creates a moral hazard.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord did not give way, because I wanted to ask him this question. In his first sentence, he managed to speak to the amendment before us. He then went off on a tangent. In relation to impact assessment, has he, like me and many others, received hundreds of emails with countless papers and briefings about the implications of this clause? Did he observe the Second Reading debate in your Lordship’s House, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick said, and the extensive debates in Committee and on Report? The issue is whether the House has had sufficient information on which to make a judgment. My argument is that we have. We have made a judgment. This is totally unnecessary. We should move on and invite the Front Benches to now wind up.
Lord Farmer (Con)
I am addressing the point of impact assessment, which had not been properly debated.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, this Bill attempted to canter through some profoundly important issues, such as child sexual abuse, which the police have described to me as a “tsunami” and which I do not think is fully understood by most people, including some politicians. The other issue that is misunderstood is the rampaging impact of AI on our daily life. Both issues deserve a Bill on their own. But during the long hours of debate, we were constantly racing the clock. Starting debates at 3 pm, or later, and finishing them at midnight is not a way to make good legislation. If we are serious about effective scrutiny, we must modernise the sitting hours of this House as a matter of urgency. If scrutiny is to be meaningful, there needs to be more scope for the Government Front Bench to agree perfectly rational, sane and good ideas that have been suggested by amendments right the way across the House.
Nevertheless, I would like to thank the Ministers: the ever charming and affable noble Lord, Lord Hanson, who protected the Government with the tenacity that a lion would use to protect his cubs, ably supported by the noble Lord, Lord Katz, and the brilliant forensic skill of the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, whose ability to demolish, as I know from personal experience, a carefully crafted speech in one sentence but always with charm and a disarming smile made me think, “If only she was on our side instead of the Government’s”.
I also thank noble Lords across the House, with special thanks to the Conservative Front Bench, who have been a joy to work with. I also thank my wonderful Bill team, in particular my noble friends Lady Brinton, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Marks on the Front Bench, and Elizabeth Plummer from our Whips’ Office, whose tireless and excellent support on legislation has kept us firmly on track at all times. Finally, my heartfelt thanks go to Barbara Davidson, my researcher, who is one of the most hard-working, efficient and effective people I have ever had the privilege to work with.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this has been an incredibly long time coming. This Bill has endured 15 days in Committee and six days on Report in your Lordships’ House. It has been a mammoth of a task, but throughout the Bill’s passage, I am pleased to say that we have executed our duties in this House as diligently as ever.
To address the regret amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel set out our concerns about the lack of scrutiny of the abortion clause both in Committee and on Report. Our view remains the same: that such a significant change of abortion law should not have been rushed through Parliament, tacked on to a completely unrelated Bill. However, the House has now decided the matter and, as always, we respect that.
I said at Second Reading and again in Committee that I do not believe that a 500-page Crime and Policing Bill is going to bring down crime rates. We have an enormous amount of criminal law. The problem is that much of it is not effectively enforced.
Having said that, there are elements of this Bill that we are happy to see being sent to the other place. The Minister knows the parts of the Bill that I support; indeed, there have been several occasions on which he and I have been on the same page. There are some very good amendments that we passed on Report. I am pleased that the House supported my amendments to allow the police to seize vehicles using fly-tipping offences and to endorse the driving licences of fly-tippers with three penalty points. I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats and a number of non-affiliated and Cross-Bench noble Lords for supporting my amendment to increase the maximum sentence for the possession of a bladed article with intent to commit violence from four to 10 years and to force the Government to review the proscription of the IRGC. It is excellent that my noble friends Lord Young of Acton, Lady Buscombe, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge and Lady Bertin had the support of the House for their amendments as well.
I must, however, express my regret at a number of provisions that have ended up in the Bill. Clause 49, which makes low-value shoplifting triable either way, makes absolutely no sense to me. Clause 251, which gives foreign courts greater powers over the extradition of British citizens, is also undesirable. It is highly regrettable that the Government have inserted Clause 144, on aggravated offences. That clause is completely unnecessary, given Section 66 of the Sentencing Code and the raft of aggravated offences and hate crime legislation that already exists. It will only cause more problems for the police and is not going to contribute to the end of identity politics and a move towards greater social cohesion. When the inevitable happens and more people are arrested for speech offences, let it be known that the Conservatives warned the Government and tried to vote that down.
I am also deeply concerned that the Government’s amendment to grant themselves the mother of all Henry VIII powers passed. The Division was held outrageously late, which is not appropriate given the wide-ranging constitutional implications. Ministers will now be able to amend the entire Online Safety Act 2023 as they wish, and parliamentarians will have no say. This is not the way to regulate for AI chatbots. We should all be deeply troubled by this.
To end on a more positive note, I thank the Minister, genuinely, for engaging with me and with my noble friends Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Sandhurst throughout the passage of the Bill. I am also very grateful to his officials and the Bill team for keeping us up to date with the government amendments. I thank all those in the Government Whips’ Office and in our Whips’ Office for their help, in particular Jamie Tucker in the Opposition Whips’ Office for shouldering most of the heavy lifting on this. And I thank the Lib Dem Front Bench for their co-operation on the Bill.
I sincerely hope that the Government will do some serious thinking over the Recess and take on board the suggestions from noble Lords in this place. When we come back to this Bill for consideration of the Commons amendments, I hope the Minister will be in a conciliatory mood.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, we are almost there. I want to respond to the amendment to the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. She had the support of the noble Lords, Lord Biggar and Lord Farmer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, on that. The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, mentioned the Labour Party. There are Members on my side of the House who voted on both sides of the abortion debate. It is not a party-political issue. It was a free vote on this issue, certainly from the Government’s perspective and, I think, that of all parties. I reiterate that the Government were entirely neutral on the proposal that was put in Committee and later on Report that now forms Clauses 246 and 247. It is an entirely neutral government position.
I note the comments of the three noble Lords who spoke in support of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. I also note those of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and I echo what they said in an entirely neutral way. We have to respect the fact that the House of Commons passed that proposal quite considerably and that after many hours of debate this House came to the same conclusion. The Government remain neutral, but that is the position.
We are now looking at the implications of that. The Government have always said that should Parliament pass any abortion amendments, they will ensure the safe and effective implementation of those provisions. This includes any costs associated with the implementation of this provision and this Bill. There are existing processes in the spending review and in future spending reviews to identify funding and around implementation. The Government remain neutral, but I have to say to all Members of the House that both Houses have spoken and that is the position that we find ourselves in today.
Whatever noble Lords’ personal views on the provisions in Part 16, we should not set aside the other parts of the Bill. There are a number of areas of agreement between all sides of the House. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that three amendments were accepted by the Government on Report. We will look at some of the amendments that this House passed and their implications when the Bill returns to the House of Commons after the Recess.
At the end of the day, I am proud of this Bill. I am proud of its position to protect children from sexual abuse. I am proud of the action we have taken on online harm. I am proud of the action on preventing violence against women and girls. I am proud of the action on young men and knife crime. I am particularly proud of the long campaign that my union raised on shop workers and assaults. I am proud of the issues on communities and anti-social behaviour. I am proud of this Bill, and for that reason I commend that this Bill do now pass. With due respect—I spoke to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, today, and I understand where she is coming from—I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment. If she does, I am proud of this Bill as it stands. I am neutral on the issue of abortion on behalf of the Government, but I ask this House to pass the Bill.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments and for speaking to me earlier today. He talked about the cost implications of the Bill, and there are many, but I am not sure that anybody knows what the cost implications of Clause 246 might be. Be that as it may, my amendment to the Motion was to draw to the attention of the House the fact that things need to be done to let people carry out the jobs for which they are responsible and to help women in this most desperate situation. I do not intend to move the amendment to a vote. I thank those who spoke. We deliberately decided that we would not ask a lot of people to speak and that we would ask people not to speak so as not to delay the House in its other deliberations. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:31 - Division on Motion G1 (as an amendment to Motion G) - Ayes: 266 / Noes: 141 - Motion G1 agreed.
20:12 - Division on Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H) - Ayes: 200 / Noes: 150 - Motion H1 agreed.
20:24 - Division on Motion K1 (as an amendment to Motion K) - Ayes: 163 / Noes: 195 - Motion K1 disagreed.
20:36 - Division on Motion L1 (as an amendment to Motion L) - Ayes: 207 / Noes: 148 - Motion L1 agreed.
20:48 - Division on Motion N1 (as an amendment to Motion N) - Ayes: 205 / Noes: 147 - Motion N1 agreed.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.
2A: Because the Commons consider the Amendment to be unnecessary in light of existing statutory guidance about bringing a child protection plan to an end and steps already being taken to strengthen multi-agency decision making relating to child protection.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion A, I shall speak also to Motions B, K and K1. In this group we will be debating amendments made in this House relating to child protection plans, multi-agency child protection teams and local authority consent for children not in school. For each, I will set out the rationale for why the Government cannot accept these amendments.
I will speak first to Motion A relating to Amendment 2, originally tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, regarding decisions to end child protection plans for under-fives when care proceedings are initiated or a care or supervision order is granted. When care proceedings begin, the child protection plan should not automatically be discharged. Statutory guidance is clear that a multi-agency meeting should take place to make this decision.
The Ofsted inspection framework reflects this statutory guidance and includes a focus on child protection. However, I note the noble Baroness’s concerns about children losing support at key transition points, potentially making them more vulnerable. This is why we will strengthen statutory guidance to make sure that the reason for the decision and any ongoing support is recorded.
We expect expert practitioners in multi-agency child protection teams to make decisions about plans ending. These teams bring fresh child protection expertise to concerns and will know the circumstances of the child well, so they are best placed to make these important decisions. While senior and experienced directors of children’s services should get involved only when needed, this is already provided for in the statutory framework.
Motion B relates to Amendment 5, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, requiring that the Secretary of State delay an evaluation of the families first for children pathfinder in Parliament before the multi-agency child protection team measures come into force.
Effective multi-agency child protection practice, which prevents tragedies and saves lives, needs to happen now. Delay is unacceptable. The Government will set out implementation plans covering the next phase of children’s social care reform following Royal Assent, including information about the planned pathfinder evaluation.
This summer, we expect to publish interim findings that are informing national rollout. Clause 3 also includes powers to make regulations about the functions of multi-agency child protection teams. The regulations will be subject to consultation and parliamentary scrutiny and will reflect learning from the pathfinders and national reform rollout. Regulations are not expected to come into effect until 2027, but the system is rightly changing now and we must not hinder this.
I turn finally to Motion K, relating to Amendment 44, and Motion K1, relating to Amendment 44B in lieu, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. The amendment in lieu would require parents to obtain permission from their local authority before withdrawing their child from school for home education if their child is currently, or has ever been, the subject of care or supervision order proceedings, unless the child has since been adopted. We share the noble Baroness’s commitment to ensuring that every child is safe. However, we remain unconvinced about extending the consent requirement further. Children who are the subject of such proceedings would almost always fall within existing protections, either through a child protection plan triggering the Government’s proposed consent measure or as a looked-after child whose education is already determined by the local authority through their care plan.
We recognise concerns about children previously subject to proceedings potentially being vulnerable. That is why we have extended the consent requirement to children who have been on a child protection plan in the last five years and extended the school attendance order power to these children who are already being home educated. This approach maintains the high threshold for consent to child protection action, recognises that children may be vulnerable if they are withdrawn from school within five years after a plan ends, and balances this with the reality that families can and do change.
On Report, the noble Baroness referenced the review into the tragic death of Sara Sharif. We have already amended the Bill to respond directly to its recommendations. We will pilot mandatory meetings before any child in a pilot area can be removed from school for home education, and the new power for local authorities to request to visit home-educated children in their homes will benefit the children that the noble Baroness is most concerned about. Importantly, our wider children’s social care measures also strengthen information sharing, improve early preventive support, create new multi-agency child protection teams and strengthen the role of education and childcare settings in local safeguarding arrangements. It is for these reasons that the Government disagree with these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to this group of amendments. I thank the Minister in her absence for the meetings we have had away from your Lordships’ Chamber. Clearly, protecting our young people is close to all our hearts and is something that we will keep a watching brief on. We have looked at the Government’s proposals. Early on, when I arrived at your Lordships’ House, I worked with the Children’s Commissioner and a briefing was sent to all noble Lords in June last year about something I was trying to bring forward on Report to try to make young people’s lives better. On that occasion, I failed to convince noble Lords on both the main two Benches and, as we live in a democracy, I chose not to pursue that.
I wish the Government well with their intentions. Clearly, as the opposition here—the smaller opposition—our duty will be to continue to hold the Government to account on the reassurances they have given us in briefings and, more importantly, on what they have written to us both from your Lordships’ House and the other place. These Benches are not minded to oppose what the Government are proposing, but we are putting them on notice that we will continue to watch the progress and we wish this Bill well.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Motion K1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. I thank the Bill team and the Minister for our very useful meeting yesterday, and, as ever, I must declare my interest as a state school teacher.
When we talked to the Bill team yesterday, I thought that they almost seemed to use the language of this amendment. As we have heard, the Sara Sharif review says that the overview is at fault, not the system; but this amendment seems the very way of tightening oversight without, as has been mentioned, penalising adoptive parents and children, where the concern was about a previous iteration of their life. This seems to be the crux of the amendment. The Minister actually said the Bill says that “almost all” children fall within the Bill. I think this tightens it up, so hopefully all children will fall within the purview of this Bill.
Moreover, it seems to me that, in the Bill as it stands, the local authority could not require a child who left local authority care and returned to their family, say, three years ago, to attend school, while they could for a child who came off child protection three years ago. I do not understand that at all. At the moment, I am not clear about the Bill as it stands. I think Motion K1 makes it much clearer, and I implore the Government to accept this.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has just said. As a family judge, I had a number of cases where children had been on protection orders—and, in particular, supervision orders—and I vividly recall an appalling case in Liverpool where there was a continuing supervision order that was utterly disregarded. I called the Director of Social Services to explain it, and she was absolutely thinking that it did not really matter; so everything that can be done to put added pressure on making sure that children who are home educated are kept under proper supervision by local authorities seems to me to be absolutely crucial.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I will confine myself briefly to supporting Motion B. It is commonly agreed now that the pilots of the pathfinder model in selected family courts have been a success and represent the way ahead. This model has been shown to reduce delays significantly and has forced the focus on to making things better for the child concerned, rather than on the parents’ disputes and confrontations. That model has developed sufficiently well, in that the delay in moving it on into the mainstream should really now be avoided. It means that the very recently announced expansion into child-focused courts will be welcome.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I will o speak to Motion K1, tabled by my noble friend Lady Barran. The Government are rightly acting to give local authorities the power to prevent children subject to a child protection plan being withdrawn from school. However, the scope of the Bill is clearly too limited, even with the amendment to give effect to a backward extension of five years for child protection plans.
I will briefly remind noble Lords of the characteristics of the children we are talking about. Clearly, they have all experienced abuse or neglect, but even apart from this we are talking about an exceptionally vulnerable group. Nearly three-quarters of children in care have special educational needs—often conditions they were born with that can make them particularly challenging to bring up and to educate—and often complicated physical or behavioural needs as well. Alongside that, these are children of parents whose ability to care for and protect their own children has already been shown to be inadequate, at least for a time. Even after a care order or child protection plan has been discharged, these are, in the main, children with serious challenges and complicated needs, whose parents have limited capacity. They are very often fragile families needing a lot of support and with a strong likelihood of further social care intervention being needed in future.
Therefore, there should be local authority consideration of proposals to home-educate any child who has been in care, had a supervision order or is under a child protection plan: first, to make sure that the child will actually get the education and support they need at home; and, secondly, to make sure that the child can safely be removed from view. Once a child is home-schooled, it may not be seen by any adult from outside the family for years. That may have been exactly the thing that was keeping that fragile family in balance.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I am pleased to see that, in Motion K1, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has reduced the issue to being about only Section 31 and that she has provided a carve-out, as it were, for adoption. Imagine if you adopted a two year-old who had been in care and, 10 years later, you have to jump through another bureaucratic hoop, so I am very pleased to see that. I am sorry that the Government do not have that provision within their current approach.
When I raised this in an amendment—I think it was on Report—the Minister told me that in such a case, it would be a pure formality: that, in relation to an adopted child, the local authority would simply pass it through. In your Lordships’ House, we all know that what is a formality for the local authority can be a real worry and threat for the individuals involved. It is a threat of people passing judgment on them, and that is a really important point. However, this is not the only example of people who will be inappropriately caught within this amendment and within the Government’s current approach.
I want to give one example, which is known to both the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the Minister. It is of a young boy who was abused and raped by his father. With the permission of his mother, I will read out or paraphrase a short extract from an email she sent to the Government. At the time when the care plan was created for her son, she said, he
“had made detailed disclosures of serious sexual abuse”
to the mother, to four police officers, to two doctors and a social worker
“yet the police had still not arrested the perpetrator and the family court offered … no protection”.
Under those circumstances, she said, the chair of the initial child protection conference agreed with herself, a doctor, a nurse and a police liaison officer that he should be placed on a care plan
“until his rapist had been arrested. This was done, and, I suspect, helped to speed up the arrest”,
she said.
This seems to be yet another classic case of somebody who should not be subjected to the retraumatising of going through this process again, with the possibility of receiving a school attendance order. That mother has been protecting and looking after that child, and making decisions on the way forward for the child. Being second-guessed in this way seems to me totally inappropriate.
The Minister is presumably opposing Motion K1. I would like to ask her how the Government will deal with these two issues of adopted children. In the other example, as that mother said to me, the family is not the same family as it was when the child was taken into care. It seems to me that it should be easy enough to get some kind of carve-out to pick out the point that it is only when the same circumstances pertain rather than when the child is essentially living in a different family. What guarantees will the Minister give to ensure not only that adopted children are not affected by this policy but that others, such as in the example I have used, are not affected?
I turn to the other point of Motion K1, which is that it is about anyone who has ever been in care, for whatever reason. My background is in health, and we recognise that health screening is a good thing, but sometimes it can do more harm than good. There is a danger and a parallel here, and in some of the rest of this Bill. In our zeal to do the right thing, we are in danger of doing more damage than good. If we look at the large number of people who will have to be considered—and at the enormous resources, and at the trauma that the process may put people through—I suspect that may be the case.
Let me be clear: I am in favour of a simple register. In a society where too many children disappear or are indoctrinated or abused, it is right that we should be able to identify where children are. Of course there will be rogues, but we should not treat every parent as suspicious. A very experienced local education authority officer told me that, with regard to safeguarding, they normally react to an issue or a sign, and for home education experienced home education officers know the signs. However, he added, this Bill treats everyone as guilty until proven innocent, and it is in danger of doing more harm than good.
My point in raising these issues is to ask the Minister how she will deal with the particular points that I raised about adoption, and about other people who would be inappropriately treated as though they were still in care. In addition, I ask how she will set about making sure that in the next stage of this Bill—namely, the setting of regulations that carry these things through to their impact—the Government will address some of these points and make a truly proportionate response to safeguarding.
There are plenty of home educators who are very happy to help them in this and have great experience in doing so. The vast majority of home educators, as we know, are reluctant ones. I speak partly because a member of my family adopted two children some years ago and sent them to school, but has reluctantly taken them out to home-educate them, at great sacrifice to her and to her family. That is the case for very many home educators. In passing some of what we have passed here, we must be careful to tell them that we do not think that they are all criminals, and that this needs to be a proper and proportionate response.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments regarding Motion A and the commitment to strengthen statutory guidance, and for the publication of interim findings in relation to Motion B for the multi-agency child protection teams. To the noble Lord, Lord Meston, I say that there are multiple pathfinders, and the one to which he referred—the one he was worried that my amendment might delay—was a different pathfinder from the one to which my amendment referred. It is easy to be confused with so many paths going on.
I turn to my Motion K1, and again acknowledge that the Government have done the right thing by introducing a new power for local authorities to withhold consent to home-educate a child where there are significant safeguarding concerns. Noble Lords know that we spent time testing the limits of what these concerns might be, in Committee and on Report, to ensure that they are proportionate. That has been informed in part by the tragic death of Sara Sharif, whose father took her out of school.
As we heard, in response to our debates, the Government broadened their initial definition of children who are eligible. Then, on Report, we tested the appetite of the House for a much wider scope, but this was rejected in the other place. Last night we all received a letter from Ministers that covered the response to the Sara Sharif safeguarding practice review. I have read the letter several times. I find it extraordinary that, although I explained to the Minister on Monday that my amendment would simply cover children who had been in the care system, there is no mention of those children or my amendment anywhere in the letter—unless I missed it. Either officials and Ministers do not understand the significance of care proceedings, which I find very hard to believe—particularly of the Minister at the Dispatch Box today—or there is no political will to engage with this subject. I feel uncomfortable saying this in the House but, reading the letter, that is what it feels like. Either way, it is a very unfortunate oversight.
As the Minister knows, in the hierarchy of safeguarding, the greatest concern is for children who are in care or care proceedings, where the state judges that they cannot stay safely with their birth parents. These children are at greater risk than those on a child protection plan, but the Bill as currently drafted, and the Government’s rejection of my amendment to the Motion, leaves this specific gap. As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, said, you could have two children: one who was returned to their parents three years ago, having been in care, and another who came off a child protection plan three years ago. If the parents of both children want to take them out of school, the local authority cannot have a say on the first child, but it can on the second. I am guessing that the Minister does not feel entirely comfortable about that.
When the Minister says that almost all children will fall within existing proceedings, that is almost all children except Sara Sharif. Sara Sharif was on a child protection plan at birth, but she was never on a child protection plan again and there were two sets of failed care proceedings. She is precisely the child we should all be thinking about this evening.
I will finish by quoting the Secretary of State, who made a Statement on 13 November last year when the safeguarding practice review was published. She said:
“The whole country remembers with profound sadness the tragic murder of Sara Sharif by her father and stepmother in August 2023. Aged just 10 years old, the unimaginable cruelty of Sara’s death at the hands of those who should have been her first and brightest source of love and care shocked us all … The introduction of compulsory children not in school registers will empower local authorities to better identify children who need support and protection, as will the accompanying duties on parents of eligible children and out-of-school education providers”.
I emphasise the following:
“The measures will ensure that the most vulnerable children cannot be withdrawn from school until it is confirmed that doing so would be in their best interests”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/11/25; col. 31WS.]
Outside this place, people will judge us not by what we said but by what we did. Let us be crystal-clear: without my amendment, these measures will not ensure that the most vulnerable children cannot be withdrawn from school until it is confirmed that doing so would be in their best interests. When the next serious case review happens—and sadly it will—I hope the House will remember this debate and the chance we had to do the right thing tonight by supporting my amendment when we come to vote later.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I am exceptionally grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I recognise the commitment and contribution they have all made during the passage of the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, for not pursuing any of the points further, as he said.
To address the main points raised, as I said in my opening speech, I fully recognise the importance of what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve with Amendment 2 on the discharge of child protection plans. I hope I have provided reassurance that, although the statutory framework already requires robust multi-agency oversight of child protection plans, we will strengthen expectations for reasons to be recorded.
Baroness Barran (Con)
Can the noble Baroness acknowledge that in the case of Sara Sharif and many other children—she will be aware of the report into the 41 children who were home-educated and were either killed or seriously harmed—the current system clearly does not work and that this small but important loophole could be closed by my amendment? I would be grateful if she could confirm that that is this case.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
The Minister needs to respond.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I cannot express my sadness enough about the issues that the noble Baroness raises, but I am seeking to reassure her and the House that the provisions we are bringing in will be sufficient as we move forward. That is the issue. I think the Minister she referred to from the conversation on Monday was the Minister in the other place, not me. I am sorry that she is not satisfied with the letter, but I know that he went into meticulous detail and I am confident that he responded.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am sorry, but the meticulous detail in the letter did not refer anywhere to children in care or those who had been in care proceedings. It referred to my previous amendment and children who were classified as being in need. I will let the noble Baroness progress.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
Perhaps if I continue with my comments, the noble Baroness can intervene if appropriate.
I reassure all noble Lords that the child would almost certainly be caught by the Government’s proposed consent measure due to a child protection plan, or by being a looked-after child, and therefore education provision would be a matter for the local authority to decide. Family hubs also provide support through targeted multidisciplinary support for vulnerable children. However, I want to reassure noble Lords that, as we move into implementation of the policy, we will continue to engage with noble Lords. Should it become clear that the proposal to extend consent to children who are currently, or were historically, the subject of care or supervision orders or proceedings would strengthen the policy substantially and improve protection for this wider group of children, we would, of course, be open to considering how it could be delivered.
Where a care or supervision order is no longer in place, and the child was not subject to a current protection plan or had not been in the last five years, it would be appropriate to require consent. Children who have returned home after a care or supervision order are already supervised by the local authority, and where the child is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm, child protection plans apply. The information-sharing duty included in the Bill will make sure agencies are talking to each other when there are concerns about a child, ensuring appropriate escalation. Using historic Section 31 orders as a blanket trigger could unfairly brand families long after risks have reduced.
The independent review into Sara’s death was clear that there were long-term, broader multi-agency failings that resulted in Sara not receiving the level of protection she needed. Extending the consent requirement to all children who are ever subject to supervision order proceedings was not actually a recommendation of the review. Instead, it highlighted the need for stronger multi-agency practice, information sharing, early identification of risk and better decision-making. Those are exactly the reforms that this Bill delivers. Of course, for further reassurance, we will include specific sign-off of child protection plans for children entering proceedings, in consultation with multi-agency child protection team regulations.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for her contribution on the matter of evidence for multi-agency child protection teams. I hope she is now reassured and that I have set out how the findings from the independent Families First for Children pathfinder evaluation will be used and shared. We are also confident that there is strong evidence from evaluations on multi-agency safeguarding hubs, strengthening families and supporting families programmes and youth offending teams, which all demonstrate how effectively multi-agency working improves outcomes for children. Most importantly, I remind the House once more that the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, which means there is already adequate provision in place for parliamentary scrutiny ahead of the regulations coming into force.
On Motion K1, which would expand the home education consent requirement, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions. The Government are committed to ensuring that every child receives a safe, suitable education. The Bill’s current requirements strike the right balance, extending them to all children who have ever been the subject of care or supervision proceedings. They would capture children already benefiting from appropriate checks and would not risk indefinitely stigmatising families who have made sustainable changes. I note the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, but, having worked with families in this space, I can say that this is an issue. Stigmatisation is a very real thing for many families.
I recognise, of course, concerns that the current consent requirement would not have prevented Sara Sharif being removed from school. However, the home education measures are one part of the system that safeguards children, and we have also made significant changes to reform and strengthen child protection in the Bill. The Bill strengthens the wider children’s social care system and the children not in school measures, which directly responds to some of the recommendations and adds targeted safeguards where children can become less visible. Of course, I recognise the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, that home-educated parents very often have a great deal to offer from their experience in this area.
In closing, I urge noble Lords to resist Motion K1 and I commend Motion A.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 5, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5A.
5A: Because learning from the Families First for Children Pathfinder will be published and inform regulations under clause 3 and the Amendment would unnecessarily delay implementation of the legislative framework in the clause required to deliver multi-agency child protection teams.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 16, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 16A.
16A: Because the Commons does not consider the review proposed by the Amendment to be necessary in light of the ongoing public consultation on adoption and special guardianship support services.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move Motion C and shall speak also to Motions D, E, F and F1. In this group, we will be debating amendments made in this House relating to the adoption and special guardianship support fund, sibling contact, regional co-operation arrangements and deprivation of liberty. For each, I will set out why the Government cannot accept these amendments.
I will speak to Motion C, relating to Amendment 16, originally tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, concerning a proposed review of the per-child funding level for the adoption and special guardianship support fund. The Government have confirmed £55 million for the support fund in 2026-27, with continuation into 2027-28. A 12-week public consultation on adoption support is under way, seeking evidence on what best supports adopted children and outlining eight proposals for a future system. Introducing the review proposed in the amendment could potentially inhibit balanced consideration of the consultation responses. We therefore cannot accept this.
Motion D relates to Amendment 17, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield. As we have previously set out, the amendment will not alter the duties placed on local authorities. There is already a requirement in regulations for local authorities to record in the care plan any contact arrangements made between a looked-after child and any sibling with whom they are not living. This is why the Government do not support this amendment.
Instead, we propose Amendment 17B in lieu, to add siblings to Section 34 of the Children Act 1989. This will make clear the expectations on local authorities to allow reasonable contact between children in care and their whole, half and step-siblings where this is consistent with their welfare: a duty that already exists for contact been children in care and their parents. I acknowledge Liberal Democrat Peers’ constructive engagement, including from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, and acknowledge in the other place the honourable Member for South Shields, Emma Lewell. Both have tirelessly campaigned for many years on the importance of relationships for children in care, and I therefore urge noble Lords to support this amendment.
Motion E relates to Amendment 19, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham. This amendment seeks to include integrated care boards in regional co-operation arrangements. The Government agree that health partners play a vital role in improving outcomes for looked-after children. However, existing duties under Sections 10 and 16E, 16G and 16J of the Children Act 2004 already require local authorities to co-operate with relevant partners, including ICBs, to promote children’s well-being. These duties will continue to apply to authorities entering into regional co-operation agreements. Following helpful discussions on Report, and with the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals, it is clear that these duties could be implemented more consistently.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Motion D and briefly to Motion F. I place on record the fact that I am extremely grateful to the Government for bringing forward Amendment 17B in lieu, in response to the amendments that I tabled in Committee and on Report. It is a major step forward in strengthening and protecting children in care’s relationships with their brothers and sisters, including half- and step-siblings. I am particularly grateful that the wording of the government amendment is broad and inclusive—something I very much support, as we discussed in earlier stages. I thank the Minister, Minister MacAlister and the Bill team for their very constructive engagement on this issue.
Over the years, I have heard directly from care-experienced children and young people about the absolutely crushing impact of not having consistent or adequate contact with their siblings. Sometimes their siblings are the only other people who know, who understand, who have shared experiences of what they have been through and the emotional distress it has caused them. They are the ones who can provide mutual support; it is a lifelong bond. So this amendment is a really important step forward in ensuring that contact with siblings is given the same weight in legislation as contact with parents.
Getting to this point has felt like a long journey. I place on record my heartfelt thanks to the colleagues across the House and in the other place who have supported us in getting through this process. I also thank two charities, Become and the Family Rights Group, for their unwavering support; they have campaigned on this issue for many years. It is vital that this change, which I hope we will see in legislation, drives practice so that all children who are separated from their siblings are supported in having the contact with their brothers and sisters that they need, whenever it is in their best interests to do so. I will be monitoring this with great care.
I turn briefly to Motion F and the deprivation of liberty. It is quite a complex subject, so I will not go into all the ins and outs, but I think we can all agree that the needs of children who are deprived of their liberty is something to which we need to give serious thought and attention, particularly in understanding better the increasing use of deprivation of liberty orders. I commend the work that the Nuffield Observatory has been doing in this area, because these children’s needs—including the help and support that they need, however they are funded—clearly require a package that involves health, social care, education and sometimes criminal justice. It needs to be effective. It needs to be a fully integrated package of health and support; at the heart of this is how that would best be delivered.
I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to see the letter to which she referred, which was sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, about what is going on in this area. I read very carefully about what is happening in relation to the deprivation of liberty. I am encouraged that the work the Government are taking forward now has a national programme to try to understand the evidence better and to understand the options around things such as pooled budgets and the like. As I understand it, there are pilots taking place, with some more in train. Importantly, there is funding to test better-integrated, joined-up working and ideas for pooled budgets, improved collaboration, et cetera. It is encouraging that that is taking place.
My understanding—I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm this—is that that work is being backed up by £15.5 million of DfE funding over the next three years. I would also be grateful if, given the concerns that have been raised in this area, the House could be provided regular updates on this programme, including on the outcomes and the key findings that it is delivering.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I gently remind all noble Lords that, if they wish to speak, they should do so before the Official Opposition wind up, and that they should not be repeating lengthy arguments that have already been debated in Committee and on Report. Should they speak, they should speak briefly and to the amendments.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I was going to be brief in agreeing with what the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, just said and in welcoming Motion D, because the Government’s proposed amendment in lieu, which relates to sibling contact, is to be welcomed; indeed, it is a pleasant surprise. It promotes the local authority’s duty from the schedule to the Children Act to Section 34 of the Act, and reinforces it as a positive duty to allow contact between siblings; at the same time, it gives the court a major say in the type of contact, the level of contact and how it should progress.
Through their amendment, the Government have recognised in primary legislation the real significance of sibling relationships, particularly when siblings have to be separated and have differing needs. These are children whose parents have failed them, and the most important relationship left to them is with a sibling. The courts and legal professionals are familiar with the working of Section 34, which will now govern these cases, and the amendment will be a valuable, beneficial addition to it.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I chaired a Select Committee on adoption some years ago and very much welcome this sibling amendment. It is absolutely excellent. I remember we met a number of children who were in care. One boy of 15, with four younger brothers and sisters, said to us, “No one tells me how my brothers and sisters are getting on—I brought them up”. This is excellent, and the Government are very much to be congratulated on it.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, like other noble Lords, we very much welcome the Government’s amendment in relation to sibling contact and hope very much it makes a tangible difference in practice. I will speak briefly to my Motion F1, which relates to how we can provide the highest-quality care for the most vulnerable children: those who are deprived of their liberty. As we have already debated, this must involve the local authority and the integrated care board.
The Minister will be very familiar with the difficulty of getting health to the table, even if the door is often held wide open by the local authority. But of course the cost of them not being there is borne by children, whose cases end up being repeatedly delayed because of disputes between health and social care as to who is responsible, who are moved from placement to placement without any join-up, and who attend emergency services without up-to-date information about their needs. My amendment would go some way to addressing this.
However, I am encouraged by the Minister’s promise—which is what I wrote down in very large letters, anyway—that the integrated care board involvement would be “locked in from the outset”. If that is what the Government are going to do, and if the Government are going to create some innovation funding opportunities to see true integrated work between health and social care, then I am grateful to the Government and look forward to following how that develops in practice.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for all the contributions to this debate. I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for her comments, and also say that I am totally confident she will keep a good check on how this goes forward. I am very appreciative of her role.
The Government recognise the vital role of adopters and kinship carers and the need for timely, appropriate support. That is why we are continuing to fund the adoption and special guardianship support. The department is also consulting widely on the future of adoption support, with over 600 responses received already and consultation events planned after Easter. Therefore, with the ongoing work, we do not believe a further review is necessary.
I note all of the comments from around the Chamber recognising the importance of the work we have done in adding siblings to Section 34 of the Children Act. I am sure that makes the Government’s commitment absolutely clear and I very much welcome the support of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Meston. We are committed to best practice in helping children to see their siblings; it is a huge step forward for the experience of so many young people.
I put on record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, for highlighting through his Amendment 19 the importance of health involvement in the creation of regional co-operation arrangements. Just to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, I was very fortunate in having very good relationships with health colleagues, and I know through that the potential of when we get it right. I fully agree that integrated care boards need to move forward. The statutory mechanisms will be strengthened through the detailed guidance we will publish, alongside the expression of interest for the next wave of regional care co-operatives. I reiterate that this will require relevant ICBs to state their commitment as we go forward. I hope that gives noble Lords the reassurance they require. A financial incentive is an excellent way of moving forward. Therefore, we do not believe the amendment is required.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 17, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 17A, and do propose Amendment 17B in lieu—
17A: Because the Commons does not consider the review proposed by the Amendment to be necessary in light of the ongoing public consultation on adoption and special guardianship support services.
“Sibling contact with children in care
In section 34 of the Children Act 1989 (parental contact etc. with children in care)—
(a) in subsection (1)—
(i) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (c), and
(ii) at the end of paragraph (d) insert “; and
(e) any brother or sister (whether of the whole or half blood) or step-brother or step-sister (whether by marriage or civil partnership) of the child.”;
(b) in subsection (4), for “(d)” substitute “(e)”;
(c) in subsection (8), in paragraph (za), for “(d)” substitute “(e)”.”
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 19, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 19A.
19A: Because the Commons does not consider the Amendment to be necessary in light of existing arrangements that ensure local authorities work together with integrated care boards in discharging functions for the purpose of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 21, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 21A.
21A: Because the Amendment would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 37 and 38 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 38A, 38B, 38C and 38D in lieu.
“Power to require internet service providers to restrict access by children to certain internet services
(1) The Online Safety Act 2023 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 214 insert—
“Power to require internet service providers to restrict access by children to certain internet services
214A Power to require internet service providers to restrict access by children to certain internet services
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring providers of specified internet services—
(a) to prevent access by children of or under a specified age to specified internet services which they provide, or to specified features or functionalities of such services;
(b) to restrict access by children of or under a specified age to specified internet services which they provide, or to specified features or functionalities of such services.
(2) The provision that may be made by regulations under this section includes—
(a) provision about the steps that must or may be taken by a provider for the purposes of complying with a requirement imposed by the regulations;
(b) provision about the monitoring of compliance with a requirement imposed by the regulations;
(c) provision about the enforcement of a requirement imposed by the regulations.
(3) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (1)(b) includes provision requiring a provider to limit—
(a) the amount of time per day, or over the course of a specified period, for which children may access the service or a specified feature or functionality of the service;
(b) the times of day at which children may access the service or a specified feature or functionality of the service.
(4) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (2)(c) includes provision for a requirement to be an enforceable requirement for the purposes of Chapter 6 of Part 7.
(5) Regulations under this section may—
(a) make provision applying any provision of this Act (with or without modifications);
(b) make provision for exceptions to requirements imposed by the regulations;
(c) make provision about the time by which, or period within which, a thing must be done;
(d) make provision by reference to standards, arrangements, specifications or technical requirements as published from time to time;
(e) confer functions on a person, including functions involving the exercise of a discretion, and make provision in connection with the procedure for exercising the functions;
(f) make consequential provision.
(6) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (5)(f) may amend or repeal primary legislation.
(7) OFCOM must, so far as reasonably practicable—
(a) carry out such research or provide such advice as the Secretary of State may request for the purposes of making regulations under this section, and
(b) do so by such time, or within such period, as the Secretary of State may specify in the request.
(8) As soon as reasonably practicable after providing advice under subsection (7), OFCOM must publish the advice.
(9) In this section—
“primary legislation” means—
(a) an Act of Parliament,
(b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament,
(c) an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru, or
(d) Northern Ireland legislation;
“specified” means specified, or of a description specified, in regulations under this section.”
(3) In section 225 (parliamentary procedure for regulations), in subsection (1), after paragraph (e) insert—
“(ea) regulations under section 214A(1),”.”
“Age of consent in relation to processing of a child’s personal data: information society services
(1) Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data is amended as follows.
(2) In Article 8 (child's consent in relation to information society services), after paragraph 2 insert—
“2A. The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) amend paragraph 1 so as to change the age for the time being specified in that paragraph (but not to an age lower than 13 years or higher than 16 years);
(b) make provision in relation to services specified, or of a description specified, in the regulations for a different age to apply for the purposes of paragraph 1 (but not lower than 13 years or higher than 16 years).
2B. Regulations under paragraph 2A are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”.
(3) After Article 8, insert—
“Article 8ZA
Child’s consent in relation to information society services: age verification
1. The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about verifying—
(a) that a data subject who has given consent to the processing of his or her personal data in relation to the offer of information society services is at least the age for the time being specified in Article 8(1);
(b) in the case of a service specified, or of a description specified, in regulations under Article 8(2A)(b), that a data subject who has given consent to the processing of his or her personal data in relation to the offer of information society services is at least the age for the time being applicable by virtue of those regulations in relation to that service or description of service.
2. The provision that may be made by regulations under paragraph 1 includes—
(a) provision imposing requirements on persons specified, or of a description specified, in the regulations;
(b) provision about the steps that must or may be taken by such persons for the purposes of complying with a requirement imposed by the regulations;
(c) provision about the monitoring of compliance with a requirement imposed by the regulations;
(d) provision about the enforcement of a requirement imposed by the regulations.
3. Regulations under paragraph 1 may—
(a) make provision amending, repealing, revoking or applying (with or without modifications) any provision of the data protection legislation (within the meaning given by section 3(9) of the Data Protection Act 2018);
(b) make provision for exceptions to requirements imposed by the regulations;
(c) make provision about the time by which, or period within which, a thing must be done;
(d) make provision by reference to standards, arrangements, specifications or technical requirements as published from time to time;
(e) confer functions on a person, including functions involving the exercise of a discretion, and make provision in connection with the procedure for exercising the functions.
4. Regulations under this Article are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
5. In paragraph 1, the reference to information society services does not include preventive or counselling services.””
“(aa) section (Power to prevent or restrict access by children to certain internet services);
(ab) section (Age of consent in relation to processing of a child’s personal data: information society services);”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, in speaking to Motion G, I will also speak to Motions G1, G2, N and N1. Lords Amendment 37 requires the Secretary of State to introduce regulations that prohibit under 18s from using VPNs. Amendment 38 requires the UK Chief Medical Officers to publish advice about children’s use of social media and requires us to make regulations to prevent under-16s from accessing user-to-user services within 12 months.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Nash, for his continued commitment to these important issues. Protecting children online remains a priority for this Government. The noble Lord’s amendments require us to legislate for an under-16 ban on social media. Many noble Lords have declared that they do not support an under-16 ban but are supporting this amendment to push the Government to do more. I assure the House that the Government will do more, meaning there is no reason to support this amendment.
The Online Safety Act introduced one of the most robust systems globally and we have already taken action to build on it. We have created new priority offences under the Act and we are closing gaps for unregulated chatbots. We know many people support a social media ban for under-16s, but other respected voices are concerned it is not the right approach. That is why the Government’s consultation is the responsible path forward. The consultation seeks views on the areas raised by the noble Lord’s Motion and beyond, including harms from gaming and AI chatbots. We have already received over 30,000 responses from experts, parents and young people. It is right we assess these properly, but we are clear we will take further action.
Turning to VPNs, I understand the noble Lord’s concerns, but I believe that a consultation is the best way to consider the issue. We are determined to act swiftly on the issues once the consultation has concluded, and we will respond by the end of the summer. That is why we have tabled amendments enabling us to act quickly and decisively on its findings through regulation-making powers. We fully recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny in this process, and I can confirm that any regulations brought forward will require a vote in both Houses of Parliament.
Amendments 38E, 38F and 38G, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, would introduce a new duty of care on the providers of internet services and regulation-making powers to be introduced within six months. The amendments propose a review of Ofcom’s powers. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her continued dedication to these issues. The Online Safety Act introduced enforceable duties on platforms to protect their child users, but we have always said there is more to do. Already the Government are building on the Act, including through their consultation, which addresses the types of services and considerations set out in the noble Baroness’s amendment. The Government’s amendment provides the legislative means to achieve this, and I reassure the House our intention is to act swiftly.
On enforcement, Ofcom has the Government’s full backing to use all the considerable enforcement levers at its disposal. The Act includes a statutory post-implementation review, which must consider the effectiveness of these powers. We will not hesitate to strengthen the law if it is needed to keep children safe.
I therefore hope noble Lords will support the Government’s amendment, which provides a responsible, evidence-based and workable route to the outcomes we all want to achieve. We have been clear that it is not if we act but how.
I will move on to Motion N, relating to Amendment 106, and Motion N1, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, who insists on this amendment. Amendment 106 would prohibit the use and possession of mobile phones during the school day. However, we know that the majority of schools already have policies that prohibit mobile phones, so the issue is not about new legislation. What changes pupil behaviour is enforcement backed by a whole-school approach to behaviour management.
We have published strengthened guidance. We have asked our network of attendance and behaviour hubs to provide targeted support to schools. From April, Ofsted will inspect schools’ mobile phone policies. For example, evidence that mobile phone use is contributing to behaviour issues, bullying, mental health issues or belonging will make it likely that the expected standard for attendance and behaviour is not being met, and this will be reflected in Ofsted’s final reports.
To conclude, I am grateful for the constructive engagement and hope noble Lords will support the Government’s amendments and reject the alternative amendments proposed. I beg to move.
Motion G1 (as an amendment to Motion G)
Lord Nash
Leave out from “its” to end and insert “Amendment 37, do insist on its Amendment 38 and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 38A, 38B, 38C and 38D in lieu.”
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, in moving Motion G1, concerning my social media amendment, as an amendment to Motion G, I will support the spirit of the Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.
I believe we need a dual-track approach. I pay tribute to those noble tech Lords, many of whom are here tonight, who worked so tirelessly on the Online Safety Act, but now it clearly needs updating and strengthening. Nobody could have foreseen the pace of technological change that has taken place in recent years. I believe that, in relation to children, we should have a dual-track approach to social media, which puts the onus squarely on the companies to make their products safe for children, as we would with any other product, using safety-by-design principles.
I have been a director of tech companies in California. The Californian techies are some of the most able, innovative, entrepreneurial, wealth-creating and job-creating people in the world. However, in the cavalier approach that they have taken to harmful content online for our children, they have gone way too far in prioritising their commercial instincts. We need to act now in a way that is truly effective—and of course we know that many of these techies do not let their own children anywhere near social media.
I do not need to spend much time talking about the clear evidence and causal link between social media and harm to our children, but I was horrified to hear the right honourable Liz Kendall say on the radio a few weeks ago that there is no proven causal link. Where has she been? This shows just how far behind the A ball the Government are in their thinking and why we can have no faith in the outcome of the consultation.
I provided noble Lords with an evidence document compiled by health professionals and others, showing the harmful effects of social media from 50 examples. Every day, I receive more research from around the world from experienced academics, health professionals and others to the same effect. This includes evidence from whistleblowers at social media companies about their company’s own internal research, showing clearly, based on the very extensive data available to them, the harms to children of social media. In recent days, the chief executive of Pinterest, a social media company with 600 million customers, has said that we are living through the largest social experiment in history and that social media, as it is configured today, is not safe for children under 16. As the Prime Minister of Greece said recently, when announcing measures similar to those dealt with in my Motion, as so many other countries have done, “The evidence is unambiguous”.
Only minutes ago, a court in Los Angeles found that Meta and Google were negligent and intentionally built addictive social media platforms, after a 20 year-old woman said that her early use of social media was addictive and made her depression worse. This comes after a court yesterday in New Mexico found that Meta is harmful to children’s mental health and fined it $375 million. These cases will likely influence the hundreds of similar cases now winding their way through the US courts.
There has been some comment in the press and by honourable Members in the other place that children’s charities are not united in their approach to protecting children online. I am delighted to be able to tell noble Lords that I have had extensive discussions with charitable and civil society organisations across the sector and there is broad agreement that an age-based restriction on harmful platforms should operate alongside full-throated enforcement of and increased potency of the Online Safety Act.
I turn to the consultation, and it is a shocker. It does not even satisfy the Government’s own consultation principles that such exercises should be clear and accessible—it has 62 questions, which I understand many parents have given up on after answering just a few—or that it should be targeted at appropriate stakeholders, as opposed to severely prejudicing parents’ ability to contribute. It has no structured engagement for front-line professionals such as clinicians, social workers and police, with no transparency as to how evidence would be used. The Government may have 30,000 responses but, given the length of the consultation document, I very much doubt that that represents a cross-section of society or the national conversation that they want. Market research professionals tell me that this would not begin to pass muster in a market research study. Some questions require technical or specialist knowledge, there is little information on how responses will be weighted between different groups, and it goes out of its way to emphasise, in square boxes, the benefits of social media without balancing sufficiently the disbenefits.
I turn to Commons Amendments 38A to 38D, and in particular Amendment 38A, which contains a very broad power enabling the Government to make changes to any Act of Parliament. There are many noble Lords here who are far more capable of pronouncing on this than I am.
This consultation and the amendments that the Government have tabled represent a blank cheque, with no definite timescale for action and no obligation to do anything. I have no doubt that no action has happened with the gender identity in schools consultation results—when they eventually came—and that they will require further lengthy consultation. I strongly suspect that this cheque will come back marked “insufficient action”.
Lastly, I pay tribute to the 21 bereaved parents who support my amendment, many of whom are here in the Public Gallery. I thank them for their hard work, their commitment and the fact that they are here—but I wish they were not, because I wish they did not have to be. I do not want to stand here in six or 12 months’ time, banging the same old drum, with even more bereaved parents in the Public Gallery. I urge noble Lords to support my amendment by agreeing to my Motion G1. I beg to move.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I support my noble friend Lord Nash and Motion G1 following his amazingly powerful speech. I also suggest that Commons Amendments 38A and 38B be rejected on constitutional grounds as they would give Ministers unacceptably wide Henry VIII powers. I declare my membership of the Constitution Committee, but of course I am not speaking on its behalf.
I draw your Lordships’ attention to seven features of these amendments. First, there is the power to amend other Acts of Parliament. Secondly, powers are given to the Secretary of State to restrict access by children of an age to be determined by the Secretary of State. In other words, it is not for Parliament to determine the age.
Thirdly, these amendments apply to any internet service, site, feature or functionality. It is not restricted to social media, which of course is my noble friend Lord Nash’s main objective. Rather, it applies to any internet service, including news services and search engines; that is unacceptably wide. Fourthly, and as importantly, nothing is said about the criteria on which these powers are to be exercised. There is no mention of harm, or of any rules or other constraints on the power of the Secretary of State.
Fifthly, there are provisions that enable the Secretary of State, in effect, to impose curfews—one must not listen at night or at certain times of the day. Sixthly, there is the power to impose time limits, such as half an hour a day, 40 minutes or two hours. These are very wide powers. Finally, there are provisions about mandating digital ID checks and setting an age of consent somewhere between the ages of nine and 13.
The essential point is that no Executive should have the power to restrict access to the entire online space, by children or anyone else, without clear limits defined in advance by Parliament in primary legislation, specifying in particular the age at which and the grounds on which such restrictions should apply, the limits of such restrictions and clear safeguards to protect democratic scrutiny. The correct approach is for the Government to continue with their consultation. When they have the information that they need, taking account of my noble friend Lord Nash’s criticisms of the consultation, and are fully equipped to deal with this, they should bring back to Parliament a Bill in which all these important matters are properly defined. The powers in question should be properly framed, rather than being rushed through, as they are now, on a Henry VIII basis.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy; I will reiterate the points that they have been making.
The amendments pose the question of how best to make meaningful change to online safety law for our children. We must choose between two possible options. The first, as the noble Lord, Lord Nash, proposes in Amendments 37 and 38, is to make the changes through primary legislation, setting out the nature and extent of the changes to online safety in this Bill, with the finer details left to regulations. The second option, as the Government propose in Amendments 38A to 38D, is by delegating to the Executive the nature and extent of the changes to online safety by means of sweeping Henry VIII powers. These powers would enable Ministers to modify any provision of the Online Safety Act 2023, amend or repeal any provision of primary legislation to make consequential changes, and amend, repeal, revoke or modify any provision of our data protection legislation.
The first option is transparent and gives the decision on the nature and extent of the changes to Parliament by means of the strongest method of scrutiny and accountability in our constitution—primary legislation. Those changes would have to be implemented by the Secretary of State within a boundary set by Parliament in the primary legislation. The second option requires blind faith that the Government will in fact do anything at all—and, if they do, it means accepting a lesser form of scrutiny and accountability in the form of secondary legislation, which can be debated but not amended. It is very much a “take it or leave it” approach to whatever the Government come up with.
For example, the secondary legislation that the Government might at some point bring forward could provide that what is unsuitable for children on social media is entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State, taking into account the extent to which the platform in question displays what the Secretary of State considers to be political bias, gender-critical views, the promotion of religious beliefs et cetera. There would be nothing in the primary legislation to constrain the Secretary of State when deciding which services should be restricted for children and how. Parliament would then have to either accept the secondary legislation in its entirety or reject the whole package.
For my part, I overwhelmingly prefer the first option. Whatever one’s view on the substance of what we are debating, it is a seismic and controversial cultural change for our children and parents. It imposes significant legal constraints on internet service providers and puts heavy monitoring and enforcement duties on Ofcom. The public need to have reassurance that the nature and extent of this huge change have been decided in the most robust way for which our cherished parliamentary democracy allows—unquestionably, that is primary legislation.
The Attorney-General, in his much-lauded Bingham lecture in 2024, said that “excessive reliance on delegated powers”, including
“Henry VIII clauses … upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive. This not only strikes at the rule of law … but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty”,
and raises
“real questions about how we are governed”.
Does the Minister agree with her Attorney-General and, if so, how does she reconcile that with Amendments 38A to 38D?
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, although the Government’s amendments have been put forward as a signal of their determination to act, sadly they commit to nothing. They simply buy the Minister a bit more time and the opportunity, at some unknown moment in the future, to push through a compromise half-measure with minimal parliamentary scrutiny. I am appalled at this thought on this crucial issue. The Government are asking Peers to take a gamble on our children’s safety. They are placing their faith in a consultation that delivers nothing but more and more delay.
Regulating social media companies and keeping our children safe online are among the most defining challenges of our time. That is why we should vote for the cross-party amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, which would raise the age to 16 within 12 months for the most harmful platforms—to be written into law before the summer. It is the safest option for our children at this time.
The Government’s complex, 62-question consultation is heavily framed towards the positive benefits of social media rather than towards the horrific harms which front-line professionals report every single day. On age assurance, the perceived downside is emphasised over obvious benefits. There is no clear process for managing conflicts of interest within the technology industry. How can this consultation be trusted? Reliable findings are precisely what this issue demands.
It is also worrying that the Government have introduced a Henry VIII clause which would give sweeping powers via secondary legislation, leaving little or no opportunity for this House to consider or scrutinise such measures. It would mean that the Government could dodge any scrutiny of their ultimate choice. This cannot be allowed to happen, because we would not be able to amend it. We would be able only to accept or reject it in full.
We are gambling with our children’s lives. That is why I strongly believe that the cross-party amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, is the safest, most common-sense option. We must not forget that every single day that we delay, more harms are done to the nation’s children. Do we want that? Their mental and physical well-being are under relentless attack. Let us not delay but do what we can to prevent this attack happening as soon as possible. I urge the Government to accept this amendment.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, Motion G2 is in my name. I shall speak also to all the other amendments in this group.
I think we have acknowledged that everybody in this House wishes to protect children, but there is a vast difference of opinion in respect of our approach and the Government’s sense of urgency. If I understood the Minister’s argument in setting out the Government’s position, it was that Ofcom would take responsibility and that it had sufficient powers. Many of us were in this Chamber earlier when the chasm between Ofcom’s powers on paper and its ability to impact on survivors was laid bare. If people do not feel the impact of the law, and if the lived experience of children and the ability of parents to get help are not properly impacted, the law has failed. This is central to the problem and to the debate that we are having here tonight.
I think the House knows that I prefer to speak not of banning children but of banning products which are poorly designed and unsafe to have access to our children. That may appear to be a subtle point, but it is hugely important, because access to children must be conditional on treating them fairly and safely. Equally, many of us would like to see age-appropriate services, designed by companies with children in mind, be available to children. Motion G2 sets out that conditionality. Experts and campaigners across the sector contributed to its drafting—in short form, it is what we want from government. Frankly, it is what the Government promised when in opposition.
Since we last debated this issue, barely two months ago, researchers found that AI chatbots are becoming one of the most dangerous technologies for promoting violence against women and girls. The Internet Watch Foundation reported a staggering 26,000% increase last year in the number of AI-generated child sexual abuse materials. Specialist police email me to alert me to offenders using TikTok’s virtual gift system to incentivise children to perform sexual or compromising acts. Alexa+ has arrived in the UK, despite American parents raising their concerns about very young children being lulled into close friendships and about inappropriate language, including it asking to look at a child’s underwear. While we consult, children are harmed in real time. We cannot afford to wait.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I add one point to the powerful speeches that have been made in support of the noble Lord, Lord Nash. It is very important that noble Lords understand that the Minister is inviting the House to support Amendments 38A and 38B, neither of which imposes any obligation whatsoever on the Government. Those amendments simply confer a power on Ministers to introduce regulations. If those government amendments were approved, it would be entirely consistent for Ministers thereafter to do absolutely nothing whatsoever. Given the gravity of the mischief that we are addressing and the urgency of addressing that mischief, that seems to me to be an entirely unacceptable position.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I pick up on one issue that the Minister mentioned in her opening speech. To paraphrase, she said, “If, after consultation, there is a decision to act”. I hope that she is getting the sense tonight that the House is already very much of the opinion that it is not an if; it is a call to action, which has been made so powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Nash.
As we have already heard from a number of noble Lords, having spent many hours debating online safety issues in this House, we have seen progress with the Online Safety Act, but more is to come. There is a simplicity in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Nash. We should send it back to the House of Commons and ask them to think about it again. If the Government decide in the Commons that they are still going to resist, disagree to the amendment and send it back, we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that there is a way forward so that it is not, as we have just heard, left to regulators or the Government to decide to act if they feel like it. There is a power in the Bill before us—we do not have to wait for the next online safety Act—to protect young people from harmful content online.
I urge Ministers to take the opportunity offered by the Bill being amended again this evening and going back to the other place—as I suspect it will—to really listen and engage with those of us who want to act now to protect young people from the harmful material that we absolutely know is, as we have heard, doing them no good online.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the government consultation, but I am distressed by how very wide its scope is and, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, how very vague the outcomes seem to be.
The arguments that I put forward in my AI chatbot amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill also apply here. These amendments will allow the Secretary of State to age-gate any internet service or function. She will be able to determine at what age and by what methods a platform can be restricted. Any regulations under these powers will not be able to be amended by Parliament. All the arguments made by noble Lords last week about the severely limited parliamentary scrutiny of regulations are just as concerning this week with these amendments.
I support the Government carrying out a consultation on a social media ban for under-16s. Evidence of the effect of such a powerful measure needs to be examined and responded to. But I urge the Minister to look at the important changes that would be made to the Government’s amendment by Amendment 38E from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.
The government consultation needs to have parameters, which are provided by her amendment, as she has already set out. Many are issues that do not seem to have been covered by the Online Safety Act—addiction, different developmental ages, unsolicited contact and live-streaming. The restriction of these harms to children could be rapidly implemented under the amendment by the prospect of tech companies facing business disruption measures. These are the enforcement measures that so many of us campaigning against online harms have been calling for. All these issues would be considered not in a consultation without time limit but in one that must conclude within six months. I call on the Minister to take on board the concerns expressed in Amendment 38E and put them into action.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, as mentioned earlier, Google and Meta were today found in the Supreme Court of California to be guilty of causing pain and suffering to a plaintiff who had brought the case. The jury has initially ruled that $3 million in damages will be paid for that pain and suffering. The jury is now considering punitive damages for malice and fraud. I put it to your Lordships’ House that today we are the jury. We have heard about the malice and fraud that these companies are visiting on so many of our children and, indeed, on their unfortunate parents. We as the jurors should deliberate today and give a resounding verdict.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief, because others have spoken so eloquently. I support my noble friend Lord Nash in his heroic efforts to stop social media for under-16s, and I support the spirit of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, as well.
I feel that I must represent the army of parents out there who are bitterly disappointed that the Government are failing to act decisively and quickly. A consultation is always code for a fudge. We have been there; we know what that is. The Government’s amendments are presented as action, but in reality they offer very little certainty. They create space for delay and a future compromise that may arrive with limited scrutiny, as we have heard so eloquently put.
We are being asked to accept a risk, and not an abstract one. It is a risk with our children’s safety and it offers an olive branch—a wholly inappropriate olive branch now, with all the court rulings that we are hearing about—to social media companies that have already done so much damage to our children and their childhoods. They must be absolutely delighted with this compromise that the Government have come up with. I predict that, over the coming months, there will be a PR blitz about how great they are, how concerned they are with safety and how much safety by design they are putting into progress—all of which will no doubt have to be policed by us, the parents.
Instagram’s recent effort, which I am sure it wants a medal for, was to alert parents who have put the highly complicated safety notices on that their child is searching for self-harm material. Here is an idea: let us stop them seeing that material in the first place. Like so many families, we are constantly negotiating this space: what is allowed, what is not, what feels safe, what suddenly does not feel safe. Something that seems harmless can very quickly change. The point that the Pinterest boss made is very powerful, because a lot of these sites that feel harmless are in fact constantly trying to sell content to our children.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I too support very strongly the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I am not going to say anything about it because it has been very well said already by other Members of this House. I also support what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said. I thought he put it, as so often, very powerfully. I will add one point to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, said, with which I entirely agree. Parliament—both this House and the House of Commons—is being marginalised. These Henry VIII clauses are an extremely good example of this marginalisation, and it is time the House of Commons understood it, as we understand it very well in this House.
Baroness Cass (CB)
My Lords, I was going to talk about the consultation, which is fundamentally not fit for purpose, but other noble Lords have covered that well, so I want to make a couple of other points about the way in which the Government are failing to understand the impact of social media on our children, as exemplified in the press today by this latest quick and dirty pilot on 300 children and young people, which would not stand up to scientific scrutiny. What on earth are we going to learn from that when there is extensive literature, not least from Australia, that we can look at without doing something on which we are apparently going to base part of the government response? It is ludicrous.
The Government are taking a very narrow view of social media. They are locked into the psychological aspects of it, which are hugely important, but they are failing to look at the wider aspects and the direct harms that are being reiterated time and again by professionals in schools and clinics and by the families who are sitting up in the Gallery now. It is disrespectful to the trauma of those families and to the people who are suffering direct harm to continue to grab headlines with these cheap efforts to say that we are piloting something that will give us no information at all, when the strength of feeling in this House and outside this House is manifestly clear. I will again be supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and I also support the approach outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in her amendment.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am not trying to deprive other noble Lords of the chance to speak, but the idea that we go to the Front Benches because we have all heard these arguments before is not fair, because the Government have put before us the widest set of proposals that are completely new and came out of nowhere.
I am rather disappointed not to be supporting the Government. When we discussed this on Report, I did not support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, to ban social media for under-16s, despite how powerful his speech was, because I thought that the Government had a sense of proportion. Everybody here is saying, “What is the point of consultations? They are all a waste of time”. That is good for people who are in Parliament to admit. There are a lot of consultations around, on all sides, and we all know—
Baroness Cass (CB)
Nobody here is saying that consultations are all a waste of time. What we are saying is that this particular consultation is deeply flawed in its construction.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
People from different political parties have pointed out that we all know that consultations are a way of kicking the ball down the road and are not serious. Call me naive, but I am just saying that I thought they were.
It is very important, as we make the decisions about this, that this is not a competition about who cares most about children online. This is a discussion about how we deal with it, and that should not be so frenzied that we get into a situation where we are reckless democratically or we make decisions in a way that is informed not by evidence but by emotions and quite a highly charged atmosphere.
When the original amendment was tabled, it was very late in the Bill’s progress on Report in the Lords. More recently, there has been controversy about that. The way we make laws matters. There has been controversy, for example, about whether it was right to use the Crime and Policing Bill to push decriminalising late abortions, which I did not object to in principle. I have some sympathy with these very important law changes being tagged on to another Bill. We need to consider that the parliamentary process needs to allow scrutiny. Yet many of the same noble Lords who, for example, raised a justifiable critique on the decriminalisation of abortions seemed happy to bring forward another huge law change—the under-16 media ban—on Report on this Bill, so late that it curtailed proper scrutiny. I had a lot of sympathy with the Government—
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness has said a couple of times that my noble friend Lord Nash introduced his amendment on Report. It was tabled in Committee and on Report and it was debated at Second Reading. Maybe she would like to correct her remarks.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I had a lot of sympathy with the Government’s position on Report of trying to think about whether we could use consultation before embarking on drastic measures. I am just disappointed that the Government have brought forward at such a late stage these amendments that potentially give draconian powers to control the internet in general in the form of delegated powers. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, have explained why that is so dangerous.
Can the Government explain why they are asking us to legislate so comprehensively pre the completion of that consultation? If there is this rapid pilot of 60 children, about which I share the reservations of the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, what is the point in us knowing that if we as legislators will not be able to deal with it? The Minister said that we would all get a chance to vote, but that is not what we want. We are being asked to hand over these major powers without any opportunity for meaningful debate about the outcomes of the consultation or the pilot.
The use of a statutory instrument means that there will be no chance to amend proposals or raise principles or practical concerns about unintended consequences. The Government’s “Delegated Legislation Toolkit” in their Guide to Making Legislation sets out the clear rule of thumb that
“the more significant a legal change, the stronger the presumption that it should be set out in primary legislation”.
I agree. It emphasises:
“Delegated powers are unlikely to be appropriate … because there has been insufficient time for … policy development”.
I worry about the rhetoric from all sides of “Think of the children”, “We have to do something”, “a sense of urgency” and so on. I have a great deal of sympathy for the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who I know has not rushed in here with little thought. Since I have been here, and long before that, she has been thinking about it.
I cannot help but feel that there is a huge amount of confusion even about what evidence there is. Every time I hear this evidence being cited and look at it myself, it is just not black and white. I do not want us to be rushed into making the wrong decision because, in all the evidence I have looked at, there is no correlation between screen time, social media—
Baroness Kidron (CB)
Can the noble Baroness say why the bar for evidence in this area of policy is after the event? Most critical industries have to abide by standards and they have to prove that a product is safe. Why are we, with all the bereaved families standing in the Gallery, talking about the lack of evidence on a day that a court case in the US has found the evidence against the companies? It does not make sense.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
The noble Baroness is perfectly reasonable to raise that. It is certainly contested in academic studies, even if it is, like, “Never mind the evidence, the product should be safe anyway”. I am suggesting that evidence-based policy requires evidence and that, when the evidence is at least contested and there is no direct correlation between screen use and mental health, we should pause. I am saying that because I think that teenagers and young people using the online world can be both virtuous and full of vice. Therefore, I do not want a ban on all 16 year-olds going on the internet. It is as straightforward as that. I have explained that before, so I am not going to—
Lord Nash (Con)
It is a long way from a ban on all teenagers going on the internet. It is highly selective for those apps that are clearly harmful.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I do not want to delay, and I have written a lot more.
At the very least, to finish off, I would have thought that, before Parliament embarks on such drastic measures in delegated power form, handing these powers over to the Government—I note that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said that they were only powers and the Government were not going to act on them, and I thought, “Good, I don’t want them to act on these particular powers because these powers are very far-reaching and we have no control over them”—should we not at least look at what has happened in relation to the ban in Australia? More than 50% of children—
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I keep being interrupted. In Australia, after the ban more than 50% of children are still using social media. Teens are being pushed underground, away from mainstream platforms into darker corners of the internet, without safeguards and with zero moderation. It is risky and dangerous behaviour. Rather than having adult help and guidance in negotiating the online world and recognising its virtues, not just its vices, they are just being banned.
Finally, I also think we need to be open that it is not just children who will be affected by both sides of these amendments. We know that there will be detrimental effects on the civil liberties of all UK internet users, of all ages, because they will lead to mandatory biometric age checks and/or digital ID requirements that will apply to the whole of the UK population, whatever age they are. I appreciate that whenever we talk about children and protecting children, civil liberties and freedoms are pooh-poohed and wafted away. I happen to think that it is important for the children we are rearing and socialising to understand that a free society requires somebody, somewhere, remembering that freedom and civil liberties are worth fighting for.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, there have been very few speakers from the Labour Benches and I want to make sure that those who are supporting the amendments before the House today understand that, within this party, it is not exactly as was set out by the Minister. There are those of us who are very keen to support the movement that we can detect today in the thinking of this House. I want to be quite clear that I am not alone in that.
I want to say three things. First, part of the problem we have here is that we are running towards the end of a Session that does not have the right Bills, which makes it very difficult to get the issues we want into play. Secondly, there is no guarantee that there will be Bills in the next King’s Speech that will allow us to continue the debate and move forward at the pace we want to. The feeling that the House has, and I am sure I speak for all of us when I say this, is that something has gone wrong with the legislative structure that we have in place in this area and, in line with what so many people have said today, we need to find a way of getting into our laws the sorts of measures that are needed to take us forward on this.
I offer the Minister the following option: the only way we can get this in play, continue it and get to the right solution is to back the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash. I think we should do that. I do not agree with all that he is saying, and he knows that because I have talked to him about it, and I do not think bans are generally a good thing, but it is the only way to get in play a chance to look again at the other amendment that is before us today on this issue, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I know that she has worked hard on trying to get a form of words into her amendment, which she will not press, that would take the Government to a place where I think they will be comfortable, limiting the powers they want to take, focusing on the areas that they have not yet covered but which they must cover in terms of the way in which we relate to our regulator, and doing it in a way that is expedient and effective and will get quickly to the help that we so urgently need. I urge the Minister to think carefully about that and to support us as we move forward.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, to sum up this debate briefly, I have nothing new to add. I merely agree with certain noble Lords who have already spoken. As for the Government’s approach, Henry VII’s son is all over it, and that is never a good thing for a Bill. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on that. The approach I and many on these Benches would have preferred is that of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, but what we are dealing with here is something that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, has done with considerable success and skill: namely, seize the argument and throw it back to the Government to see what they are going to do. I suggest that the Government listen very hard to us. What they have proposed is not meeting it for this House. What we want to do is to get something effective in play. I hope the Government will listen. We will be supporting the noble Lord, Lord Nash, in the Division Lobby if he decides to come forward.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief. I shall say a few words on smartphones and Motion N1 in my name. I acknowledge that the Government have made efforts in their new guidance on mobile phones, but their approach does not go far enough to meet the needs of pupils, parents or teachers—hence the need for my amendment. I thank Generation Focus and Health Professionals for Safer Screens, who have helped many of us have the privilege of listening to a range of head teachers and educational psychologists who have been able to share their experience.
Their views are absolutely clear. First, they are calling for a statutory ban so that they can be clear with the minority of parents that smartphones have no place in school. Evidence from the University of Birmingham shows that head teachers are spending literally hundreds of hours that they do not have dealing with the implementation of individual school policies. Clearly, that is not a good use of their time.
Secondly, they want a clear focus on smartphones. I noted that the Minister referred to my amendment as the “mobile phone amendment”. Of course, that was the slip of the tongue, but it is important because it is the connection to the internet in general and to social media in particular that is causing such a huge problem in relation to safeguarding incidents and suspensions in our schools.
As I said on Report, smartphones are the gateway drug to social media. One head teacher reported in a round table that we held recently that prior to having a ban in their school for children in year 7—that is, children aged about 11—almost a quarter of all suspensions in the school were for children in year 7, and they were linked predominantly to smartphone use. That is unrecognisable from a few years ago, when it was an exception to suspend a pupil in year 7.
Thirdly, those schools which ban smartphones are seeing a delay in the age at which a child receives one. Brick phones and Balance Phones do not pose the same threats to attention, concentration and safety. This has implications not just at school but on the journey to and fro, and at home. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, rightly raised concerns about children with special educational needs. The evidence from the medical profession is that it is precisely these children who are made most vulnerable by having a smartphone, and teachers are quite clear that it is not appropriate for a child’s special educational needs to be met with a personal device. I shared that with the noble Lord before this debate.
I am absolutely baffled by the Government’s resistance to my amendment. I am grateful to all noble Lords across the House who have supported it so far, and I hope that the Government will change their mind.
I turn to the amendments relating to social media and children. Some of your Lordships will have read the extraordinarily brave letter this morning from Ellen Roome, mother of Jools Sweeney, and other bereaved parents, many of whom are behind me in the Chamber tonight. Given the weakness of my tear ducts, which some of your Lordships have already witnessed, I will not attempt to read any of it out, but whatever noble Lords’ views, I commend it to them to read it. It is one of the most dignified and brave letters noble Lords will read.
On these Benches, we stand firmly behind my noble friend Lord Nash and his Motion G1. His Motion establishes unequivocally that there should be restrictions on harmful social media for children under 16. It leaves the details of implementation to secondary legislation and, of course, the results of the Government’s consultation could be put to good effect in informing these regulations. It places the onus on the social media companies to change their products to being safe for children to use rather than leaving everything to an already overwhelmed regulator to resolve.
I recognise and welcome the spirit in which Motion G2 is framed, building on the great expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the other now affectionately known “tech Lords”—not to be confused with the tech bros—and other noble Lords. This expertise has been forged over many years of working on these issues, showing the Government how they can improve on their current approach.
During the passage of the Bill, the House has shown great collaboration across all Benches and yet the Government appear unwilling to engage with any of us. The Minister has access to extraordinary legislative and sector expertise and to all the most expert stakeholders, who are coalescing around a proactive and effective approach. I urge her to use us.
My noble friend Lord Nash mentioned Bill Ready, CEO of Pinterest. In closing, I would like to pick out some other remarks that he made. In May last year, he said:
“Now is the time to apply the same creativity and innovation that built the social media ecosystem to the vital task of protecting kids online. And if we can’t do this effectively, we lose any credibility to oppose a ban. As both a tech CEO and a parent, I know that legal compliance is not the same as safety … Our industry has had years to mitigate these harms, but has time and again failed. The time for self-regulation has passed, and if tech companies don’t change, then the path should be obvious to lawmakers. We need a clear standard: no social media for teens under 16, backed by real enforcement, and accountability for mobile phone operating systems and the apps that run on them”.
This evening, that path is obvious. It points directly to supporting my noble friend’s amendment.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the constructive and heartfelt contributions made in the House today. We have heard a wide range of views, and I reiterate my thanks to noble Lords who have engaged so closely with Ministers in recent weeks as we work through these complex questions. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, not only for the expertise that she brings but for her comment that all in this House share a commitment to children’s well-being online. It is this that motivates us all.
The noble Lord, Lord Nash, has set out the reasons behind Amendments 37 and 38 and why he wants to see swift action. I fully understand those intentions. To respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, I said that it is not if we act, but how. It is the intention of the Government to act. The question is how.
The noble Lord’s amendments would require us to act before the consultation is concluded and would commit the Government to a specific set of measures that may not ultimately represent the most effective or proportionate way to protect our children. That is why the Government cannot accept Amendments 37 and 38; it is not because we do not agree with the objectives but because legislating could risk unintended consequences. It would mean acting before listening to what the consultation tells us and to what parents and children need.
Some 20,000 parents have responded to the parent-specific survey. We are extremely keen to assess and hear what parents and children say. Additionally, these amendments are restricted to user-to-user services under the Online Safety Act. It is hugely important that we seek views across other services. We know that children use other mechanisms, such as AI chatbots and gaming, which are not consistently caught by the definition of user-to-user services.
I just want to say that we are taking the consultation extremely seriously, as we are the national conversation. Alongside the publication of the consultation, we announced that a parallel academic panel will be formed, and this panel of experts will assist in assessing the development of the evidence base, drawing on the international expertise that many noble Lords have mentioned today, for example from Australia, to advise us as we take these matters forward.
Many noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Nash, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville—have rightly pressed the question of pace and swiftness of action. The reason for the Government’s amendment in lieu is exactly that: to provide a clear and deliverable route to take forward what we want to do, informed by the results of the consultation. The consultation closes in May and we will respond by the summer to set out next steps. That means we can act within months, not years.
The use of those powers and the parliamentary scrutiny of them were mentioned by many noble Lords, such as the noble Lords, Lord Bellamy and Lord Carter, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that we absolutely recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and the expertise that parliamentarians in both Houses provide. Each of these powers will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which will ensure appropriate parliamentary scrutiny before we enact policy changes. We feel that the delegated powers the Bill proposes are justified and proportionate, and we have sought to provide as much detail as we can to support their scrutiny.
Lastly, on Amendment 106, on mobile phones in schools, our position is clear: mobile phones have no place in schools. We believe this is primarily an issue of enforcement, and that is why we have set out the strengthened guidance and why we are supporting with our network of attendance and behaviour hubs. We are backing head teachers to take the necessary action.
In closing, I urge noble Lords to support the Government’s amendment, which gives us power to take effective, evidence-based action, and to resist Amendments 37, 38 and 106. We share a goal: the question is simply how best to achieve it. Our amendment is the right one and I hope that noble Lords will join us in supporting it.
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, I have listened to what the Minister has to say, but I have also read the consultation very carefully and listened to the statements made publicly by the DSIT Secretary of State. I can only conclude from those that the Government have no real commitment to do anything serious about the harms that our children are experiencing on social media, and I ask the House to agree to my Motion G1. Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House on my social media amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Young of Cookham) (Con)
I must inform your Lordships that, if Motion G1 is agreed, it pre-empts Motion G2.
Lord Collins of Highbury
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 41, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 41A.
41A: Because the Commons consider that imposing a monetary cap on branded items of school uniform may have undesirable effects.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion H, I shall also speak to Motions H1, J, L, L1 and M. In this group, we are debating amendments relating to school uniforms, published admission numbers and allergies. For each, I will set out the clear rationale as to why the Government cannot accept these amendments.
I turn first to Motions H and J, relating to Amendments 41 and 42, and Motion H1, relating to an amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley. The amendment in lieu, Amendment 41B, seeks to require a review of the effectiveness of the limit on branded items of school uniform, with particular reference to introducing a monetary cap. I thank the noble Lord again for raising the important issue of uniform costs. We will, of course, monitor the effectiveness of the limit as we implement it.
However, our manifesto commitment is clear: to reduce the cost of uniforms by limiting the number of branded items that schools can require. This approach is overwhelmingly backed by parents, with the Children’s Society finding that 78% agree with such a limit. We believe that a cost cap would not create the same level of parental savings as a numeric limit. It is complex and burdensome for government and schools, and it risks appearing protective, while failing to constrain actual costs. It creates a financial target and could encourage schools to increase the number or price of their branded items. It risks strengthening supply and monopolies, reducing parental freedom and increasing costs. A numeric limit opens the market, giving parents greater choice and affordability.
A cost cap would entail unnecessary regulatory complexity and assumptions about retail pricing for size variations, promotions and parents’ purchasing of spare or replacement items. Enforcement would create significant burdens for schools, forcing annual reviews of uniform policies and prices, and drawing them into disputes between parents and retailers about prices and compliance. A numeric limit is simple, transparent and easily enforceable, and statutory guidance can make it clear that high-cost items should be avoided.
I turn to Motion L, relating to Amendment 102, and Motion L1, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which insists on this amendment. The amendment seeks to limit the circumstances in which the adjudicator can specify a lower published admission number, or PAN, following an upheld objection. We have committed to update the statutory School Admissions Code to ensure that school quality and parental choice are paramount in any decision on a PAN. We have set out more detail on our planned approach in a paper deposited in the House of Lords Library yesterday, including plans for new statutory principles that will ensure that the availability of high-quality school places is central to decision-making, and that requiring high-performing schools to reduce places should be a last resort.
We already expect schools and local authorities to co-operate to ensure that admission numbers give parents a choice of high-quality local school places close to home. However, this amendment would impose inappropriate restrictions on the scope of the adjudicator’s powers to deal with those instances where this does not happen. An individual school’s decisions can impact school quality and choice across an area, especially at a time of declining pupil numbers. This can impact both urban and rural communities. This measure will ensure that, as a last resort, an independent decision can be taken, with choice and quality for all children at its centre.
I turn finally to Motion M, relating to Amendment 105, which was tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, and seeks to introduce mandatory allergy safety provisions for all schools. The Government agree with Members campaigning for improved allergy safety in schools. I am therefore pleased to confirm that we have tabled our own amendment in lieu to place allergy safety on a statutory footing. It is intended to enshrine Benedict’s law in primary legislation, securing robust allergy safety measures.
I pay particular tribute to the tireless efforts of Helen Blythe, in memory of her son Benedict, and the members of the National Allergy Strategy Group. Helen, her husband Peter and their daughter Etta are here today in the Chamber. Parents should be able to send their children to school in the knowledge that they will be safe there, regardless of any medical condition or allergy.
Our amendment in lieu requires schools to have and regularly review allergy safety policies, and to publicise and publish them on their websites. In doing so, schools must have regard to statutory guidance, which has been co-produced with many expert stakeholders. Our amendment in lieu also creates regulation-making powers permitting the Secretary of State to place specific duties relating to allergy safety, including the content of policies, stocking adrenaline devices and securing allergy awareness training, and to record and report incidents.
This amendment applies to all schools in England. It provides for the same requirements to be placed on independent and non-maintained special schools. The noble Baroness’s amendment set clear timescales for its implementation; I reiterate our commitment that our new statutory guidance will be implemented from September 2026. We further commit to commencing the duties contained within these clauses as soon as possible, and to introducing the regulations as soon as possible, noting that we have undertaken to give schools at least a term’s notice of any new duty.
We believe that this will deliver the key protections for children with allergies and the flexibility for our requirements to evolve as clinical advice changes. I beg to move.
Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H)
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley
Moved by
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 41B in lieu—
41B: Clause 29, page 50, line 21, at end insert—
“551ZB School uniforms: review of limits on branded items
(1) The Secretary of State must review the effectiveness of measures intended to limit the cost to parents of branded items of school uniform required by the appropriate authority of a relevant school in England for use during a school year.
(2) A review under subsection (1) must, in particular, consider—
(a) whether a monetary cap on the total cost of branded items of school uniform could provide a greater reduction in costs for parents in comparison to an item-based cap,
(b) the impact such a monetary cap would have on pupils at—
(i) primary schools, and
(ii) secondary schools,
(c) the impact a monetary cap would have on schools and their uniform policies, and
(d) what further measures could be effective at reducing the cost of school uniform.
(3) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the coming into force of section 551ZA, lay before Parliament a report setting out the findings of the review under subsection (1).””
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, my Motion H1, as we heard earlier, is around the issue of a monetary cap on school uniforms. I will not rehearse the arguments that we have had already in Committee and on Report. However, if the Government are minded to continue to push for a numbers cap, as opposed to a monetary cap, on which your Lordships’ House voted before, I say to them that, ultimately, they should leave all the options open. If their numbers cap does not work, they should therefore have the option to revisit this.
The numbers cap is not my preferred option. I still would like them to consider the actual monetary cap, but what is wrong with coming back in, say, 12 months’ time when they do their review? Supporting my Motion H1 today would allow them to say, “Okay, we thought this would work and it doesn’t”. If it has not quite met the intentions of their aspirations in both their manifesto and this Bill, there would be an alternative provision that your Lordships have voted on previously. That is why I wanted to move this Motion. I do not want to prolong the debate, because we have had a bet on that we were going to keep our contributions to a minimum, so I shall stick to below two minutes.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Motion M. I support the amendments in lieu, Amendments 105B and 105C. I would like to thank the Ministers; I know that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, is here speaking tonight but perhaps he would pass on thanks to both the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, and Minister Bailey in the House of Commons for their engagement and the fact that they have listened on this issue. In particular, there are details in these amendments which I think the Government had talked about putting in regulations, but it has given real assurance to those who care passionately about this amendment to have these matters on the face of the Bill.
I thank all the noble Lords who signed the original amendment and spoke in favour of it. I also thank Alicia Kearns MP, who led the campaign in favour, but most of all, as the Minister has said, the thanks should go to the tireless campaigners, particularly Helen Blythe. If she is looking for alternative things to do, she would make an excellent legislator in this House. She has been indefatigable in her pursuit of Benedict’s law; it is a pleasure to welcome both Peter and Helen to Parliament today and, I think, friends of Benedict as well.
Helen Blythe was clear that this should not just be statutory guidance, although that was a great step forward, and that legislation was needed. I welcome the fact that the change will come in from September of this year. In her article for The House magazine—this was just before the vote in the House of Commons—Helen said:
“We are closer than ever to allergy-safe schools. Progress has been made. The government has shown it takes the protection of children with allergies seriously. The question now is whether we can secure that progress in a way that guarantees equal protection for every child in every classroom, for children like our son. Benedict’s life mattered. His death must matter too”.
I think the Government have risen to the challenge in putting down this amendment. As the Minister will know, there is a little question about funding, but I know that the department is very aware of that and will work for schools, which, as we all know, have budgets under pressure. But again, I am very pleased to be able to support the amendments in lieu that the Government have laid this evening.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, please bear with me again; I will keep to the two-minute limit. I too speak in favour of Amendments 105B and 105C, tabled in lieu in Motion M, and in doing so declare my interest as COO of the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, the UK’s food allergy charity.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, for all her work on behalf of all those children living with allergic disease and their families. Tonight, I want to briefly emphasise the importance of these amendments, which are testament to the efforts of the noble Baroness but also to the Benedict Blythe Foundation and Helen and Peter’s work. I want to read out a couple of the hundreds of positive comments that the Natasha foundation received when the allergy community learnt of the Government’s intention to bring forward statutory guidance on allergy safety in schools. The mums said:
“This is a gift to allergic families”;
“As an allergy mum I can’t tell you what amazing news this is. This will save lives and help so many children feel safer in school”;
“This will mean so much to so many parents and children in this country living with allergies”;
“This will change everything for my family, my son has multiple food allergies. This is a life changing moment”.
These words demonstrate the impact on people’s lives the Government can make when they listen, engage and work collaboratively with charities and Members from all sides of both Houses.
My noble friend Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath cannot be in her place today but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, we too want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, and Minister Bailey in the other place, along with their civil servant teams, who have worked constructively with allergy charities over many months. Of course, there is always more to do and we look forward to continued discussions with the Government on what practical support and funding will be available to enable schools to effectively implement this guidance. But to conclude, these amendments in lieu will help to keep children safe in schools and help to ensure they are better protected, and more included in school life.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Motion L1, and I am looking round to see where everybody is.
The Minister described Motion L1 as a “last resort” and, when we met them yesterday, the Bill team seemed to think that the example of a highly successful school next to a school that is struggling is quite unlikely. But I know from my own experience what it is like, both professionally and as a parent of two children. This seems to be an efficiency drive that ignores both parents and children. While I admire the intent, as a parent I would be deeply unhappy if access to my preferred school was closed in order to even up numbers. Should the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, be minded to take this to a vote, I would go with her.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, with this reinstatement of her original Amendment 102. I speak as the chairman of an academy trust; I have faced the dead hand of the bureaucratic tidying-up exercise. To the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton: just last year, it was suggested that we restrict our PAN at two of our best schools, so that failing schools nearby could be kept going. The inconvenience of having to enact cuts to their own schools, faced by local authorities in particular, is such that it is much easier for them to go after another body that has to bear the financial burden.
I accept that the letter, which arrived amazingly at the 11th and a half hour last night, makes some attempt at compromise. If the Government were serious about protecting improving schools, however, they would go with the amendment that is being proposed.
I can tell your Lordships’ House how hard it is to improve previously failing schools. The Minister may be interested to know that failing schools already receive a huge subsidy in what is euphemistically called “lagged funding”. In the year following a falling roll, they receive the full amount that they were been paid in the previous year with more children. The opposite effect occurs for improving schools with rising rolls. So this year, we are educating nearly 240 children for free in my trust, which is nearly £1.5 to £2 million. Next year, that will be 300 children. The question, then, is how difficult does the noble Lord want to make it to improve previously failing schools?
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
My Lords, I stand to support the Government in their attempt to create a situation where there is an adequate regulator for school admissions. At a time of greatly falling rolls, particularly in primary, this is especially important, and even more so when there is going to be a much broader curriculum as a result of the curriculum assessment review. It will be important that all schools can teach this broad curriculum. To do so, we need to have children in those schools. As I said in Committee, the problem with schools that simply expand is that very good schools can be left unable to operate.
I also have a question for the Liberal Democrats on the opposite Benches: in Committee, they supported the opposition to the local authorities having a say as an admissions adjudicator. The last Lib Dem election manifesto of 2024 promised parents and the public that local authorities would be given the power and resources to act as strategic education authorities for their area. This included responsibility for place planning, exclusions and administering admissions, including in-year admissions and SEND functions. I simply ask whether that is still the Lib Dems’ position. If it is, will they be supporting the Government’s position?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, on these Benches we share the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, about the rigidity of the Government’s approach to trying to control school uniform costs. Indeed, we would have been quite happy if he had wanted to bring back his previous amendment unchanged. We also warmly welcome the Government amendment in relation to children with allergies in school, and I echo the remarks made by others across the House to recognise the incredible work of the Benedict Blythe Foundation—in particular, Benedict’s mother Helen—that has culminated in this amendment today.
My Motion L1 simply supports the rights of parents and pupils to attend the school of their choice and get the best possible education in an area. We understand the financial pressures faced by schools that are dealing with falling rolls, but the way to address them is not by reducing choice, nor by cutting places in the most popular local schools. Furthermore, if the Government are to be successful in closing the disadvantage gap, which we all want to see, they will need these schools and should not be shrinking them.
In the letter that the Government sent to Peers last night, they set out the principles they intend to follow in the updated regulations and School Admissions Code. I accept that the Government have moved and have tried to clarify their position. It is a pity that this arrived so late and that there has been no time to discuss any of this with Ministers, despite having requested meetings since early February. I am very open to discussing further with Ministers but, as drafted, I do not think that the proposed wording is as watertight as the intent of my Motion. In particular, the language of “long-term sufficiency” seems to give more wriggle room than is needed. At this stage, it is also hard to see the point of the measures in the Bill, given the statement that we have just heard from the Government. The Bill’s own impact assessment is clear that it will limit the ability of good schools to grow. We are in a bit of a muddle of policy-making now, with a different position in the Bill, a different position in the letter, and a different position in the White Paper.
As long ago as the 2002 Labour Party conference, the former Prime Minister Tony Blair asked:
“Why shouldn’t there be a range of schools for parents to choose from? Why shouldn’t good schools expand or take over failing schools or form federations?”
This remains a relevant question today, more than 20 years on. I only wish that the Government would listen to the views of their former leader, whose reform laid such important foundations on which subsequent Governments have built, and which have contributed significantly to rising school standards. The fundamental principle that we have set out in earlier debates on school choice is a crucial one, and it should not be eroded.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone for their contributions. I start by addressing the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed. To be clear, and as I said in my opening speech, we will of course monitor the effectiveness of the limit as we implement it. One of the concerns I and the Government have is that the cost cap effectively creates a target price, incentivising price rises for any school currently below the cap. Many schools could in fact brand more items, reducing savings for parents, and it would be more complex for parents and place unnecessary burdens on them. So I hope that the noble Lord will reconsider his position. I think a numeric limit is clearer and simpler, it will deliver savings more quickly—which is what the Children’s Society survey says is overwhelmingly backed by parents—and it is of course a commitment in our manifesto.
Lords Amendment 102 seeks to limit the circumstances in which the adjudicator can set a lower published admission number. We want a system that ensures that school admission numbers give all parents a choice of high-quality local school places. As the noble Baroness mentioned, we have committed to updating the statutory School Admissions Code to ensure that school standards and parental choice are central to any decision on PAN.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, acknowledged, we have been developing proposed changes to the code and associated regulations, considering stakeholders’ views and the important points raised by Members as the Bill has progressed. I note what the noble Baroness says about the timing of the publication, but our proposed framework, which was deposited in the House Library yesterday, contains at its heart new statutory principles to help ensure that requiring high-performing schools to reduce places will always be a last resort. We will conduct a full public consultation on the proposed changes, and the updated code and regulations must be laid before Parliament.
Finally, I turn to allergy safety. I am grateful for the contributions of noble Lords who have spoken in support of the Government’s amendment. I will repay the compliment by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for her work on this. I will certainly pass her gratitude on to my noble friend Lady Smith and my honourable friend in the other place, and her acknowledgement of their work. I pay tribute to the people who have really made the difference: the campaigners who have worked so hard to ensure that this is implemented. Given the critical importance of allergy safety, we will seek to continue to work collaboratively, and we will continue to do so as we develop the regulations and prepare to implement the new duties.
To close, I urge noble Lords to support the Government’s amendment on allergies in schools, to support Motions H, J, L, and M, and to resist Motions H1 and L1.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, and particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for her support. I am still not convinced; the Government need to have another option at the end of it. I would therefore like to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 42, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 42A.
42A: Because the Amendment is consequential on Lords Amendment 41 to which the Commons disagree.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend has already spoken to Motion J. I beg to move.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 44, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 44A.
44A: Because the Amendment would involve a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion K. I beg to move.
Motion K1 (as an amendment to Motion K)
Baroness Barran
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 44B in lieu—
44B: Clause 30, page 51, line 23, at end insert “, or
(c) conducting proceedings under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 (care and supervision) in respect of the child, or has ever initiated such proceedings in respect of the child (other than proceedings which resulted in the child’s subsequent adoption).””
Baroness Blake of Leeds
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 102, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 102A.
102A: Because the Amendment imposes inappropriate restrictions on the scope of the adjudicator’s powers to determine school admission numbers under clause 56 and the clause already provides for regulations to make provision about the matters the adjudicator must consider when making a determination about a school’s admission number.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend has already spoken to Motion L. I beg to move.
Motion L1 (as an amendment to Motion L)
Baroness Barran
Moved by
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 102.”
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 105, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 105A, and do propose Amendments 105B and 105C in lieu—
105A: Because the Amendment would involve a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
105B: After Clause 28, insert the following new Clause—
“Allergy safety policy for pupils at schools
After section 100 of the Children and Families Act 2014 insert—
“100A Allergy safety policy
(1) The arrangements made under section 100 by the appropriate authority for a school to which that section applies must include an allergy safety policy.
(2) An “allergy safety policy” is a policy for the management of allergies affecting pupils at the school (including the management of pupils at risk of anaphylaxis).
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about matters that must be covered in an allergy safety policy.
(4) The appropriate authority—
(a) must, at least once every year, review the school’s allergy safety policy;
(b) must make such changes to the policy as it considers appropriate following a review.
(5) The appropriate authority must publicise the school’s allergy safety policy in the form of a written document by—
(a) making the policy generally known within the school and to parents of pupils at the school,
(b) taking steps, at least once a year, to bring the policy to the attention of all pupils at the school and parents and all persons who work at the school (whether or not for payment), and
(c) publishing the policy on the school’s website.
(6) In meeting the duties under this section, the appropriate authority must have particular regard to guidance issued for the purposes of section 100(2) that relates to the management of allergies (including anaphylaxis) in schools.
(7) The Education Act 1996 and this section are to be read as if this section were included in that Act.
100B Regulations about allergy safety
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations impose duties on specified persons in connection with the management of allergies affecting pupils at schools to which section 100 applies (including the management of pupils at risk of anaphylaxis).
(2) Regulations under this section may in particular make provision about—
(a) the keeping of, and access to, medicinal products and medical devices on school premises and at other places where pupils at a school are under the lawful control or charge of a member of the staff of the school;
(b) procedures for identifying, and managing risks to, pupils with allergies;
(c) provision of training on the recognition and management of allergies for teaching staff, non-teaching staff, persons providing catering services at the school and such other persons as may be specified;
(d) recording and reporting of incidents.
(3) Regulations under this section may require the appropriate authority for a school to which section 100 applies to designate a specified person to have responsibility for specified matters.
(4) A person on whom a duty is imposed by regulations under this section must, in meeting the duty, have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
(5) In this section—
“appropriate authority for a school” has the same meaning as in section 100;
“specified” means specified, or of a description specified, in regulations under this section.
(6) The Education Act 1996 and this section are to be read as if this section were included in that Act.”
(2) In section 342 of the Education Act 1996 (approval of non-maintained special schools), after subsection (5) insert—
“(5ZA) Regulations made by virtue of subsections (2) and (4)(a) must impose—
(a) a requirement for an allergy safety policy (within the meaning of section 100A of the Children and Families Act 2014) to be in place at a school,
(b) requirements that correspond or are similar to the duties imposed by section 100A(4) to (6) of that Act (duty to review and publicise policy etc), and
(c) requirements that correspond or are similar to the duties imposed on the appropriate authority for a school by regulations under section 100B of that Act (allergy safety regulations),
and the requirement referred to in paragraph (a) includes a requirement for the policy to comply with provision made by regulations under section 100A(3) of that Act.”
(3) In section 94 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 (independent educational institution standards), after subsection (3A) (inserted by section 37(2)(b) of this Act) insert—
“(3B) Standards prescribed by virtue of subsection (1)(c) must include standards that have the effect of imposing—
(a) a requirement to secure that an allergy safety policy (within the meaning of section 100A of the Children and Families Act 2014) is in place at independent educational institutions,
(b) requirements that correspond or are similar to the duties imposed by section 100A(4) to (6) of that Act (duty to review and publicise policy etc), and
(c) requirements that correspond or are similar to the duties imposed on the appropriate authority for a school by regulations under section 100B of that Act (allergy safety regulations),
and the requirement referred to in paragraph (a) includes a requirement for the policy to comply with provision made by regulations under section 100A(3) of that Act.””
105C: Title, line 5, after “uniform;” insert “about allergy safety in schools;”
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 106, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 106A.
106A: Because the Commons does not consider the Amendment to be necessary in light of the existing guidance about mobile phones in schools.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend has already spoken to Motion N. I beg to move.
Motion N1 (as an amendment to Motion N)
Baroness Barran
Moved by
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 106.”
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:22 - Division on Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A) - Ayes: 95 / Noes: 137 - Motion A1 disagreed.
Lord Livermore
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.
1A: Because the Lords Amendment would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving this Motion, I will also speak to Motions B, B1, C, D, E, F, F1, G, G1, H, H1, J, K, L, M and M1. The other place has disagreed with Amendments 1 to 12, as they would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons. The other place did not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason is deemed sufficient.
While the Government disagree with the substance of these amendments, I am pleased that we have been able to discuss and debate these issues. I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lady Kramer and Lady Altmann, and the noble Lords, Lord Altrincham, Lord Leigh of Hurley, Lord Fuller, Lord Mackinlay and Lord Londesborough, for ensuring that these important matters have been addressed. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords are content not to insist on these amendments.
I turn now specifically to Amendments 1B, 1C, 2B, 2C, 6B, 6C, 7B, 7C, 8B, 8C, 12B and 12C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. These amendments would make commencement of the Act contingent on the publication of impact assessments on basic rate taxpayers, employees making student loan repayments and small and medium-sized enterprises.
Before addressing each of these in turn, it may be helpful if I remind your Lordships’ House of the documents that have already been published by the Government and the Office for Budget Responsibility. The tax information and impact note sets out the expected impacts of the policy on individuals, employers and the Exchequer. The policy costing note sets out details on the costings of the measure, including the tax base, static costing and a summary of behavioural responses expected by employers and employees.
The Office for Budget Responsibility published its economic and fiscal outlook, which provides the OBR’s independent scrutiny of the Government’s policy costings. The OBR also published a supplementary forecast note which provided additional information it received prior to last year’s Budget to further increase the transparency of this measure.
I should also like to remind noble Lords that the expected behavioural impacts of this measure have been set out in the policy costing note and both the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook and supplementary note. Both the Government and the OBR have been transparent about the expected behavioural responses by employers and individuals.
I turn first to amendments which make the commencement of the Act contingent on the publication of economic and behavioural impact assessments on basic rate taxpayers. As set out in the Budget document, the £2,000 cap means that 74% of basic rate taxpayers who use salary sacrifice will be entirely unaffected by these changes. The remaining proportion of basic rate taxpayers who have contributions above the cap will still get national insurance contributions relief for the first £2,000 of contributions made by salary sacrifice in addition to the full income tax relief that is available to all employee pension contributions. Further, 87% of affected salary sacrifice contributions above the cap are forecast to be made by higher and additional rate taxpayers. This is a fair and pragmatic reform, and the distributional effects of it are clear. On this basis, the Government do not consider a separate and additional impact assessment on basic rate taxpayers to be needed.
I turn to amendments which make commencement of the Act contingent on the publication of economic and behavioural impact assessments on individuals repaying student loans. It is right that we focus on outcomes for younger generations, particularly given that, over the past 14 years, they have seen their fees trebled, interest rates increased and maintenance grants scrapped. Importantly, though, the £2,000 cap means that young graduates are broadly unaffected. In fact, the £2,000 cap means that 90% of graduates under the age of 30 repaying student loans who are saving into their pension are completely unaffected by this measure. Both this and the prior set of amendments make a broader point about pension savings and pensions adequacy for these populations. This is a real challenge for our pensions system, but the data is entirely clear that today’s salary sacrifice is not the answer. As discussed at earlier stages, salary sacrifice existed in the 2000s and early 2010s, yet there were falls in private sector pension saving during that period.
There has been a clear consensus throughout our debates that the key factor that has led to an increase in saving in recent years has been automatic enrolment. As a result, more than 22 million workers across the UK are now saving each month.
Although we all share a commitment to improving pensions adequacy, many groups at highest risk of undersaving, including the self-employed, lower earners and women, are not the most likely to benefit from salary sacrifice. Only one in five self-employed people save into a pension, but they are entirely excluded from salary sacrifice. Low earners are most likely not to be saving, but higher earners are more likely to be using salary sacrifice. Many women are undersaving for retirement, but many more men use pension salary sacrifice.
The pensions tax relief system remains hugely generous and there remain significant incentives to save into a pension. The £70 billion of income tax and national insurance contribution relief which the Government currently provide on pensions each year will be entirely unaffected by these changes.
I turn to the amendments seeking an impact assessment on small and medium-sized enterprises and charities. The Government agree on the importance of supporting small and medium-sized businesses and charities, but small businesses are much less likely to use salary sacrifice than larger businesses. Furthermore, the £2,000 cap means that 90% of employees in SMEs making pension contributions through salary sacrifice will be entirely unaffected. Indeed, the largest benefits from uncapped salary sacrifice accrue to larger businesses, not smaller ones. In practice, the changes in the Bill will help level the playing field between small businesses and their larger competitors.
The amendment also requires assessment of the expected impact on business and compliance costs. This analysis is already set out in the tax information and impact note. As set out in that document, the administration of this measure is estimated to result in a one-off cost of £75 and an ongoing £99 per business per year for those using salary sacrifice.
The Government recognise that these changes will impact those currently using salary sacrifice. That is why we chose a long lead-in time of April 2029 to give employers maximum time to prepare for these changes. As mentioned previously, HMRC is engaging with employers, payroll providers and software developers to deliver the changes in the most suitable way with the fewest administrative burdens for businesses of all sizes that use salary sacrifice. For the reasons I have set out, I respectfully ask that the noble Baroness does not press her Motions. I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
At end insert “, and do propose Amendments 1B and 1C in lieu—
“(3A) The amendments made by this section do not have effect in relation to basic rate taxpayers until the assessment required by section (Economic and behavioural impact assessment: basic rate taxpayers: Great Britain) has been laid before Parliament.”
“Economic and behavioural impact assessment: basic rate taxpayers: Great Britain
(1) The Secretary of State must—
(a) prepare an economic and behavioural impact assessment of the expected effects of the provisions of this Act on basic rate taxpayers in Great Britain, and
(b) lay that assessment before Parliament.
(2) The assessment must, in particular, include—
(a) an analysis of the expected behavioural effects of the provisions of this Act, including changes to pension contribution patterns, salary sacrifice arrangements, and employment practices, and
(b) an assessment of the expected impact on net incomes, pension savings, and pension adequacy,
for basic rate taxpayers.
(3) In preparing the assessment, the Secretary of State must have regard to—
(a) the adequacy of retirement incomes, and
(b) the effect of the £2,000 cap on long-term financial security,
for basic rate taxpayers.””
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I was disappointed that the Government sought to have all amendments passed by your Lordships’ House treated as engaging financial privilege. In light of this, we are unable to insist upon the amendments passed by your Lordships’ House. However, the issues we have raised remain of real significance. There is no sign that the Government have seriously engaged with the concerns we expressed. Significant features remain undefined.
The amendments we have brought forward today reflect a concern raised by many noble Lords on Report: crucially, that the Government have not undertaken the necessary analysis to understand how the Bill will affect basic rate taxpayers, those repaying student loans, and SMEs and charities.
The most worrying thing about the Bill is that it will reduce the incentive to save, particularly among the less well paid. Whether Ministers like it or not, it strikes at the heart of this and will inevitably reduce pension adequacy. The Minister himself has admitted that many of those paying the basic rate of tax and even some earning under £30,000 a year will be affected.
Not only will the Bill affect savers and pensions adequacy, it will impose costs on businesses and charities. The detail on these points is, concerningly, seriously lacking. Our three amendments in lieu and the consequential amendments dealing with Northern Ireland require a proper assessment of the projected economic and behavioural impact of this policy on those three groups. Crucially, this work has to be carried out before the Act comes into force.
First, for basic rate taxpayers there is a very real concern that this policy will reach far beyond those it is ostensibly aimed at. Individuals on modest incomes—those paying tax at the basic rate—may find themselves drawn into its effects. They are ordinary working people, often making careful decisions about how much they can afford to save. Yet we have not seen a clear assessment of how their net incomes will be affected, how their pension-saving behaviour may change or what this will mean for the adequacy of their retirement incomes.
Secondly, for those repaying student loans, the interaction between salary sacrifice, pension contributions and student loan repayments is not straightforward. There is a real risk here that some individuals repaying student loans could face higher effective deductions from their income or altered incentives around saving for retirement. Our amendments would ensure that the Government properly assess the impact of these interactions.
Thirdly and finally, small and medium-sized enterprises and charities are the backbone of our economy and our communities. They operate with limited margins and limited administrative capacity. Changes to employment costs, compliance requirements or remuneration structures can have tangible effects on hiring, wages and growth.
The Government must be able to answer these questions. By how much will this Bill increase their costs? Will it change employment practices? Will it have an impact on wage growth or the critical area of job creation? This Bill would change how people save, how employers structure pay, and how organisations make decisions.
Our amendments would simply require the Government to set out clearly and transparently what the effects are expected to be. They would offer the Government a constructive way forward and would seem to get round the problem of financial privilege. In responding, it would be helpful if the Minister could explain more clearly precisely why these provisions do not come into force until 2029. It looks as if this matter is regarded by the Government not as a serious measure but as a nasty present to their successors.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to this group of amendments in lieu. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for returning these issues to the House despite the very disappointing decision to cloak all our previous amendments in the financial privilege. Up and down the country, SME businesses are horrified by this. They have had a wall of difficult legislation sent their way, such as the national insurance increase and the Employment Rights Bill, so they have not focused on this, but those I talked to who have focused their mind on it are very unhappy to say the least with the possibility of this Bill affecting their business.
I want to focus on one particular issue. We have heard repeatedly in recent weeks of the position facing graduates repaying student loans, which is simply not fair. For those on plan 2 loans in particular, the picture is particularly stark: an anaemic jobs market, high rents, high living costs and, on top of that, what amounts to a 9% graduate tax with interest rates of around 6.2%, meaning that for many, full repayment is not possible. I urge the Minister and others to speak to their children or their grandchildren who will tell them that they are put off by this Bill.
This policy now risks making the matter worse. It threatens to increase the effective burden on graduates precisely when they are trying to do the right thing by saving for their retirement through salary sacrifice. They see the costs that are ahead of them when they retire. For many, particularly recent graduates, disposable income is already stretched to the limit with rents and the cost of living, so they have little scope to save beyond the auto-enrolment minimum, which, as we have heard, is insufficient to provide savings for their longer life. If the Government undermine the salary sacrifice regime, they risk entrenching a generation who simply cannot afford to save enough for their retirement.
In conclusion, that is why this amendment from my noble friend matters. It asks the Government to do what they should already have done: properly assess the impact of this policy in relation to student loans. I do not think anything the Minister said specifically addressed the issue of the impact on students. I did not see it in any of the Explanatory Notes or anywhere else. It may have been because they did not think it affected it or they did not realise it, but it has not been done. In the absence of that work, the least the Government can do is pause and consider the long-term consequences before pressing ahead. The Treasury now has the opportunity and the responsibility to get this right. I urge the Minister and all other Peers to do so.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I rise to throw my support behind the four Motions in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I will be brief. Is the Government’s apparent resistance to the impact assessments proposed in these amendments in any way connected to the fact that the measures in this Bill will not take effect until 2029? The Secretary to the Treasury stated in the other place on Monday, while rejecting all of the Lords amendments, that,
“the status quo is indefensible”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/3/26; col. 84.]
If that really is the Government’s view, why are we waiting three years to bring in the pension gap? But, since we do have this three-year gap, there is happily plenty of time for the Government to prepare economic and behavioural impact assessments, and it would surely make sense to do so.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I, too, support these four amendments and, had it been permitted at ping-pong, I would have added my name.
I am going to be very brief. We are all aware, through freedom of information applications, that the OBR forecasts of the impact of this Bill present us with a high degree of uncertainty. In that circumstance, one would think that an impact assessment was the logical response, particularly since there is a time delay to the introduction of this measure.
Sometimes you come across a Bill and you just know that the Government have misunderstood what its impacts are going to be, and that when it is in force there will either have to be very dramatic changes or the whole Bill will need to be reversed. Frankly, this Bill is one of them.
I am not going to take up any more of the time of this House, but I hope that the Government understand and realise that this is not a Bill that will work in its present form and that an impact assessment would have been an assistance, not a burden.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I was speaking to a young man just yesterday who has done everything he has been encouraged to do. He has studied well and he has worked and saved in order to put a deposit down on a house. He has been helped by people who have been fortunate enough to make some money to be able to help him. He had just moved into his first flat in London, and he could not be happier. Yesterday, he was called into his boss to be told there would be a period of consultation because of the Government’s introduction of various taxes and penalties on employers trying to employ people. He is now in a very difficult and despondent position.
We talk about impact assessments for pension contributions. Has the Minister any idea of the impact on people’s lives when they have done everything right and now find themselves in the most vulnerable position? This may not be completely focused on the amendments that have been laid today, but the principle is the same. The Government are creating anxiety. The whole thing is making people wonder what the point of trying to better their lives is. I ask the Minister to think again. If we want a country that is robust, where people feel that everything is to gain, this is not the way to go about it.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
I will be extremely brief. I support all these amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. My main concern is that some basic rate taxpayers will be disincentivised from making pension contributions because of that extra 8% that they are going to pay. That will take away the real advantage that we have seen in auto-enrolment and they will opt out of those schemes because they need to fund their houses. The Government should please look at it again.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, once again, taken together, this is a further insult to working people. As we have heard this evening, it is about not the fat cats but the youngsters and the poorer paid who are starting off and trying to do the right thing, making their way in the world. There is already intergenerational unfairness, and this Bill amplifies it and makes it worse. The Government have a tin ear. When they say they are trying to look after the youngsters, they are speaking with a forked tongue. Youngsters just want a break, but this Government are beating them with a stick. We have got to stop it.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
On the topic of impact assessments, I remind noble Lords of the information that we have already published. The tax information impact note sets out the expected impacts of the policy on individuals, employers and the Exchequer. The policy costing note sets out detail on the costing of the measure, including the tax base, static costing and a summary of behavioural responses expected by employers and employees. The Office for Budget Responsibility published its economic and fiscal outlook, which provides the OBR’s independent scrutiny of the policy costing. The OBR also published a supplementary forecast note which provides additional information it received prior to last year’s Budget.
I also remind noble Lords that the expected behavioural impacts of this measure have been set out in the policy costing note and both the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook and supplementary note. Both the Government and the OBR have been very transparent about the expected behavioural responses by employers and individuals.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, asked about the 2029 implementation date. As I have said already, we chose a long lead-in time of April 2029 to give employers maximum time to prepare for the changes. As I have mentioned before, HMRC is engaging with employers, payroll providers and software developers to deliver the changes in the most suitable way with the fewest administrative burdens for businesses of all sizes which use salary sacrifice.
The noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, spoke about small and medium-sized enterprises. I say again that the £2,000 cap means that 90% of employees and SMEs making pension contributions through salary sacrifice will be entirely unaffected. The noble Lord also mentioned students. He is absolutely right; as I said before, it is right that we focus on outcomes for younger generations, particularly given that, over the past 14 years, they saw their fees trebled, interest rates increased and maintenance grants scrapped. The £2,000 cap means that 90% of graduates under 30 repaying student loans who are saving into their pension are completely unaffected by this measure.
These are fair and balanced reforms. They give employers many years to prepare and they ensure that both our pensions system and the public finances are kept on a sustainable footing. The £2,000 cap protects lower-earning employees who use salary sacrifice to make pension contributions and preserves the tax benefit of salary sacrifice for all employees on the first £2,000 of their contributions.
Importantly, these changes leave the tax reliefs on regular pension contributions completely untouched. These reliefs are worth £70 billion a year and are available to all workers and employers, not just those who use salary sacrifice. For the reasons that I have set out, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, not to press her Motions. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that I am not satisfied with the Minister’s response, particularly on the question of the behavioural assessments that we have had. They are really not fit for purpose. I give notice that will I seek to test the opinion of the House on Motion A1 and, if successful, on further Motions.
Lord Livermore
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.
Lord Livermore
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3A.
Lord Livermore
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4A.
Lord Livermore
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 5, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5A.
Lord Livermore
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 6, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 6A.
Lord Livermore
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 7, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 7A.
7A: Because the Lords Amendment would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
Lord Livermore
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 8, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 8A.
8A: Because the Lords Amendment would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
Lord Livermore
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 9, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 9A.
9A: Because the Lords Amendment would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
Lord Livermore
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 10, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 10A.
10A: Because the Lords Amendment would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
Lord Livermore
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 11, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 11A.
11A: Because the Lords Amendment would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
Lord Livermore
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 12, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 12A.
12A: Because the Lords Amendment would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.