Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Curriculum and Assessment Review
Lord Freyberg
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the implications of the final report of the Curriculum and Assessment Review, published on 5 November 2025, for education in England.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to be opening this debate and grateful for the number of noble Lords who have put their names down to speak. I confess I wish we had been granted more time, given the breadth and importance of this subject. I look forward to hearing all contributions, whatever the topic, and to the Minister’s response to what I am certain will be a well-informed and searching debate. I am grateful too for the many briefings I have received in preparation from a wide range of organisations, among them the Campaign for the Arts.
I intend to focus on arts education, though I will say a brief word towards the end about modern languages, where some difficult questions remain. The Curriculum and Assessment Review, published on 5 November last year, was an independent report led by Professor Becky Francis, and its findings carry considerable weight. The Government’s response deserves to be treated seriously. It acknowledges, clearly and without equivocation, that arts education in England has suffered a prolonged and serious decline—and that acknowledgement alone represents a change of tone that many in the sector had long been waiting for.
The scale of what has happened is worth stating plainly. Since 2011, the number of hours of arts teaching in schools has fallen by 23%. Since 2010, the share of GCSE entries in arts subjects has shrunk by nearly half and A-level entries have fallen by nearly a third. For nearly half of all young people aged 11 to 15—and for a majority when it comes to drama—school is their only contact with the arts. They do not participate in arts activities outside the school gate. When provision in schools declines, those young people do not lose some of their access to the arts, they lose all of it, and the burden falls hardest on those who can least afford it. Children in the most deprived areas are less likely to study arts subjects and less likely to access extracurricular cultural opportunities, creating what the Cultural Learning Alliance has called an entitlement gap. This is not a peripheral concern: it goes to the heart of what we believe education to be and what kind of society we wish to be.
Against that backdrop, the review contains much that deserves recognition. The proposal to abolish the EBacc has been widely welcomed by arts educators and their representative bodies. For 15 years, that performance measure squeezed arts subjects out of timetables, budgets and the thinking of school leaders who had little choice but to prioritise the subjects it rewarded. The reform of Progress 8, although still subject to consultation, signals a more inclusive conception of achievement. The Government’s second pledge in the executive summary, to
“revitalise arts education as part of the reformed national curriculum”,
is not a minor commitment. The arts are described, rightly, as an entitlement for every pupil rather than an optional extra. I welcome these commitments unreservedly.
The challenge, however, lies in the gap between aspiration and implementation, and it is a considerable one. The Government are pursuing an ambitious range of activity simultaneously: a reformed curriculum, an enrichment strategy, the National Youth Strategy, the schools White Paper, the National Centre for Arts and Music Education and the Hodge review of Arts Council England. These initiatives serve different purposes, and not all are primarily concerned with education, but those that are must be properly joined up if they are to deliver on the Government’s commitments. There is, for example, an apparent tension between the national centre’s reliance on leveraged philanthropy to fund activities that would previously have been covered by statutory schools funding, and the Hodge review’s parallel recommendation for an entirely separate philanthropic fund. I ask the Minister directly: is it either viable or desirable to place this much weight on philanthropy to fill gaps that statutory funding ought to cover?
Compounding this, the new National Centre for Arts and Music Education is reported to be operating on a smaller budget than the bridge organisations it replaces, only some of which will continue to receive support from DCMS. But even a well-resourced national centre could not on its own solve what is, in the end, the most pressing problem of all: there are simply not enough specialist teachers to deliver the arts subjects the Government have promised.
The Government have reduced initial teacher training bursaries for creative subjects at precisely the moment when the review calls for their expansion. The consequences are already visible. Drama is recruiting less than half its target number of trainee teachers; music is only just above half. The Campaign for the Arts has noted the obvious tension: the Government have pledged to put creativity at the heart of the curriculum, while simultaneously restricting the financial incentives that draw people into teaching those very subjects. I ask the Minister directly: how do the Government intend to build a revitalised arts education on a diminishing supply of specialist teachers, and will they reconsider the bursary position?
I will add a broader question about how the arts subjects are valued, not merely in policy documents but in public discourse. For too long, arts and humanities subjects have been set in opposition to STEM, as though the two were competing rather than complementary. That false hierarchy has been entrenched by the marketisation of higher education. When universities become dependent on student fees, students become customers, and subjects begin to be valued, or devalued, according to their perceived market worth. The arts and humanities have suffered on both counts: devalued in the league tables that drive student choice and devalued culturally in a discourse that has come to equate worth with starting salary. This is the context in which the review’s commitment to parity of esteem between subjects must be understood. It is why that commitment, if it is to mean anything, will require more than warm words in a curriculum document.
Finally, I will say a brief word about language—not the language of the review, but modern languages as a subject. The abolition of the EBacc is, on balance, good for arts education, but it carries a real cost for languages, which derived much of their school-level protection from that same performance measure. There are already reports of head teachers reducing GCSE languages provision in direct response to the removal of the EBacc. University departments have been contracting for years. Since January alone, closures or reductions have been announced at Leicester, Nottingham, Heriot-Watt and Essex. In 2024, fewer than 3% of A-levels were in languages; PE attracted more entries than French and German combined. Can the Minister say what steps the Government are taking to ensure that the gains for arts education do not come at the further expense of languages? The case for an advanced language premium, along the lines of the advanced maths premium, has to be considered.
The Government have made a public commitment to every child having access to high-quality arts education, regardless of background or postcode. The ongoing consultation on Progress 8 and the new curriculum expected in 2027 represent a genuine opportunity to get this right. I look forward to hearing how the Government intend to take it.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on securing this important if brief debate. There was much to welcome in both the Curriculum and Assessment Review and the Government’s response to it. Like the noble Lord, I welcome the end of the damaging EBacc obsession from the now noble Lord, Lord Gove, which will pave the way to a broader curriculum with stronger access to music, art, sport, drama and vocational subjects. I was not aware of the point that the noble Lord raised about the threat to language learning; I note that and will take it up in future. It was also pleasing to see the report’s emphasis on oracy and, even more, the Government’s recognition of oracy as a foundational skill alongside reading, writing and maths.
The review said that it is important to ensure that assessments test what pupils should be learning, not just what is easy to measure. It then went on to say:
“We consider that the Key Stage 2 assessments are generally performing well”.
That view is not widely shared by educators at primary level, and I and others regret that the Government did not counter it in their response. Many primary school teachers, school leaders and parents had hoped that the Government would take account of the evidence on the harmful effects of the statutory primary assessment system, including year 6 SATs, year 1 phonics checks and year 4 times tables checks. A system that places data collection and whole-school accountability ahead of prioritising the love of learning and children’s well-being has inevitable consequences. Teaching to the test and a narrow curriculum mean that, for many children, year 6 is spent cramming for the end-of-year exams, focusing on maths, English and little else. Research from the UCL Institute of Education indicates that this is particularly common in areas of high disadvantage.
Research has shown that three-quarters of parents think that SATs harm their children’s mental health, as the stress and anxiety of GCSE-style exams at the age of 10 or 11 take their toll. The review claimed that it would emphasise inclusion, belonging and a curriculum that values every child for who they are. Instead, the review recommended that more children spend more time preparing for government tests, including children with SEND. Some 76% of children with SEND do not reach the expected standard in SATs, while 91% of children with EHCPs do not reach that expected standard. For many of these children, preparing for SATs is the start of school avoidance, which often carries over to secondary school.
The call for meaningful reform of primary assessment from school leaders, teachers, parents and children will not go away, because the problems with SATs persist. Head teachers will continue to struggle to recruit and retain year 6 teachers, and too many parents will continue to see damage to the mental health of their 10 and 11 year-olds. There is still time for the Government to listen to those who know children and their education best, and I hope that discussions to that effect can take place in the near future.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for securing this important debate. I will focus briefly on two areas: financial education and physical education.
On financial education, I welcome the review’s recognition of financial literacy, budgeting and wider life skills in the curriculum. With reforms expected by 2028, we now have a critical window to get this right. The proposals to strengthen financial education in secondary schools and to extend it into primary schools are absolutely a move in the right direction. We know that, if young people start early, they develop good money habits and build confidence in managing their finances.
Financial education has been statutory in secondary schools for over a decade, yet, as the Money and Pensions Service has reported, only around half of children receive a meaningful financial education. As the charity Young Enterprise has said, curriculum reform on its own is not enough: teachers need proper support, including training, clear guidance and high-quality resources.
The APPG on Financial Education for Young People, of which I am an officer, has also made it clear that financial education is not being adequately measured in our schools. Until it is inspected—for example, through Ofsted—it will not be prioritised, and, unless we focus on delivery, we risk repeating the same mistake we have seen in our secondary schools. So I do hope the Government will ensure that this is properly resourced, inspected and given protected curriculum time, because it is a life skill that every child deserves.
I turn now to physical education. We know that children are not getting enough physical activity. With huge concerns around high childhood obesity, mental health and well-being, schools are one of the few places where we can reach every child at scale. Once they leave, we lose one of the best opportunities to shape their lifelong healthy habits. There is already an expectation of around two hours of PE each week. However, as the review highlights, this is not delivered consistently—particularly in secondary schools, where the curriculum pressure is greatest. All too often, PE is squeezed out rather than protected.
The review rightly recognises that improving PE is about strengthening delivery, consistency and the conditions that schools need to make it happen. However, I also believe that we should be more ambitious. The Chief Medical Officer recommends around 60 minutes of physical activity a day for children; that should be our direction of travel, properly embedded into the school day. As Ali Oliver of the Youth Sport Trust said:
“By increasing physical activity levels in schools, we can develop children who are happy, healthy and ready to learn”.
I recognise that we cannot endlessly add to the curriculum, but, equally, we cannot continue to treat health and well-being as a secondary consideration. That is why physical education matters.
Finally, I urge the Government to go further by ensuring that financial education is properly resourced and given the priority it deserves, and by placing physical education at the heart of school life. If we want financially capable and physically healthy adults, we must start in our schools.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, we broadly welcome this report as it shows more commitment to the arts and creative subjects, and sees the end of the EBacc, which focused so heavily on academic learning. As the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said, it has been sad indeed to see music disappear from many schools, along with drama, dance and art, particularly as the creative industries are sources of pride and economic well-being in the country.
Students will welcome the greater choice offered. There will be challenges in ensuring that the depleted teaching workforce for these subjects is re-energised, with more teachers being recruited. Can the Minister say how teacher recruitment is going for the creative sector? We also need reform of GCSE English and maths—neither currently encourages young people to pursue these subjects—and we continue to face an acute shortage of science teachers, particularly physics teachers. Do the Government have a plan to remedy that?
We are concerned by the new V-level proposals. T-levels have not caught on as the previous Government hoped. BTECs are understood and accepted by employers, colleges and universities. It takes a while for a new qualification, particularly a vocational one, to become known and accepted. I was working for City & Guilds when NVQs, or national vocational qualifications, were introduced—remember them? It was said that they would simplify the vocational offerings and be the lasting solution to the academic/vocational divide, but where are they now?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, there is a Division in the House. The Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes, but these votes may be back to back, so we may adjourn for 30 minutes; we will have to see what happens with the voting.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, as I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted by the votes, national qualifications were supposed to be the lasting solution—and where are they now? I remember the concerns people had that the qualifications which had shaped so many careers were to disappear. We tried to reassure them that they would be City & Guilds NVQs, which calmed some of the storms, but with City & Guilds currently in the doldrums that will not be so easy this time round.
The current creative qualifications are broadly understood and respected. Why create something new, rather than refurbish the existing? We also note that overly prescribed content will not support those SEND learners who currently thrive under a flexible, adaptable and practical-based curriculum. Will the Minister slow down the pace of reforms and retain funding for the successful creative qualifications, at least until T-levels or V-levels have proved their worth, because they certainly have not yet? It is vital to consult further education colleges and tutors, universities, schools and awarding bodies which know at first hand the value of the qualifications they deliver. The awarding bodies were not fully consulted in the development of T-levels, which meant that mistakes were made.
I associate myself most warmly with the very real concerns about modern languages. If I had more time, I would develop my arguments on those, but I must stick to the time here: just rest assured that modern languages are pretty essential to our future, too.
The futures of our young people—the future creative professionals and international ambassadors who could contribute much to the quality of our lives and to the economy—are at stake. However, I congratulate the Government on rowing back from the exclusively academic programmes of their predecessors.
Baroness Caine of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, developing a cutting-edge curriculum to equip children and young people with the essential knowledge and skills which will enable them to adapt and thrive in the world and workplace of the future was a key purpose of this review. Media literacy and digital literacy were two of the top five issues raised by young people and stakeholders in the review process. The definition of media literacy used in this review was
“understanding and engaging critically with the message conveyed through different media channels, including AI”.
However, Ofcom, the body charged with the responsibility for monitoring and overseeing the delivery of media literacy in the UK, uses this definition in its three-year strategy on it:
“the ability to use, understand and create media and communications”
in a variety of contexts. The difference is apparent.
Using and studying creative media content was absent from the consideration of the curriculum review. Why was it missed out? Is it part of the arts? Yes, and the review did deep dives into other arts subjects, but not these. Was it not seen as important to the future of the economy and the future of work, while film, TV and computer games are priorities for support in the creative industries strategy, and createch is growing apace? Was it not seen as societally relevant?
Most culture that people and young people consume is screen-based, and most creative work they make and exchange is on TikTok and will only grow with AI. Unlike other arts subjects, it was not part of the existing national curriculum, and following the philosophy used to approach the review—evolution not revolution—it had no formal foundations in the curriculum to evolve from. Whatever the reason for not addressing it, the result is that questions need to be asked and answered.
GCSEs and A-levels are currently available in media, film and TV studies. Though the take-up is relatively small, with 26,500 at the moment, it is one of the arts subject areas that is seeing an uptick in applications. Are these subject areas recognised as ones that will stand alongside others that have been identified and be given equal status, alongside performance measures and the reformed Progress 8? Do they need to be looked at, revitalised and updated? Are they rigorous enough? Will they be included in the National Centre for Arts and Music? There is one T-level for broadcast and media. Do there need to be VQs, and how will they align with existing qualifications?
To summate, I believe that this was an omission in the curriculum review. There is a good reason for that omission to be remedied as a matter of priority, so that we can be reassured that the appropriate focus and scrutiny, with attendant recommendations, have been done to inform content and planning for the very welcome and much needed new national curriculum. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on securing this debate. It is much needed. I agree with a lot of the comments that have been made so far. I want to go a little off-piste and talk about teaching about religion and belief in state schools, which, according to the courts, must be conveyed in a way that is objective, critical and pluralistic. That principle reflects the wider human rights framework governing education and has been reiterated over a number of years in domestic and European case law. In England, the High Court in Fox v Secretary of State for Education drew attention to the importance of ensuring that pupils receive a balanced understanding of the diversity of beliefs present in modern society, including non-religious world views such as humanism. The judgment highlighted concerns that such perspectives should not be treated as marginal or incidental but rather form a meaningful part of pupils’ education about religion and belief. More recently, the Supreme Court in Northern Ireland, in case JR87, reaffirmed that same principle, upholding the finding that elements of the religious education curriculum there were not sufficiently objective, critical and pluralistic because they effectively privileged particular religious perspectives. Importantly, the court also made it clear that the existence of a parental right of withdrawal cannot compensate for a curriculum that does not meet the required standard.
In the light of that developing case law, and given that the Curriculum and Assessment Review suggested that religious education may in due course be brought within the national curriculum, can the Minister say what assessment the Government have made of the implication of these judgments for religious education in England? What steps will they take to ensure that RE across the English school system is strengthened so that it reflects the full diversity of both religious and non-religious beliefs in contemporary England?
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Freyberg for getting this important debate and declare, as ever, that I am a secondary school teacher. Several people have asked me recently why I always declare myself as a teacher, and I always answer, because I have to, but I would anyway. I am very proud of being a teacher. People tend to be interested when you say you are a teacher. I think this goes back to the Blair years, when the status of teachers rose dramatically. I am optimistic that with the CAR, the response and the White Papers we have the opportunity of a similar renaissance.
On Wednesday, I chaired a meeting of the APPG for Art, Craft and Design in Education. The subject was continuing professional development. We heard about pedagogy, assessment objectives, autonomy, skill control and even multimodal ephemeral text. I asked the question, “What about fun?” They brightened and said, “Oh yes, we forgot to mention it was really good fun”. We have forgotten the fun. According to the National Literacy Trust, only one in three 8 to 18 year-olds enjoys reading. School refusal is at an all-time high. My answer, which is in the CAR, is to teach less content—not dumbing down but giving more space for context and criticism. Obviously, I have read enough cognitive science to know that the fundamental core of knowledge needs to be taught and drilled. I shall give the Committee an example. If I have time, I teach a lesson to my year 10 product designers on tampons, condoms and anti-personnel mines. All are designed with the human body in mind. They are designed to interact with the human body. The mine is designed to maim rather than kill. They are all designed by product designers. That lesson reinforces the concepts of anthropometrics, ergonomics, ethics and sustainability—all of which are core curriculum topics—but in a memorable way.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, has touched on, we also need to get rid of compulsory religious studies and replace it with a compulsory citizenship GCSE, which would mix issues such as religion versus humanism, financial and media literacy, and politics—perhaps with trusted partners such as BBC Verify and Bitesize Other Side of the Story. We need more time for CPD for teachers to remind them why they became teachers. If teachers are having fun, they are the best ambassadors for a profession that is still struggling to recruit; and if children are having fun, they turn up to school and they fulfil their potential.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, last night I went to see my 17 year-old daughter perform in her final show at the BRIT School in Croydon. There were tears aplenty as a hugely talented bunch of students took their final curtain call. The good news for them is that the world of entertainment is a major employer: the Government estimate that over half a million work in those industries. It is undoubtedly very competitive too, but if you go to the right school and study the right qualification, you have a head start.
The Guardian newspaper put it better than I could just last month:
“As the Grammy winners took to the stage in Los Angeles on Sunday night, one common thread emerged: many had once walked the halls of a comprehensive school in Croydon, south London”—
the BRIT School. Just in case any noble Lords do not have Olivia Dean, Lola Young or Raye on their Spotify playlists, all of whom won Grammys last month from the platform of a BRIT education, then I also mention Adele, Amy Winehouse and Tom Holland. Why am I talking about where Spider-Man went to school, I hear noble Lords ask. It is simply because there seems a serious risk that the education he benefited from is under real threat. It is of course not just his, but the education of all these other stars too and so many other performers, less famous to be sure, but none the less all making an important contribution to the UK economy as well as giving pleasure to audiences home and abroad.
What is this risk? It is simply that the BRIT and all other post-16 education producers will be prevented from offering the extended diploma assured by the University of the Arts London in future—or indeed anything like it—for the extraordinary reason, it seems, that the extended diploma is too large. Apparently, the right thing for all 16 and 17 year-olds interested in the vocational path is to take three small qualifications, because that is what A-level students do, even though T-level students do not—I hope noble Lords are keeping up.
Where on earth has all this come from? It seems that someone, possibly in Whitehall, has taken a perfectly understandable recommendation from the Francis review and turned it, for some inexplicable reason, into a very unhelpful one. The Francis review drew attention to the variation in quality of some level 3 vocational qualifications and recommended investment in
“aspirational, coherent, recognised and respected vocational and applied qualifications, to sit alongside A Levels and T Levels”,
called V-levels. It went on to say that the majority should be the size of A-levels but, crucially, that there should be large ones, including for creative subjects, as for T-levels.
Thus far, the Government’s response—drafted, I suspect, by civil servants who did A-levels and do not have a single vocational qualification between them—stated that having large V-levels alongside T-levels would “create confusion”. This is plain silly. More than this, it is pointlessly destructive of world-beating creative vocational education, which is why it is not what Professor Francis and her expert team review recommended, and why it is not what fabulous schools such as the BRIT teach their students. Does my noble friend the Minister, who I am absolutely certain had nothing to do with this silliness, agree that it is not too late to think again, do the right thing and back the wonderful provision that already exists?
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for securing this debate and so brilliantly illustrating the “arts dividend” in education—the phrase used by Darren Henley, CEO of the Arts Council England. The Francis review contains important proposals, but the response to it falls short on the issue that will hugely determine our economic and democratic future: AI literacy. Media and digital literacy is, in Internet Matters’ own words, “a postcode lottery”.
I have three specific concerns. The first is institutional agility. I welcome the media literacy action plan published just 10 days ago, in particular the £24 million TechFirst youth programme and the continued investment in the National Centre for Computing Education. But the plan confirms what we feared: curriculum consultation will not begin until later this year. The revised programmes of study will not be published until spring 2027 and they will not be taught until September 2028. The Government’s own foreword acknowledges that one in seven adults avoids the internet altogether due to safety concerns. They cannot simultaneously diagnose that level of digital anxiety and offer a curriculum solution that is nearly three years away. We need to establish an AI in education advisory board, as suggested by Policy Connect in its report, Skills in the Age of AI, to provide real-time expert guidance, ensuring that the curriculum becomes a living document and is not a decade behind the technology.
My second concern is curriculum philosophy. AI literacy must be a mandatory cross-curriculum competence from age seven to 18, prioritising ethical use, critical thinking and the human-centred skills that AI cannot replace. All this is, of course, to be found in the arts and humanities. There is a democratic dimension that the Government cannot ignore. They intend to extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds. Research by Internet Matters, confirmed by the Electoral Commission, shows that digital literacy is directly linked to young people’s capacity to engage meaningfully in democracy. If the Government extend the franchise, they need to equip young people with the literacy to navigate the information environment.
My third concern is the teaching workforce. Teachers are the primary multiplier for these skills, yet 30% cite a lack of relevant training as a barrier and 21% cite a lack of up-to-date resources. AI literacy must be embedded in initial teacher training, the early career framework and national professional qualifications. The action plan’s commitments on teacher support are welcome but conspicuously vague.
I ask the Minister three questions. What provision will be made for children in school now, before 2028? Will the Government establish an AI in education advisory board? When will a funded plan to integrate AI competences into statutory teacher training be published? We cannot build an AI-ready economy on a digitally illiterate workforce. Education must come first, not last.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, there are four key stages that have mandatory elements in the maths curriculum. The fourth stage concerns pupils aged 14 to 16. Here there is an abundant list of topics that the student should be taught and which they might presume to know by the age of 16. The list is both complete and unexceptional. My primary interest is with stage 5, which corresponds to ages 16 to 18 and is the stage at which students prepare for their A-level examinations. Nothing at all is specified in the national curriculum for this stage. Nevertheless, at this level, the topics and methods of teaching and the texts of mathematics have hardly changed over the course of half a century or more.
The fact that there has been so little innovation has a simple explanation. Little has changed in the exam papers set by the various boards of examiners, which tend to concur on what is appropriate. The boards are predominantly owned by large publishers that have made considerable investments in producing A-level texts, which they are understandably unwilling to revise. Typically, these texts are lavishly produced with a liberal use of colours, but they are turgid and uninspiring, and unattractive to many students.
The number of students pursuing mathematics at this level is by common consent far lower than is needed to service the demands of the nation. There are too few graduates to satisfy the competing demands of education on the one hand, and of industry and commerce on the other. Teachers who are maths graduates are not liable to remain long in the teaching profession: they are lured away by the higher salaries on offer elsewhere. Therefore, a large proportion of those who teach mathematics in schools have derived their knowledge in pursuit of other subjects such as economics, accountancy, the physical sciences, life sciences and even geography. Many do an excellent job, but many teach with a degree of diffidence that is often perceived by the students.
Why is the diet so turgid and indigestible? I contend that it is a legacy from the mathematicians working at the end of the 19th century, when the dominant programme was to secure the axiomatic basis of mathematics. This led to an abstract and brutal style that found its way into the textbooks at the higher levels. It gave rise to a didactic style that filtered down to the lower levels. The diet can be rendered palatable by taking care to associate the elements of a mathematics course with the social, historical and scientific context from which they have emerged.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on a brilliant opening speech. I believe in two things with regard to school education. First, education is a good in itself. Secondly, a well-balanced education allows students to try out different things and see where their real interests lie. I am particularly grateful for the briefing from the Independent Society of Musicians. I want to make three points: one on accountability measures, the second on teachers and the third on higher education, on the basis that, in the context of this debate, what happens in higher education has a feedback effect on education in schools.
The EBacc shut out art subjects, so its demise is not mourned. Progress 8 is still with us, although the Government, backed up by their vocal support for art subjects, have pledged to reform Progress 8 further. But there is concern that in the new model, with two guaranteed slots in the science bucket, it is still too heavily weighted in favour of the sciences, while humanities, languages and creative subjects slug it out for slots five and six, so that creative subjects can still be ignored, as can languages. The idea of bringing in an extra science subject into the so-called breadth bucket would reinforce this bias even further. There is therefore the question whether some schools may not need to make any changes to the arts curriculum, as they should.
My questions to the Government are: first, what monitoring will be carried out to ensure that the changes that they would like to see in the arts offering in schools will come about? Secondly, will they address the severe shortage of arts teachers, because the arts curriculum that the Government would like to see will not be effective without the specialist teachers required? If the 6,500 more teachers are not subject-specific, how will this be achieved?
Finally, it is important to call out the truly unhelpful remarks made last month by the shadow Education Secretary, Laura Trott, on the programme “Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg”, when she described creative arts courses as “dead-end university courses”. She would like to see more apprenticeships, as many of us would, but she completely misunderstands two things. One is the nature of creative arts courses, which, whether we are talking about the visual arts, film or the performing arts, have always, by their nature, been college-framed courses. They cannot be turned into apprenticeships. Secondly, these are vocations, not dead ends. It is the vocation, not the salary, that is the purpose. If you remove these courses—and they are already vulnerable in the current higher education system—you effectively remove irreplaceable opportunities for a vast number of young people.
I should add that I agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, said about the existing qualifications for the Brit School, which should not be changed0.
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on securing this short debate and introducing it so well. I thank the ISM—the Independent Society of Musicians—Dr Anthony Anderson and Professor Adam Whittaker of Birmingham City University, and Dr Robert Gardiner of the RNCM, for their analysis and briefings on the implications of the Curriculum and Assessment Review for music.
The review found that inequalities in music education are substantial, with music showing the widest disadvantage attainment gap of any subject, driven by unequal access to instrumental tuition and wider inequities in school and community resources. I have also raised with Ministers the fact that music teacher supply is a related problem. Since 2010, we have seen persistently high vacancy rates for music teachers. In fact, in 2023-24, that vacancy rate was among the highest of all subjects, and the Department for Education has missed its music teacher recruitment target in 12 of the past 13 years. There was a small increase in recruitment during 2024-25, after the brief return of the £10,000 bursary, but recruitment still reached only around 40% of target.
The conclusion is clear. The music teacher bursary must be restored. The Government’s opportunity mission makes it clear that we want high-quality music and arts education for every child in all state-funded schools. The curriculum review has recentred music and arts as core to a rounded education, not as optional extras, and it has challenged the narrowing of the curriculum that has squeezed music out of timetables, particularly in disadvantaged areas.
But these are only starting points. Organisations such as ISM are clear that curriculum changes alone will not close the participation gap for pupils from low-income backgrounds, who remain much less likely to take GCSE music and, when they do take it, achieve lower grades because cost is still a major obstacle. For too many families, paid lessons and instruments are out of reach, so school provision is the only option. But, as we have heard, shortages of specialist teachers—particularly specialist music teachers, especially in primary schools and in some regions of the country—limit what can be offered.
The Francis review and the Government’s response to it mark a welcome change of direction, but I ask my noble friend the Minister whether the Government will consider two steps that could genuinely close that participation gap. The first is the return of the music teacher bursary, which makes a career as a music teacher possible for those who would otherwise be unable to afford the cost of tuition. The second is the implementation of the Hodge review’s recommendation that the DfE, DCMS and Arts Council England work with philanthropists, trusts and foundations to create a joint fund to improve the cultural offer in schools, including the cost of training and paying for specialist teachers, now that we have the very good news that the Government have accepted all the recommendations of the Hodge review. If we are serious about opportunity for every child, those are the levers that we need.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, looking at this debate, what strikes me as the most unloved thing in the Room is the EBacc. The fact that we have an overemphasis on academic standards has squeezed out the fun bits. If I had longer, I would go over many of the speeches, but the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, bringing the condom and the landmine into the same sentence, along with the tampon, is something that I will try, but will probably fail, to drive out of my brain. The main thing to say is that something that makes school entertaining and keeps you engaged has often driven up attainment in academic subjects. PE is established here, and arts and other creative activities also have a similar record. How do you bring this in? I suggest that the Government look again at something that they have done in PE, which has had a degree of success—the school sports partnership.
This is not about an elite-level pathway; this is about participation. It is about somebody taking on something and getting something back from it. There may not be national bodies for things such as the arts, am-dram and music, but people are doing this out there. I would hope that the Government have some interaction with the voluntary sector, where people do something that is fun and adds to their life. I have known dyslexics who will read a document about something that they are interested in and try several times to get it. They put far more effort in than they will do into some random piece of literature, no matter how highly it is esteemed by certain academics. They will engage with it, and people who have something to engage with positively in the school experience will do better. I hope that the Minister, when she comes to answer, will at least say that the Government are looking positively at this, because there is a whole group of people who can feed into the system.
Music would be a real benefit. Somebody once described to me that if you give a violin or a piano to a child to learn the basics on, it is a choice between being shot or hanged for many parents. Why do we not expand this to a guitar or a set of drums? This is possibly a different form of death, but you get the idea—these are things in which people can engage. Look to what talks to you in your own language, or language that is accessible to you, and you have a chance of expanding people’s horizons and upping their academic attainment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I, too, would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for his excellent introduction and for securing this short debate. As we have heard, the Curriculum and Assessment Review built on the work of the previous Government and is described as “evolution not revolution”. I briefly acknowledge the work that the last Government did in important areas: strengthening the evidence base around early reading, expanding the use of phonics and other structured programmes, investing in tutoring to help children to catch up after the pandemic and setting a much clearer expectation for a knowledge-rich curriculum.
We on these Benches welcome the chance to strengthen the curriculum, while in no way wishing to sacrifice the emphasis that has been placed on reading, writing, maths, sciences and modern languages, and ensuring that children can access the breadth of education, which noble Lords have expressed so eloquently today. We definitely share with the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, the concerns about the impact of losing the EBacc on the uptake of modern foreign languages. We also have concerns about some of the proposed changes to the Progress 8 measure, which is out for consultation; the ill-famed soft bigotry of low expectations risks sneaking back into our schools.
We have seen a dramatic improvement in the global rankings for our children in reading, maths and sciences, yet I think all of us who have spoken in this debate want to see more enrichment opportunities for our children. Therefore, can the Minister say, first, what consideration the Government have given to the community budget that was available to schools to allow them to open their facilities to their wider community, such as swimming pools, sports facilities or drama facilities? My understanding is that the grant is gone, but surely that would be a way to use those facilities more. Secondly, what consideration has been given to building on the work of multi-academy trusts that are offering a longer school day? Some trusts add an hour a day—that is a year of extra time for a child’s education to include a bit of fun.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I am very conscious of the richness of this debate, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for instigating it and everyone who has participated. I acknowledge that I have 10 minutes to comment on the incredible breadth that has come from the Room. I will touch on as much as I can, but of course it comes with the caveat that, if I cannot specifically answer some of the points raised, I will endeavour to follow up in the usual ways.
A good-quality curriculum should support educational success, ignite curiosity, introduce fresh perspectives, and lay the foundations for a rich and fulfilling life and career. I note the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on disadvantage, impact and entitlement, as well as those from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, on fun—that is always missed out. I like the way he included teachers in that; that broadens it out a bit, but he is absolutely right that we need enjoyment and engagement.
We know that too many young people are leaving education without the essential knowledge and skills they need to thrive and adapt in a rapidly changing world, as noble Lords have mentioned. That is why we commissioned the Francis review, and we recognise the need to have join-up. I absolutely challenge from the start any suggestion that we are allowing low expectations to creep back in—that is the furthest from our intentions behind the work we are doing. We realise that too many young people have been let down, and we must make sure that we reverse that.
We will refresh our national curriculum and publish it in spring 2027, so that it can be taught from September 2028. Therefore, there is still time to engage in the process. The new national curriculum and GCSEs will have improved coherence, clarity and sequencing, so that every child leaves school having mastered the subjects they have been taught. As we have heard, it will need to be strong in skills, thereby preparing young people for life and careers in a changing world. It will deliver high standards for all and rock-solid foundations in oracy, reading, writing and maths, as well as providing an engaging and stretching key stage 3.
I could not agree more with the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, on financial literacy. It is clearly missing. It is so important—particularly for the most vulnerable children, such as our looked-after population, who desperately need this. I really welcome the focus on this but, of course, there is much more to do.
To drive the standards we are determined to deliver, we must support an appropriate transition from key stage 2 to key stage 3 for all pupils, as well as for the teachers who teach them. I thank my noble friend Lord Watson for his intervention on the primary assessment system. SATs play an essential role in our education system. The review panel was clear that, from its perspective, the system of primary assessment is broadly working well, but we have to make sure that such systems are subject to robust development processes, including reviews, to ensure that they are tailored to and reference children with special needs in particular; that point has been made well. Also, where appropriate, there is a range of access arrangements. Children should not be fearful of these experiences of being tested; that, I think, is the concern.
On arts education, which has obviously been the key thrust of today’s debate, we must make sure that a revitalised process for all is at the forefront of our reforms. The arts help young people develop their creativity and their confidence, benefiting their mental health, well-being and attitudes to learning. Our reformed curriculum will ensure that art and design, music, drama and dance spark creativity, with clear progression for all pupils so that their developing practice and knowledge build towards a set of meaningful outcomes.
In addition, the response to my noble friend Lady Hodge’s review—handily, it came out today; timing is everything—confirms that the Government will accept or explore the recommendations. Arts Council England will play an important role in realising this ambition, and we will work with it to improve access to excellence in arts education and enrichment.
Picking up on the comments made by my noble friend Lady Keeley and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, philanthropy is an interesting subject. The arts in this country depend on philanthropy, so we have to make it work better and align with our priorities. The Hodge review aims to create a joint fund in this area; we are not yet clear on whether we will move down that road, but it is essential that we bring together the thinking on this from the National Centre for Arts and Music Education.
On the comments about the National Centre for Arts and Music Education, I can confirm that a budget of £13 million will be set aside for the first three years of a six-year programme. This will be commensurate with the establishment of other centres, supporting schools in the teaching of music, art and design, drama and dance through a programme of professional development, recognising just how important is that teacher training keeps up with the demands.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, talked about the supply of music teachers. In art and design and in music, we have seen remarkable growth in the strength of our teaching workforce. Over the past two years alone, the number of new trainees entering art and design and music has risen sharply: between 2024-25 and 2025-56, postgraduate teacher training recruitment in art and design increased by an outstanding 117%, and, in music, by an impressive 54%. Bursaries for initial teacher training are reviewed annually to ensure that they continue to support recruitment where it is most needed.
There was a lot of interest in Progress 8. This is a key subject. I wish I had more time to go into it, but the review found that the uptake of EBacc subjects did not translate into increased study of them at 16 to 19, and EBacc measures have unnecessarily constrained subject choice. It is out for consultation. Please can everyone make sure that they engage in that process to get the richest possible response.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, physical education is a foundation subject in the national curriculum and compulsory at all four key stages. It is very important to make sure that the dance and swimming content, for example, is included.
The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, talked about V-levels, which were raised by a number of noble Lords including my noble friend Lady Ramsey and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. It is vital that we get this right. We need clearer level 2 routes through. I reassure noble Lords that we are working with the sector in the rollout.
Modern foreign languages are the subject of huge concern. We are determined to make sure that all pupils have access to high quality language education. We want to start this at primary, updating key stage 2 languages and exploring the development of a more flexible new qualification, making sure that pupils can have their achievements acknowledged earlier. On an advanced language premium based on the advanced maths premium, we think this would not be the most effective way of increasing the take-up of A-levels, but we want to learn from the Languages For All programme.
My noble friend Lady Caine spoke about media literacy. It is critical that, through our curriculum reviews, children will be better prepared. This needs to be included all the way through. I am happy to discuss this further with her.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, we will be shaped and guided by the sector and take further steps on moving forward with regard to religious education. We have debated this before, in the Chamber. The school consensus should include views from faith, non-faith and wider school stakeholders.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, AI is critical, and we are working with experts to ensure that refreshing the computing curriculum equips pupils with essential digital literacy that will be critical going forward. I am afraid my time is up. I thank all noble Lords for a well informed and enjoyable debate.
Learning Disabilities: Health and Social Care Access
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Scriven
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) the use of reasonable adjustments for, and (2) the safety of, people living with learning disabilities when accessing health and social care.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who put their names down to speak in this important short debate, which for me is rather a raw one. This debate is not to ask for more of the same; to do so would be to sign death sentences for thousands more individuals with a learning disability. The system does more than fail. It facilitates what Professor Sara Ryan describes as “social murder”. As both a researcher and the mother of Connor Sparrowhawk, whose preventable death occurred a decade ago, she uses this term to describe a state-sanctioned erasure whereby those very institutions aware of the risks to life choose to maintain the status quo rather than dismantle it. People with a learning disability die, on average, 20 years earlier than the general population, and 40% of these deaths are preventable. At current trends, it will take 102 years to close this life expectancy gap. I therefore ask the Minister: does she accept that this century-long wait is a human rights failure?
Saying that tweaks will be made to a fundamentally broken system is an acceptance of the status quo that killed Connor a decade ago, and it is the same status quo that killed my nephew. My nephew, Myles Scriven, died in 2023 at the age of 31. The coroner delivered a devastating judgment of the evidential reality of today’s health and care system. He found a culture stuck in another era where clinicians had only a superficial grasp of regulations and communication was unsafe. Most tellingly, the reasonable adjustments were laid out in Myles’s medical notes: advocates required; mental capacity tests required; a hospital passport required; communication support required. Yet this was ignored by all healthcare staff, despite the trust telling us at the inquest that 98% of staff had been trained. Safeguards existed on paper only; they did not exist for Myles.
Since Myles’s death, hundreds of families have contacted me, confirming that his experience was not an isolated incident. They have shared identical accounts of systemic failure. Reasonable adjustments are being bypassed, parental expertise is being dismissed, and regulators are failing to enforce the very standards that they are sworn uphold. Despite repeated warnings, some providers continue to ignore the very changes necessary to prevent further avoidable tragedy. Myles’s case was no outlier, but a systemic norm.
We see the grim reality of this failure in the superb journalism of Daniel Hewitt of ITV News, whose investigations have exposed a trail of preventable deaths where life-saving laws are treated as optional. We also see it in the timeless reporting of Dr George Julian, who spent a decade at inquests documenting the fatal consequences of diagnostic overshadowing. Her work reveals an ingrained culture that refuses to see the person behind the disability and a culture that sometimes weaponises the Mental Capacity Act, while completely abandoning the legal duty to provide reasonable adjustments.
So why has the machinery of oversight failed so spectacularly? The CQC has become a regulator of process. It audits the existence of policy, not the efficacy of its application at the bedside. With only one prosecution in this area by the CQC, despite hundreds of preventable deaths, I ask the Minister: does she not agree that the regulatory framework is fundamentally broken and requires urgent statutory reform? Similarly, LeDeR is a toothless archive of tragedy. It is a system of learning without much doing. It produces a report with no legal powers to compel change. Can the Minister say what the Government’s plan is to transform LeDeR from an archive of tragedy into a tool for change? Specifically, will they commit to a statutory requirement that makes LeDeR’s findings legally binding on providers?
The system is obsessed with inputs. It measures how many staff attend training, not whether they have learned and changed. It measures the number of annual health checks, yet senior clinicians say that these are frequently tick-box exercises. The quality is dangerously variable, leaving serious underlying health needs entirely unaddressed. A tweak will not save lives. We need a systematic reform of the implementation, accountability and regulatory framework that moves beyond paper policy and puts the actual safety and survival of human beings at the very heart of the system.
First, we need a statutory review of all deaths, ensuring legal accountability for implementing recommendations. Can the Minister explain the Government’s ongoing refusal to support this call and why they believe the current voluntary arrangements are sufficient, when the death toll suggests otherwise?
Secondly, the Government must look to the Netherlands, where a dedicated medical specialty for learning disabilities has transformed outcomes and extended life expectancy. We need senior clinical leaders—consultants who can navigate multiple overlapping health issues with the same authority that we see from clinicians in paediatrics. This is about providing the expert clinical leadership required to break through systematic inertia. Will the Government commit to the establishment of these senior clinical leadership roles across the system? Will they provide the recurrent funding required to ensure that this model delivers the improvement and accountability that are so desperately missing?
Thirdly, we need real leadership accountability. The era of moving on from tragedy to tragedy must end. If a provider fails, the responsibility for reform must personally be held right at the top. Accountability must be triggered where a leader presides over safety breaches and fails to implement documented remedial actions—then they should face a lifetime ban from holding any senior management or board-level position in the health and social care sectors. Government responses to my Written Questions reveal a startling vacuum of oversight. They currently lack the basic data required to identify where the system is failing. How can the Government claim to enforce accountability when they do not even track which safety actions are being ignored?
The Minister cannot change the past, but the Government can be the architect of a new era of robust, safe services, accountability and regulatory action that works—or do we continue to defend a system that oversees social murder by another name? Systemic change is more than a tweak; it is a fundamental shift in how we value these human lives. It is the transition from viewing my nephew as a tragic case to seeing him as a citizen, with an inalienable right to safe care and an equal right to long life.
If we do not move to a legally binding new model of improvement, accountability and effective regulation, the Government are effectively saying that a 20-year life expectancy gap is the cost of doing business. Families deserve more than a sympathetic nod. They deserve more than a system that does not work in practice and they deserve a guarantee that “never again” starts today. I look forward to the Minister’s response, not just as a Member of your Lordships’ House, but as an uncle who will not allow his nephew’s preventable death and those of others to be in vain.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and thank him for securing this important debate and for his deeply powerful and moving speech.
One day in 2018, I was walking down a south London street, trying desperately to get through on the phone to my older sister’s GP in the West Midlands. Patsy, my sister, who I have talked about in this House before, had profound learning disabilities. She never talked, she could not walk and was doubly incontinent. She had recently been diagnosed with lung cancer, despite having never smoked.
The consultant who gave us that diagnosis had advised that her cancer was not suitable for treatment and that he expected that she would receive palliative pain-relieving care at the end of her life, at some unpredictable time in the future. There would be future X-rays to establish the progress of the disease because, of course, Patsy could not tell anyone in the usual way how she was feeling. Her carers, and my other sister and me, could tell when she was in pain or happy, or cold or hot, but obviously with medical treatment it was important to have more information on the progress of the disease.
In our regular conversations with our carers and from what we observed with our regular visits, it seemed on that particular day important that she had a follow-up X-ray, as she seemed to be less comfortable. Our main worry was that she was in pain. I had had to telephone her GP practice countless times to remind them of Patsy’s needs, as well as on numerous occasions to speak to the hospital that was supposedly looking after her. She never did have that follow-up X-ray.
Noble Lords will see why this matters so deeply to me and my family, and why I care about the importance of the NHS providing reasonable adjustments to people with learning disabilities. But in case anyone listening—not knowledgeable and expert noble Lords, of course, but perhaps people reading Hansard—thinks that this is an extremely unfortunate one-off, I take them into a meeting of the children and young people steering group for transforming care, a body that the then NHS chief executive, my friend the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, asked me to chair, with the aim of improving outcomes for a particular group of young people with learning disabilities, autism or challenging behaviour.
One day, we were meeting with the then Minister for Children in the Department for Education and the Minister for Social Care in the Department of Health and Social Care under the previous Government. An important part of our work was to try to break down the considerable barriers to health and education for children and young people in these circumstances. But I had to interrupt the Ministers to leave the meeting—very unusually, of course—to take an urgent call on my mobile. I have done that only in particular circumstances.
The call was from Patsy’s carer, who explained that she had had to take Patsy into A&E that day, to a hospital in the Midlands, because she had developed an infection. Hours later, Patsy was still on a trolley waiting to be seen by a doctor, and the carer’s shift was about to come to an end. She was phoning me because she was anxious that she would have to leave Patsy alone as, once my sister had been in the care of the NHS for a certain period of time, the care provider could apparently hand over contractual responsibility for Patsy until she was back home after treatment. I was nearly 150 miles away and was acutely conscious that she was about to be left all alone, lying on a hospital trolley, with no one to give her a drink of water or any food or to change her incontinence pads. I had no idea when she would be seen or what would happen next. It was intolerable.
My elbows sharpened, as I am sure other relatives will understand, and I persuaded the inexperienced but kindly carer to take her phone, with me on it at the other end, and find somebody who looked like they were in a position of authority in the hospital. I asked her to find the nurse in charge, but she did not know what that meant, let alone who that person was. She managed to find the nurse in charge, who I spoke to in very clear terms, explaining the nature of my sister’s learning disabilities, that she had not eaten or had any water or pain relief the whole time she had been in A&E and that she would need a change of pad.
As a result, my sister was then swiftly seen by a doctor, treatment was prescribed and that distressing episode was over. But what a shame that this information had not been on the hospital system automatically, ensuring that she was prioritised accordingly rather than ignored for so long. I was haunted by the image of my sister lying alone, uncared for. Of course, this is the problem that the reasonable adjustments digital flag has been designed to address. Its introduction is too late for my sister, who sadly died some months later, but it could make such a difference to so many others, which is why I am keen to understand from my noble friend the Minister how implementation is going.
The latest deadline for full rollout is September 2026. I say “latest”, as the 2019 NHS Long Term Plan set a deadline of 2023-24. Of course, the NHS struggling with national IT systems is nothing new, but does my noble friend have some good news for me? What about healthcare for people with learning disabilities more generally? Will this now get the priority that it has not had before? I did not see anything specific for this group in the latest 10-year NHS plan, but I know that Ministers are ambitious for change, which is certainly needed.
One more story about Patsy, perhaps the saddest of all, brings this to life. Another day, another meeting of the transforming care steering group and another phone call about my sister, this time to tell me it was time to come up to the West Midlands straightaway, as lung cancer had done its worst and Patsy did not have long to live. When I arrived it was clear that she was in pain and needed morphine, so I phoned the district nursing service to be told that there were only two nurses working across the whole district and that, since morphine was a controlled substance that needed to be administered by the two of them together, Patsy would have to wait for a while in pain—on the last day of her life.
Noble Lords can imagine what I said to those poor district nurses, for whom I felt sorry, but I made sure that my sister was as high up the list as she reasonably could be, given their other commitments. My other sister and I sat all day and night either side of Patsy. The district nurses came when it was her turn. She became calm after the painkillers were administered and, in due course, some hours later, she died peacefully. Of course, many people with learning disabilities get much better care than this, but we all know that many still do not. What can my noble friend the Minister tell us today that will give us hope that action will be taken so that fewer people in future will suffer needlessly in the way that my sister did?
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for securing this important debate and acknowledge with deep respect the noble Lord’s personal connection to the death of his nephew Myles; and to the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, for her moving speech.
This issue is about real lives, real families and the profound consequences when health and social care systems fail to provide reasonable adjustments. I speak as the mother of an autistic son with learning disabilities as well as a doctor, and I spent much of my career working with people with learning disabilities. I want to speak today primarily about David Lodge, whose death was recorded in the most recent LeDeR report and brings this into sharp focus. David was a 40 year-old man with a learning disability and autism. His sister Dr Lodge is a psychiatrist who some years ago worked here in your Lordships’ House with me as a parliamentary researcher. Her brother David was unable to speak using words and used AAC to communicate. He lived at home with his elderly father Peter, who was still his primary carer. When Peter unexpectedly died at home while caring for David, David had no way of raising the alarm. There had been no anticipatory emergency plan. Despite his father explicitly asking David’s social worker what would happen if he died, he was not helped to make a carer’s contingency plan. David was found by his sister days later and taken to hospital, where he very sadly died 13 hours after admission.
David’s inquest identified serious failings in his hospital care: basic physical examinations were not carried out, staff did not recognise how unwell he was and, most distressingly, he was left in pain. His sister told staff that David was in pain, but they did not listen. She told them that he had a hospital passport explaining how he showed pain. No one looked at it. No one acted on it. Despite her repeated concerns, David was not given any pain relief. A prevention of future deaths report issued by the coroner following David’s inquest raised clear concerns about the lack of reasonable adjustments around assessing David’s pain.
As we have heard, David’s case is not an isolated one. My research, published in the early 1990s, found that people with a learning disability died 20 or more years earlier than the rest of the population and it helped to make the case for a confidential inquiry. However, in the most recent LeDeR report, 39% of deaths were considered avoidable and men still die 20 years earlier. A recurring factor is the failure to provide reasonable adjustments. This is not the first time this House has debated reasonable adjustments, nor the first time I have spoken about them, and it is deeply troubling that the gap between policy and practice persists. The question is no longer what needs to be done to ensure the safety of people with learning disabilities in health and social care settings, but why is it not being done? Does the Minister agree that perhaps a Select Committee or an inquiry should be established?
The reasonable adjustments digital flag, a national record of a person’s needs for reasonable adjustments across health and social care settings, is now live in England. The digital flag has the potential to ensure that reasonable adjustments are identified and recorded. However, implementation is slow and inconsistent, and recording alone is not enough if reasonable adjustments are then not provided. Tick box exercises are not enough. People with learning disabilities need trusted relationships. They need continuity in their relationships, not episodes of care after which a person is discharged, and not constantly changing healthcare professionals. David’s sister commented that his annual health checks were five-minute phone calls between a practice nurse who had never met David and his father.
My recent experience attending my son’s annual health check with him was incredibly disappointing. The health check was a tick box exercise delivered by a GP registrar who was about to qualify. He had not met her before, and she had not even heard of Oliver McGowan mandatory training. These are the same health checks at which reasonable adjustments should be agreed and recorded and a meaningful health action plan created. My son’s health plan was not discussed with us, but when it was sent to me it had three things on it and against each the action was “Mum to do”. That is me. Mum could not do.
I found this experience particularly painful as I was involved in the development of the Valuing People White Paper and subsequent work, including designing health checks; recommending health facilitators; helping to get the confidential inquiry agreed; and amending the Health and Care Act to include mandatory training and other initiatives, most of which have been implemented in patchy ways. If we are serious about safety, we must be serious about accountability. As the stories of Myles and David remind us, this is a matter of life and death. What mechanisms will the Government introduce to monitor compliance with recording and, vitally, to provide reasonable adjustments across health and social care?
Also, what accountability measures will apply when organisations fail to deliver? For example, what can be done to introduce standards for annual health checks? Would His Majesty’s Government require ICBs to commission learning disability liaison nurses to be available 24 hours a day in acute NHS trusts? What about committing to introduce David’s rule on the right for people with learning disabilities in NHS hospitals to be seen, heard and understood every day? This would include an obligation on healthcare staff to complete at least daily assessments of the person’s well-being, pain, hydration and nutrition, adapted to the individual’s communication needs—in other words, with reasonable adjustments—and at least daily communication with the individual’s carer, family or supporters to seek their views on the person’s well-being.
David’s sister is doing her own survey of local authorities and reviewing how many have included emergency care planning provisions, having done a carer’s assessment. I pick out one of her results. The City of York identified 298 carers’ assessments in the previous 12 months. Of those, only 32 had any details of emergency care plans, of which only four had alternative contact information. I wonder: does the Care Act need to be amended? If we are to honour the memories of Myles, David and the many others who die from avoidable causes each year, we must move beyond intention to delivery.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for bringing forward this Question for Short Debate. I acknowledge his very personal connection to this topic and echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath, in paying tribute to his powerful opening speech. I also express gratitude to the organisations that have written to me; I am particularly grateful for the extremely helpful briefing document from Mencap.
The topic of our debate has been on my mind since I sat on the Select Committee in your Lordships’ House as part of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill process. Persistent health inequalities for young people—well, for people generally—living with a learning disability and those with Down syndrome were raised on behalf of the National Down Syndrome Policy Group by Ken Ross, who gave evidence to the Select Committee describing
“a systemic direct and indirect bias shown within the health service, which could also be linked to a lack of understanding of the needs, wishes, health, learning and communication profiles of this particular group”.
The LeDeR report and others highlight that the rate of preventable deaths among those with learning disabilities is double that of the general population; the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, raised the critical matter of the lack of heft with LeDeR.
If we are going to make a real difference to health inequalities, we must focus on not only care delivery but preventive care such as accessible public health campaigns. The report noted that access to care is often missed for practical reasons such as a lack of accessible transport links, which, again, will only be compounded for rural communities. Preventive care that includes the practical must continue to be prioritised by ICBs in their strategies to reduce health inequalities.
As the Covid inquiry has continued, we have seen in close detail the impact of inappropriate application of DNACPRs, sometimes on those with learning disabilities. Fear and distrust of the health service for disabled people remains. In some places, that is worsened by geography. There are additional challenges of accessing care if living rurally—a particular feature of the area where I serve as Bishop, which includes Northumberland. This is about accessing the right care at the right time and with the appropriate reasonable adjustments in place.
On the availability of reasonable adjustments, the most recent LeDeR highlights that the involvement of a learning disability liaison nurse in someone’s interaction with the healthcare service is correlated with a higher likelihood of reasonable adjustments to care. It also says that access to learning disability liaison nurses is not straightforward in all parts of the country and they are less commonly available in the north-east.
We are living in an uncertain health and care landscape, and in the midst of significant reforms to the healthcare service and impending significant reforms to adult social care services. ICBs were asked to make 50% cuts to their running costs last year and, to meet this, many have made arrangements to merge and expand their geographical footprint. None of these agreements, to my knowledge, has been made in the north-east, but those ICBs will still have been required to make cuts. What then will the impact be of ICB cuts on the important measures to ensure patients have access to the reasonable adjustments they need? What support is being provided to ICBs to ensure that essential services like this are protected from cuts?
As we await the outcome of the Casey commission on adult social care, which promises significant reform, we know the huge pressure facing council budgets. Services such as Shared Lives, run by councils, are extremely beneficial, especially for those living with a learning disability. According to a survey carried out by the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, 87% of its membership think that
“greater availability of Shared Lives would reduce or significantly reduce adult social care expenditure”.
Although this debate is not about the provision of social care per se, if care and support are the means by which we are all enabled to flourish, they are part of the discussion about ensuring reasonable adjustments to healthcare and good decision-making for patients.
In conclusion, overall, the problems are systemic, requiring stronger leadership, better designed services, collaborative thinking, improved training and consistent, proactive approaches to ensure equitable access to care.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow four such powerful, knowledgeable and moving speeches. I will briefly discuss five areas.
First, following the powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, I congratulate him on getting this debate and focusing on reasonable adjustments—that kept coming up in all noble Lords’ speeches—and accountability. He discussed the learning disability physicians in Holland. One of their roles is, in a sense, cultural: it is not just what they do as people; it is what influence they have within the wider system. It is significant that there are physicians and doctors in that context and that they are playing a leadership role alongside their nursing and other colleagues. That is an important point, and I hope that the Minister will say something about discussing that at a later point—and not just whether she knows anything about it. Health is almost always about people. There may be other issues, but what happens inside the heads of the clinicians who look after us is really important. It is about how they see the world and how they want to behave.
Secondly, I will pick up on the Mencap briefing, which I am sure we all received. It makes the simple point that the NHS is not well designed to meet the needs of people with a learning disability—it is that simple. Mencap gives examples of that, and noble Lords have mentioned them already. I noticed one in particular that has a ring of truth about it: it seemed that, in many cases, one or two individuals in a practice were driving good practice, perhaps going above and beyond, and that care would fall apart when those people moved on. That is real. I not only see in that the importance of those people; I also bet they were good at beating the system and getting around the systemic obstacles that are in people’s way. That is the reality of what we have here. Accountability and the example of the learning disability physicians are part of that.
There is another issue here. What is good for people who have disabilities of different sorts is good for the rest of us as well. While we may not need the reasonable adjustments that some people need, we will need certain sorts of reasonable adjustments, particularly as we get older. This is about the focus on the individual patient in front of you and understanding that person as a person. All these stories are about not understanding the people that noble Lords have been talking about.
That takes me to the area of professional education. This is a much bigger question than this debate, but I would be interested to hear anything the Minister is prepared to say about it. Professional education has to change. For the people we are educating today—I am thinking about pre-service education—the world in which they will be working will be so different in 20 years’ time. AI is already affecting us in so many ways—but it is not just AI; it is all the other technologies that are around and impacting us.
Health is not just about smart technology; it is about people. When that develops, the leadership roles of professionals will involve picking up on some of the things that we are starting to talk about. I work with a group of young doctors who are trying to change some of this to get more emphasis on prevention and health creation—by which I mean creating the conditions for people to be healthy and helping them to be so.
The third area I have been reminded of is about reasonable adjustments and seeing the patient in front of you. I am not quite sure what the right language is here, but “reasonable adjustments” is what we use in this part of the world. I hope that we will return to professional educational change in the House and try to give it some push. There are lots of people out there who want to make that sort of change.
My two final points are about statistics. There was a wonderful description of the LeDeR results as a “toothless archive of tragedy”—we will remember that. The statistics are pretty awful. As the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said, this is not about tinkering but about fundamental change. Where do we want to be in five years’ time?
Finally, I will share my personal story, which is not as tragic as those of others. I had a brother-in-law, Gareth, who had Down syndrome. At the end of his life, he suffered from dementia. He had some of the problems that people have talked about but to a much lesser degree than noble Lords have referred to. What we discovered about dementia as he became worse is that very little is known about dementia for people with Down syndrome. Yet there is a genetic connection that suggests that about 50% of people with Down syndrome will end up having some level of dementia by about the age of 60. There needs to be much more research in this area and more development of services. The simple answer is that people did not know how to handle it—it is just another service that did not know how to handle somebody with learning disabilities.
I will end with a point of praise for North Derbyshire. There is a community dementia team there—it is one of the few community dementia teams in the country—and it is first class. Its members were able to be those one or two people who sorted out and beat the system—they knew the back door and the ways to get things done. I have put this on the record before in the House, but I again praise that team. I hope that the Government are listening and will pick up on that in the future.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the most depressing thing about this debate is that it has been decades since I first spoke in a debate that pointed out that anybody with a learning disability or autism will have very bad health results and die early. That is an established fact. My noble friend said that you cannot change the past, but let us at least learn from it. We have been doing this for a long time with various Governments.
It turns out that our medical system is based on somebody telling a medical professional what the matter with them is by responding to certain, usually verbal, stimuli. Any group that has not been able to do that has always suffered badly. For example, it is an established fact that people using sign language have suffered badly. If we are going to do something about that, we will have to make some reasonable adjustments—that is the expression we are using here. If we do not do that, we will continue to get bad results because the medical profession will get involved only when something becomes obvious. We have all been told, again and again, “You should have seen a medical practitioner sooner”. We are guaranteeing that that will happen here if we do not find a way to assess those needs and get in earlier.
For anybody who has a communication problem or is communicating through one person that is going to be worse still. An example is the fear of an individual, usually a parent, who thinks, “What happens to my child with a disability when I’m not around?” The emphasis on that has been made very clear. It might be another relative who is doing the caring or somebody else. According to everything that we have heard today, they are quite right to be frightened when they are going through that.
We also have a system that has a series of flags coming up. As my noble friend pointed out to me, it is great having a flag, but what do we do when we see it? Until we get that ingrained in the training and structure—indeed, until somebody’s life is made more than a little unpleasant if they are not doing it—we will not get change. Every time we have a system that works in a certain way and we want to deviate slightly, what is required is to play the system and get around it.
I will repeat another bit of black humour. It is often said that the first thing a disabled child who wants to do well should do is to choose their parents carefully in order to give them that advantage. I am afraid that that still applies. What are we doing to make sure that when we have a system in place, action is taken? Then, if we have a system in place, are medical professionals told—even if they are not trained to do it themselves—how to communicate with somebody with autism who takes things very literally? How do we get that information out to them? If the patient has certain types of learning difficulties, how do they get in touch with somebody to receive health checks? Those checks normally depend on tick boxes, so how do we avoid that? How do medical professionals extract information from that person, given that we depend on their assessment of their health? If they cannot do it, a prolonged examination will be needed. All of that is clear. If you follow it through, there is an iron logic to it, and it has not changed. It is an accepted system.
I will ask the Minister a few questions. On the flagging system, what is the process to make sure that people react to flags? Where would a medical professional go to get help interpreting and extracting information from a person who has certain types of communication or perceptual difficulties? That is particularly the case if the parent or carer is not readily available. Is there a process? If not, there should be because we are guaranteeing more failure if we do not have one.
These are the things that we have come back to over and over again for years. They have been said with more eloquence and knowledge than I can manage today. Unless the Government can start to address this, we will come back to this subject again in a new form because nothing will have fundamentally changed. I hope this Government will at least move this project on because, let us face it, it is well overdue and needs to be given a good hard push, or even a kick.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions, including the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, for their lived experience of this important issue. Ensuring that people who live with learning disabilities are able to access safe and effective health and social care is a fundamental test of the fairness of our system. Reasonable adjustments are essential to ensuring patient safety and equitable care. However, we know that, regrettably, people with learning disabilities continue to experience poorer health outcomes and face avoidable barriers when accessing services. This is a matter of both access and safety. Where reasonable adjustments are not properly understood or implemented, the consequences can be severe.
When in government, we took important steps to try to address these issues as best we could. The Health and Care Act 2022 placed a clear requirement on providers to ensure that staff receive training in learning disability and autism. The Oliver McGowan code of practice established a consistent standard for training across health and social care. The NHS Long Term Workforce Plan set out ambitious goals to increase learning disability nursing training places by 46% by 2029. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, made some constructive challenges of our proposals, and I of course respect the views of an acknowledged expert, as the noble Baroness is.
However, it is now the responsibility of this Government to make good on our previous commitments and push through the further social care reforms that are needed. The Government published guidance last year stating that any adult social care providers arranging staff training between April 2025 and March 2026 would be reimbursed. Will the Minister update the Committee on how many adult social care providers have participated in this scheme and what steps the Government took to ensure that social care providers were aware of the funding available?
Pressing workforce challenges also threaten effective access to social care. Faced with falling student numbers, some universities have been forced to close learning disability nursing courses. In the south-east of England, there is no learning disability nursing course available. Nursing in Practice reported that the domestic supply of learning disability nurse specialists could run out by 2028. While the Conservative’s workforce plan set ambitious targets, the most recent data shows a negligible increase in the number of learning disability nurses of 4% between 2024 and 2025. The Government have committed to publishing a revised NHS workforce plan by spring 2026, so can the Minister now provide a publication date? Are the Government confident that the existing targets remain achievable?
We also have concerns regarding accountability. The removal of the quality and outcomes framework indicator relating to learning disability registers raises important questions. If only a proportion of those with a learning disability are currently captured on the registers, how exactly will the department ensure that all patients are properly identified and supported as they should be?
Finally, I turn to the issue of safety. The insights of the learning from life and death programme are invaluable in understanding the causes of mortality and identifying areas for improvement. The most recent report’s issue with the integrity of its data and delays was most unfortunate. The noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Crisp, mentioned LeDeR. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition suggest that it is fair and reasonable to ask why the Government have not placed the programme on a statutory footing. Through what process will the Government ensure that the report’s findings are consistently translated into improvements in care at a local level?
It appears that many noble Lords are in broad agreement on the importance of this issue. The framework for improvement exists; the challenge now lies in ensuring effective implementation. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, highlight this very clearly. We hope the Minister will provide clarity on how the Government intend to bridge the gap between policy and practice to ensure that those with learning disabilities receive the safe and equitable care they deserve.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to respond to this Question for Short Debate, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, on securing what, as we have heard, is a very important debate. I also congratulate him on his commitment to improving outcomes for those who have a learning disability. Personally and publicly, I also want to acknowledge—I will use the noble Lord’s words—how raw this is for him. As well as giving my condolences on the death of his nephew Myles, I can only say that I genuinely believe that, as Myles’s uncle, he pays the greatest tribute to the memory of his nephew as he strives to improve services. It is a mission with which I fully associate myself and the Government.
I also want to acknowledge the other losses of the bereaved—not just those of noble Lords sitting here in the Room but those outside too. I have listened to the debate closely and if I am honest, what I am about to say can only in part meet some of the very real questions, and a number of the proposals too. I will do my best and I commit to raising the points made with my honourable friend Minister Zubir Ahmed, in whose portfolio this sits. I know he will welcome, as I have done, the contributions today.
I will pick up as many points as I can in the time that I have. All noble Lords, including the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, made the point that the health inequalities faced by people with a learning disability are totally unacceptable. I certainly align myself with that. We are committed to driving change. The 10-year health plan gives me hope in this regard because it outlines our ambitions to tackle health inequalities and speaks to the point the noble Lord, Lord Crisp—not exclusively but particularly—made about the need to see the whole person. That is what is missing generally, and it is what the 10-year health plan seeks to tackle, including driving that critical shift from treatment to prevention. The two issues that are presented by this debate are inseparable. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way he has presented that.
I therefore say at the absolute outset to the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Addington, that a near 20-year life expectancy gap is not acceptable under any point. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for saying that the shortcomings and concerns we are debating have been going on for many years, and what is important is that commitment to change. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, who spoke of the experience of his brother-in-law Gareth, also spoke of good practice in Derbyshire. We should commend all those who do this and learn from it.
To the point about reasonable adjustments, there are clear legal requirements on health and care organisations and their staff. I hear what noble Lords say clearly: yes, that is all very well but it is not happening. But it is worth reminding ourselves that, under the Equality Act 2010, public sector organisations are required to adapt their approaches in a very practical sense, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, called for, so that their services are accessible to disabled people as well as to everybody else.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Ramsey for bringing Patsy into the Room again. NHS England is rolling out a reasonable adjustment digital flag, as we have spoken about here. That will continue and it is to ensure that, in the way that she rightly demands, key information about a person and the reasonable adjustments needed for their care and treatment are to be recorded in care records. I say to my friend the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that a new information standard was published in December 2025, such that all publicly funded health and social care service providers must be able to share, read and write reasonable adjustment data by 30 September. Training on this digital flag is freely available.
Turning to the safety of people with a learning disability while accessing health and social care, the NHS learning disability improvement standards provide a framework to support NHS trusts and organisations in assessing the quality of their services, because we have to see consistency and improvement across the NHS. There is guidance available on the use of health and care passports to support personalised care for people with a learning disability, and for autistic people.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, that I am deeply saddened by the tragic circumstances of the death of David Lodge. I send my condolences to David’s friends and family. In response to the noble Baroness, who called for a way forward, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, who raised whether this can all be a tool for change, because it is not currently—I heard him say that—I know that the noble Lord recently met the Minister for Health Innovation and Safety, Zubir Ahmed MP, as I mentioned. I understand that my colleague the Minister has agreed to work with the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, to continue to hear insights from those with lived experience and wider stakeholders. The Minister is currently working with officials to explore options to improve the process, because we know there is a lot further to go to get ICBs to meet the expectations they have upon them. All these points have rightly been raised on ensuring accountability, reducing inequalities and preventing avoidable deaths. That work will absolutely continue, and I look forward to noble Lords taking part in it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, asked whether there are any plans to establish a specific inquiry or committee. Currently, there are no plans to do this; however, as I have said, the Minister is very much on the case. On wider action to improve health outcomes, I absolutely hear the points made by the noble Baroness not only in your Lordships’ House but to me personally before this debate, for which I am grateful. If we are talking about those with learning disabilities, we are talking about not just episodes of care but building relationships to enable the correct care for that person; I use the word “person” very definitely in this regard.
Reference was made to the Health and Care Act 2022 and the requirements that it contains. The Government have published a code of practice setting out their expectations on training delivery, and we continue to roll out the recommended Oliver McGowan mandatory training package. I can tell the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, that more than 3 million people have completed the first part of the training, and funding has been provided to support greater uptake this year.
On the point about health checks, the Secretary of State recently wrote to all GPs to emphasise the importance of identification, recording and the quality of the checks themselves.
A number of very pertinent points have been made. I assure noble Lords that they will all fed into the move towards improving the situation for those who have learning disabilities. We owe them nothing less.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting—I must stress that one is expected—the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume, at the very latest, after 10 minutes. We are very tight for time if we are going to get the fourth debate in today. Last week, when we had votes, we asked people to return as soon as they had voted because, once everybody is back, we can proceed; that is quite helpful, but it takes collegiate behaviour. The time limit for the following debate is one hour.
Former Prime Minister Imran Khan
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the government of Pakistan regarding the protection of the rights and the welfare of former Prime Minister Imran Khan during his imprisonment, including access to medical care and family visits.
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their participation in this debate. It is my first QSD debate so I will be looking to the Deputy Chairman of Committees—I assume that we do not make reference to the Woolsack—to correct me if I make a procedural faux pas. I can promise that there will be no cricketing analogies because they are definitely beyond me.
This debate is a serious matter. It follows a recent Question in the Chamber on which several noble Lords who are present here today contributed. Since then, Ministers have helpfully provided Written Answers confirming that His Majesty’s Government expect the Pakistani authorities to respect fundamental freedoms, including due process, humane detention and access to appropriate medical treatment for all detainees, including the former Prime Minister, Mr Imran Khan.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Chapman of Darlington for participating in this debate and sharing the Government’s current thinking on this issue. Our debate is timely in view of the deteriorating welfare of Mr Imran Khan. The concerns span his health, conditions of detention and access to medical care, the denial of family access and recurring questions concerning access to justice. In raising these matters, I recognise that noble Lords can range more widely in the breadth of their concerns than Ministers may. For example, Ministers have confirmed in recent Answers that they would not advocate for specific medical arrangements for an individual prisoner in another jurisdiction, however distinguished they might be.
However, this debate allows the airing of overlapping concerns that span health, welfare and access to justice and the relationship of those concerns with universal principles concerning human rights, due process and democratic concerns. Other more expert noble Lords may comment on the wider context, but I simply note that, in any country, the recurring incarceration of political opponents generally damages rather than advances the cause of democracy. This debate is not to endorse any one politician’s programme or past record. Mr Imran Khan, like every politician—past, present and future—has made mistakes. This is about making our voice heard around the concerns that have been raised.
In 2024, Amnesty International, reviewing Imran Khan’s conviction and sentencing, found several fair trial violations that resulted in arbitrary detention and denial of his right to liberty. Worryingly, it
“noted a pattern of weaponization of the legal system to keep Imran Khan under detention and away from all political activity”.
The former Prime Minister is not just any other prisoner: the issue before us is that countless people of good will who care about Pakistan and its future and democracy are deeply concerned about Imran Khan.
Let me turn to three troubling specifics. The first is family access. Despite previous assurances, some of Mr Khan’s immediate family remain effectively barred from seeing him. I understand that his sons, Sulaiman and Kasim Khan, who are British citizens, have not been permitted to visit their father since December. They should have the right to visit their father in a way that does not impact their right to British consular protection. Moreover, such humanitarian access becomes more acute when a detainee’s health is in question.
The second concern is medical care. There seems to be agreement that Mr Khan’s medical condition has reached a critical stage. I understand that the Islamabad high court recently formed a medical board to oversee his treatment but rejected the request to include his personal physicians. His family have also indicated that they feel kept in the dark regarding his treatment protocols.
The third concern is fair treatment. Mr Khan recently indicated that his wife, Bushra Bibi, is being kept in isolation except for a rarely granted 30-minute weekly meeting. These allegations concern the rule of law and fair treatment. The targeting of family members to pressure a detainee is a violation of international norms.
Each of these three challenges, around family access, medical care and fair treatment, concerns the conduct of authorities in Pakistan, so His Majesty’s Government properly tread very lightly. I therefore turn my remarks to the Minister. On 25 February, she helpfully confirmed to the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, that the UK consistently advocates for family access. That is very welcome. However, given the continuing obstacles surrounding access and the ongoing concerns about the former PM’s welfare, will the Minister help secure a meeting with the relevant FCDO Minister, Hamish Falconer, for a small cross-party delegation of Peers to explore humanitarian access for Imran Khan’s sons, to help secure the visas that would allow for full diplomatic protection, so that they can visit their father without risking their safety?
The Minister will also be aware of the concerns surrounding the detention of other current and former politicians. We look forward to learning how His Majesty’s Government can best support demonstrable improvements in human rights, specifically the humane treatment of political detainees, their access to legal counsel and the importance of not pressurising family members.
Time does not permit me to dwell—at least, not for long—on Britain’s shared history with Pakistan, its geopolitical importance and the hopeful aspirations of its young people. I have observed all of these things in my own visits to the country to deepen educational links and through my work with the British Council. Pakistan is a valued member of the Commonwealth and an important trading and security partner. It is a nation that is navigating the rising aspirations of many alongside a recently rising poverty rate. It is a country that experiences the impact of climate change, alongside border conflicts, and wrestles with the balance between military power and control by civilian authorities in democratic systems. The consequences of all these forces resonate globally, and we have a shared interest in the country’s lasting stability, prosperity and co-operation.
Finally, every participant in this debate is aware that the United Kingdom has deep people-to-people ties with Pakistan. Britain is enriched by 1.5 million British Pakistanis, friends and neighbours, many of whom take a close interest in these matters. We all share an interest in Pakistan’s future, the welfare of its citizens and the upholding of democratic and judicial norms. So the ask today is simple: for the British Government to use their undoubted influence, where they can, to uphold the principles that this country holds dear—those of fairness, justice and compassion.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander, for introducing this debate and the manner in which she did so. The sentiments she has expressed and the calls she has made are things with which everyone participating in this debate will align.
In the words of the Quaid-I-Azam, Muhammed Ali Jinnah:
“My guiding principle will be justice and complete impartiality, and I am sure that with your support and co-operation, I can look forward to Pakistan becoming one of the greatest nations of the world”.
We take part in this debate with a deep sense of concern regarding the continued detention of former Prime Minister Imran Khan—a figure who, irrespective of political persuasion, remains entitled, like every citizen of Pakistan, to the protections of the law and the dignity afforded to every citizen under Pakistan’s constitutional framework. As has already been said, this is a matter not of politics but of principle. It is about whether the justice envisioned by the Quaid-I-Azam, Muhammed Ali Jinnah—rooted in fairness, compassion and the rule of law—should rightly be a factor that continues to guide the Republic of Pakistan.
Having served as the UK Foreign Minister of State with responsibility for our relationship with Pakistan, I dealt with all political parties. Indeed, I dealt directly with the former Prime Minister, Imran Khan, during his tenure as Prime Minister, as well as with the current Prime Minister of Pakistan, Shehbaz Sharif. They will both recall, as I do, that, whatever the issues—albeit ones of deep concern—and no matter how difficult they were, we would engage in a manner that was, despite differing views and positions, rooted in mutual respect. With these sentiments in mind, I wish to make three clear and what I regard as reasonable calls, grounded firmly in Pakistan’s constitution and legal traditions.
The first is the immediate provision of specialist medical attention. Article 9 of the constitution of Pakistan guarantees the right to life and liberty. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander, the courts of Pakistan have repeatedly interpreted this to include the rights to health and to access to medical care. Where a detainee’s health is in question, the responsibility of the state is not discretionary; it is absolute. Ensuring that Mr Khan receives an independent specialist medical assessment, including with a professional medical practitioner of his choice, is not an act of concession but a constitutional obligation.
Secondly, as I called for in our debate on a Question in the main Chamber, Mr Khan should be granted full and humane access to his family—specifically, the granting of visas to his sons, Kasim and Sulaiman, who are both British citizens. Article 14 of the constitution of Pakistan confirms the inviolability of the
“dignity of man and … the privacy of home”.
Family contact is not merely an emotional consideration; it is intrinsic to human dignity and recognised in both domestic jurisprudence and international rights, to which Pakistan is party. Denying access to close family members, particularly in times of vulnerability—as is the case now—risks undermining the very dignity that the constitution seeks to protect. Facilitating visas for his sons is, in my view, a simple, humane and lawful step.
Thirdly, I call for Mr Khan’s transfer, under the conditions, to house detention. Pakistan’s legal framework, including provisions in its criminal procedure, allows for alternatives to incarceration where the circumstances justify it—in particular, where health, security or broader public considerations are at play. House detention would ensure that the legal process is upheld while mitigating concerns around welfare, transparency and proportionality. It would be a measured and lawful course, consistent with both precedent and principle.
Alongside these calls, I turn directly to the role of His Majesty’s Government. Will the Minister take forward, in addition to the request made by the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander, a direct request to the Foreign Secretary to use her full weight of office to facilitate access, particularly in supporting the granting of visas and ensuring appropriate consular and diplomatic engagement on humanitarian grounds? I should add that this is not without precedent. The UK FCDO has, in numerous instances, advocated for medical access, family visitation rights and due process; indeed, I engaged directly and robustly where there were concerns about the welfare and rights of detainees overseas. Whether cases involve British nationals or broader human rights concerns, Ministers have rightly raised individual cases directly with foreign Governments, underscoring the fact that humanitarian considerations sit firmly within the remit of the Foreign Secretary. Indeed, successive Foreign Secretaries have intervened quietly but effectively—that is the British way—where questions of health, dignity and access arise.
These are not extraordinary demands. They do not seek to interfere with judicial processes; nor do they pre-empt outcomes. Rather, they are rather a rational call to uphold the very standards that Pakistan has set for itself—standards rooted in its constitution, its courts and the vision of its founder. At a time when the eyes of the world are on Pakistan, when it is providing a glimmer of hope in the dark clouds of war, it will also need to reflect on how it treats those in detention, especially figures of such prominence. If it does the right thing, I am sure that it will further speak volumes about its commitment to justice, compassion and human rights.
In invoking the words of Muhammed Ali Jinnah as I did, we are reminded that nations are judged not by the strength of their rhetoric but by the fairness of their actions. Pakistan must demonstrate, through these three simple steps and with the constructive engagement of a friend and partner such as the United Kingdom, that justice remains not only an aspiration but a living reality.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander, for securing this really important debate on the rights and welfare of the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan. I am grateful to the House of Lords Library for its recent briefing and to Mr Nasir Mir, a senior member of Imran Khan’s PTI party, for his briefing note; I see that he is here with some of his colleagues. Both these publications have helped inform my deliberations over the growing international concerns.
Mr Khan’s detention, following his arrest in 2023 on charges that he denies, has become more than a domestic legal matter. It raises fundamental questions around due process, the rule of law and the treatment of political figures in a democratic system. The United Kingdom has long stood for the principles of fair trial, judicial independence and the humane treatment of detainees. These are universal values, not contingent ones.
Although Pakistan’s legal proceedings are rightly a matter for its own courts, there remains a clear expectation that international human rights standards will be upheld in all circumstances. It is concerning, therefore, that emerging reports suggest restrictions on Mr Khan’s access to legal counsel, family contact and adequate medical care. These allegations of prolonged isolation and deteriorating health would, if accurate, fall short of the standards set out in the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners—or the Mandela rules, as they are often called—which guarantee access to healthcare, legal representation and regular contact with family.
In that context, I wish to raise a specific humanitarian issue that other noble Lords have raised: family access. The ability of Mr Khan’s two sons, Kasim and Sulaiman, to visit their father is not simply a personal matter but an important element of humane treatment. I therefore express my support for the granting of visas by the Government of Pakistan to enable these two young men to go and visit their father; that is what we would all want. I lost my father 30 years ago. Being able to go and visit your father, particularly when they are ill, is a basic human right that should not be denied to anyone. I support this Government impressing that upon the Government of Pakistan, because allowing this would demonstrate compassion and commitment to the basic international norms governing the treatment of prisoners.
This case does not stand alone. I express my concern regarding the continued detention of the former Foreign Minister, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, who is a senior political figure. His imprisonment, similar to that of Imran Khan, raises questions around transparency, due process and the consistent application of justice.
Beyond these high-profile cases, there are also troubling reports about what has been described as transnational repression. This includes allegations that relatives of overseas critics of the Government of Pakistan have been subject to detention, harassment or intimidation by the security forces of Pakistan. If substantiated, these practices would represent a deeply concerning extension of pressure beyond borders that undermines fundamental freedoms. These issues speak to not only individual cases but wider confidence in democratic institutions.
This debate is not about interference in the sovereign affairs of another state. Rather, it is about ensuring that our foreign policy reflects our enduring commitment to human rights and the rule of law. The United Kingdom has engaged with the Government of Pakistan on these matters, but it is right that we continue to do so clearly and consistently. The imprisonment of prominent political figures carries broader implications. Where there is a perception, rightly or wrongly, of political motivation or selective justice, public trust in democratic processes can be eroded. This makes it more important that legal proceedings are transparent and fair, and are seen to be so.
I suggest that His Majesty’s Government continue to pursue three key priorities: first, sustained diplomatic engagement with Pakistan on due process and detainee welfare; secondly, support for credible monitoring to ensure accurate information about conditions of detention; and, thirdly, the clear implementation of the United Kingdom’s commitment to democratic principles and human rights. I align myself with the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander, and support her call for further engagement at ministerial level, or Secretary of State level as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, suggested. In particular, I support the proposal for a small cross-party delegation of Peers to meet the relevant Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Minister.
This House has a long tradition of upholding fundamental standards, not by dictating outcomes but by advocating principles. The treatment of any detainee must meet these standards, regardless of status or circumstances. Let us therefore send a clear message that the United Kingdom will continue to support the protection of fundamental rights, the integrity of the legal process and the dignity of all individuals.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Alexander of Cleveden for securing this important debate. I never had the honour of meeting Imran Khan but, like millions of other cricket fans, I am grateful for the pleasure that he has given us over so many years.
Ever since independence, Pakistan has sought to embrace democracy, but military chiefs have always lurked in the background. No Prime Minister has completed a full five-year term in office. This democratic deficit has had a negative effect on its economy, social stability, foreign investment, standard of living and security. Khan sought to turn the leaf and make a new start. He became Prime Minister in 2018 with support from the military chiefs. This was effectively a power-sharing agreement. The relationship with the military subsequently soured. In 2020, he was removed through a no-confidence vote in Parliament, which many say was orchestrated by the military chiefs.
In 2023, he was charged with corruption, treason and illegal marriage. He has denied all such charges. On several occasions, one of Pakistan’s high courts acquitted him. Each acquittal was followed by a barrage of new charges. The generals then installed new judges and, eventually, got the convictions they wanted. In 2024, his wife, Bushra Bibi, was also imprisoned.
Khan is seen now by many as a political prisoner. He has been incarcerated in a tiny cell in solitary confinement and denied access to newspapers and books. His family and friends have not always been able to visit him. His sons have been denied visas to see him. His sisters have occasionally seen him but under strict supervision. His health has deteriorated, and he has been denied appropriate and timely medical care. He has a loss of eyesight, which the authorities have allegedly ignored for years.
Taking a leaf from a recent open letter issued by former international cricket captains, I urge Pakistan’s Government to provide Khan with at least three things: first, immediate, adequate and ongoing medical attention from qualified specialists, of Khan’s choosing, to address his reported health issues; secondly, are humane and dignified conditions of detention in line with international standards, including regular visits by close family and friends; and, thirdly, fair and transparent access to legal processes without undue delay or hindrance.
One must now fear for Khan’s life. Four of his predecessors have died from unnatural causes, one executed by a military ruler. If Khan were to receive humane treatment, it could start a new chapter of reconciliation, peace, compassion and freedom in Pakistan. It could end the vicious cycle where one set of rulers seeks revenge on the previous ones and help facilitate economic and social development.
The UK Government pride themselves on being champions of democracy and human rights and have condemned political imprisonments in China, Iran, Russia, North Korea and elsewhere. However, their response to Khan’s imprisonment has been muted. They need to rise above the weight of arms and trade deals. Pakistan is a member of the Commonwealth and receives financial aid from the UK. It is a member of the United Nations and its Human Rights Council. The UK Government must use these and other platforms to urge the Pakistani authorities to treat Khan with dignity and compassion. He is now old, sick and frail, and he should be allowed to spend what is left of his life with his family and friends.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander, for securing this debate.
As many noble Lords are aware, I was born in Pakistan. I have lived most of my life here in the UK, but I still have strong family connections in Pakistan. I like Pakistan, and I go back and forth very frequently to see my relatives. During my visits, I have the opportunity to meet politicians of all political persuasions in that country. When it comes to the internal politics of Pakistan, I always stay neutral. My aim has always been to do everything I can to strengthen the historical relations between Britain and Pakistan.
From the early days, Pakistan has faced enormous internal challenges, including large-scale migration, poverty, floods, earthquakes, terrorism and corruption. Externally, there have been three wars, and many battles and ongoing hostilities, on its eastern borders with India, and never-ending instability and wars on its western border with Afghanistan. Pakistan continues to bear the cost of Afghan’s problems, which, so far, have cost Pakistan more than 70,000 lives and billions of pounds in economic losses.
Despite this, Pakistan has been able to establish a powerful and respectful place on the world stage as a nuclear state. On the international front, Pakistan has successfully been able to balance its relationships with the US, Russia, China and Great Britain. Similarly, in the region, it has good relations with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Türkiye, Bangladesh and Malaysia. Pakistan is one of the largest contributors to the United Nations peacekeeping missions around the world. More recently, Pakistan has shown its diplomatic abilities during the war between the US, Israel and Iran by offering mediation between the US and Iran in order to end the war by finding a peaceful solution. I sincerely hope that these efforts will bring an end to this deadly war in the Middle East, which is affecting the whole world.
However, at home, Pakistan faces challenges around weak economics, law and order, justice, corruption and political instability. Many reputable human rights organisations, including Amnesty International, have criticised the elections process of 2024 and the treatment of political workers, including former Prime Minister Imran Khan. It has been alleged that Imran Khan has been denied free access to his lawyers and family members and has been held in solitary confinement. It is also alleged that he has lost 85% of his sight in one of his eyes. In my personal capacity, I raised these concerns with the Pakistan High Commission in London; I was told that Mr Khan has received eye treatment from the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences in Islamabad and that his lost eyesight has been fully restored with glasses.
On the detentions of the PTI’s leadership, I am told that most of them are linked to the anti-state action of 9 May 2023 and are being dealt with according to the relevant sections of the law.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, I stay away from Pakistan’s internal politics, but justice, fairness and access to health facilities are universal rights. Hence, in the light of these claims and counterclaims, I urge the Minister to ask the Foreign Secretary to raise these issues with the Pakistani Government: a fair trial, justice and medical care for Mr Khan and other political leaders; and free access to lawyers and family members, including Mr Khan’s British-born sons.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Alexander of Cleveden for securing this Question for Short Debate. The United Kingdom’s relationship with Pakistan matters profoundly because we share substantial history through both the Commonwealth and people. More than 1.5 million people in England and Wales identify as Pakistani. Many families here follow events in Pakistan closely, not because they are taking sides but because they care about justice, stability and the rule of law.
That takes me to the heart of today’s debate. The House of Lords is not the Court of Appeal, of course, so it is not for us to determine the merits of any international criminal charge. However, it is entirely proper for us to insist on some of the basic principles laid out in the ICCPR, which we all hold dear: due process; fair trials; and human treatment for everyone, whether they are prominent or powerless, including the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mr Imran Khan. Concerns have been raised around Mr Khan’s detention, with reports of solitary confinement and restricted access to family. Serious questions have also been asked about his medical care, including for an eye condition through which, as his lawyers have said, he has lost much of the range of his right eye; many of the noble Lords here know better than me the condition it is in now.
In December, the UN special rapporteur on torture urged Pakistan to address reports of inhumane detention conditions, warning that prolonged solitary confinement can breach international human rights law and pointing to reported restrictions on access to lawyers and families, as well as to concerns around adequate medical attention. I recognise that the Government have said both in Written Answers and from the Dispatch Box that, although, the Pakistani judicial process is a domestic matter,
“we are clear that the Pakistani authorities need to respect … the rights to a fair trial … humane detention and access to appropriate medical treatment”—[Official Report, 25/2/26; col. 607.]
for all of their detainees. I welcome that clarity, as well as the assurance that Ministers and officials have raised these principles with our Pakistani counterparts.
I press the point that humane treatment is not just a slogan. It has a real-world meaning that applies to all, including Mr Khan. In practice, it means prompt access to appropriate medical care, regular and meaningful access to legal counsel and family contact that must not arbitrarily be interrupted. These safeguards matter in every country because they reduce the risk of ill treatment and injustice, especially to older detainees and anyone with serious health needs.
It also matters because what happens in high profile cases is felt far beyond one prison cell. Independent reporting from the Justice Project Pakistan, drawing on Pakistan’s prison data, has described a prison system operating at around 152% of authorised capacity—can noble Lords imagine what it must be like?—with about three-quarters of prisoners under trial. These pressures fall disproportionately on the vulnerable. The same reporting highlights more than 1,580 juvenile prisoners and notes that only four prisons are designed for women, with many women held in separate sections in male prisons. In such an environment, transparency and due process should be treated as the protections that they are instead of as a luxury.
Will the Minister say what further representations the Government intend to make to ensure that international standards are met in full for Mr Khan and other detainees? The test of a justice system is not how it treats those with power but whether it protects the rights and dignity of everyone consistently and without fear or favour. That is what we stand for quietly, firmly and as a friend of Pakistan.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lord, I concur with everybody and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander, on securing this debate, which is clearly timely. I want to address the specifics first. Regardless of the merits and demerits of the case against Imran Khan—I will come to that—his treatment is disgraceful and inhumane by any standards. Solitary confinement is never a good experience and rarely justified, and refusing family or legal humanitarian visits is, frankly, a disgrace. It is against fundamental principles. As I think everybody has mentioned, denying his sons the right to travel to visit him is a denial of fundamental human rights. They are British citizens, so we have some responsibility to support them.
I am afraid that all of that suggests that the regime is anxious to divert attention. I do not think that it will succeed in that. It does not want the situation to be highlighted, but this debate is proof that it will be highlighted. Imran Khan and his supporters have denied the charges, and it is quite difficult to get detail of exactly what they are and what the evidence has been, but that is really not the point. The question is whether there been a clear, transparent and fair judicial process. That matters to us as friends of Pakistan and as a member of the Commonwealth and of the United Nations.
I have visited Pakistan a few times over the years and throughout that time the state of democracy has always been fragile and, to be honest, very much at the behest of the military. Khan started out as the darling of the military. The Sharif family was discredited and put in prison. Now the Sharif family is back, Khan and his party are being harried out of existence, and he is being kept where he cannot rally a revival. It is difficult to avoid seeing politics behind that, regardless of the merits or demerits of the case. Over the years, we have seen a political leader executed, which was shocking to us at the time, we have seen another, of the same party, assassinated, others suspended, and military takeovers. None of this bears the hallmark of a lively and vibrant democracy, which is what we all want to see in Pakistan and indeed around the world.
I say to the Government of Pakistan that if they feel somewhat aggrieved by the criticism, they should listen to the specific requests that are being made, which are about common humanity and standards, and accede to the requests for humane treatment and access to friends, advisors and families, and to his wife, who is also being effectively drawn into this; they should be allowed time together. The suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, of domestic detention seems to me to commend itself as the right way forward.
This month, 47 members of Imran Khan’s party have been sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment and substantial fines. You have to ask a very serious question about that. That is an awful lot of people for a lot of severe detention, regardless of what the terms are. I also see that Pakistan’s trade status within the EU is coming under question and the European Parliament is questioning the EU’s relationship with Pakistan over this specific case. As has been said by everybody, the UK has a particular relationship with Pakistan. We were, to some extent, instrumental in the creation of the country and I think—I hope—that we have a genuinely positive view of wishing the country to succeed and wishing it well.
The Minister has answered these questions. We are asking for a further escalation at Foreign Secretary level of strong representations to the Government to accede to these requests to allow his sons to visit, to bring him and his wife together, to allow him to have access to all the circumstances and civilised conditions he should have and not to be in solitary confinement, and I hope, perhaps to consider domestic detention. A test of democracy is a peaceful change of Government without recrimination. Pakistan has not met that test very often, and I say that with sadness, not with anger.
As a friend of Pakistan, it is important that Governments who have been on the other side of this argument understand the points that have been made and recognise that they have to raise their standards, show compassion, show tolerance and deal with justice. If there are things to be dealt with, they should do it openly, transparently and in accordance with the law that everybody can see and observe. That is not what is happening, and we have to express our sadness about it. We ask that the UK Government use all the good offices they can to persuade the Government of Pakistan to, at least, accede to these civilised and fair humanitarian requests, so that, regardless of the wider issues, not just Imran Khan but his followers are not treated in a way that most people would regard as inconsistent with good, democratic human rights. That is all we ask; it is not a lot to ask.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I believe that we are about to start voting soon, but I will make a start. I, too, want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander of Cleveden, for securing this important debate on a vital matter. I think the whole Committee is clear—and we certainly agree—that Pakistan must uphold its constitutional and human rights responsibilities in all cases. I am sure that we will agree that this principle applies in the case of Imran Khan as well. We share the noble Baroness’s concern about Mr Khan’s health, and we welcome that the Government regularly raise the need to uphold Pakistan’s constitution and international human rights obligations, as the Minister confirmed in response to an Oral Question on 25 February this year.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
My Lords, my apologies. That will teach me not to believe the Whips when they say there will be another vote straightaway. The debate continues.
Lord Callanan (Con)
As many noble Lords have observed in the debate, the reports on Imran Khan’s health are now extremely worrying. Can the Minister say what efforts Ministers have made to confirm these reports? Following those efforts, have Ministers changed their approach to this issue? In particular, it has been reported that Imran Khan has been denied proper medical treatment. Can the Minister update the Committee on the Government’s understanding of Imran Khan’s medical situation? On the specific point of how regularly Ministers are pressing their Pakistani counterparts on this point, can she please say when a Minister or official last raised the Imran Khan case with the Government of Pakistan and what action the Government of Pakistan have taken, if any, in response to that engagement?
Another important area of concern in this case, as my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon pointed out, is the denial of family visits. The Minister helpfully confirmed last month that the Government would want to see access to family granted to anyone held in these circumstances, and we agree with the Government on that. As the Minister has previously said, one of the barriers to family access is that the Government of Pakistan control the visa and immigration decisions that would be required. Can the Minister please say what whether Ministers and officials have also raised that specific point with their Pakistani counterparts?
While the Government are completely correct that Imran Khan is not a British citizen, that said, I hope the Minister will recognise his long and deep connection with this country when raising that case. He was educated in the UK and, of course, he has many British family members. I know that she understands this, and it is important for us to reflect on it when discussing Imran Khan’s case. It is also important to reflect on the historic and ongoing relationship between the UK and Pakistan as a close and valued Commonwealth ally. We should encourage Pakistan to uphold the values of freedom and democracy that we all hold so dearly. I hope the Minister will take a moment in her reply to set out the Government’s views on that topic as well. I look forward to hearing what she has to say.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Alexander of Cleveden for securing this debate, and I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. The welfare and rights of detainees in Pakistan are concerns for many in the United Kingdom, particularly the British Pakistani community, and I recognise the strong feelings that this subject evokes. I welcome the opportunity to set out the United Kingdom’s approach.
I begin by underlining that Pakistan’s judicial processes are, of course, a matter for Pakistan; this has been the consistent position of successive UK Governments. However, we are clear—and I restate this today—that the Pakistani authorities must respect fundamental freedoms, including the right to a fair trial, due process, humane detention and access to appropriate medical treatment. These principles apply to Imran Khan, just as they apply to every citizen of Pakistan.
The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, raised concerns about Mr Khan’s health and his detention conditions. We note the findings of the Supreme Court-mandated medical team and reports of medical procedures, including during this month. We also note the Islamabad High Court’s decision not to order an immediate hospital transfer, instead directing a further clinical review. While we do not comment on specific judicial decisions, we are clear that detention must be humane and that credible allegations of mistreatment should be investigated promptly and impartially.
Family access has been highlighted by several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley. The Government recognise the importance of prisoner-family contact, particularly in cases involving long-term detention or significant medical treatment. Decisions on visits, though, visas and entry to Pakistan, rest solely with the Government of Pakistan. Our consular support applies to British nationals. I know noble Lords understand this and that Imran Khan is not a British national, which limits the role that we can play. It is important that I restate that distinction, but I am happy to agree to speak to my friend, Minister Falconer, with a view to arranging the meeting that noble Lords have requested.
In response to my noble friend Lady Goudie, I can confirm that Ministers and senior officials have raised with Pakistani counterparts the need to uphold civil and political rights, including due process and humane treatment of detainees. This includes engagement between the Minister for the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Deputy Prime Minister Dar in August last year. There were also discussions with the then Foreign Secretary, now the Deputy Prime Minister, who specifically raised Imran Khan’s case during his visit to Pakistan in May last year.
The British high commissioner to Pakistan has also raised Imran Khan’s case at the highest levels, most recently with Pakistan’s Minister for Law and Human Rights last month. In our engagement, we raised wider concerns about democratic freedoms, the conduct of the 2024 elections, media freedoms and the use of military courts for civilians. We consistently urge the Pakistani authorities to examine concerns thoroughly and transparently to uphold democratic rights.
This is a short conclusion to a thoughtful, calm, well-informed and important debate. Let me finish by returning to the central point of today’s debate. The Government’s position is consistent and principled. Pakistan’s judicial processes are, of course, as many have said this afternoon, a matter for Pakistan. But like the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, we expect Pakistan’s authorities to uphold fundamental rights, fair trial standards, due process, humane detention and access to appropriate medical care for all detainees, including Imran Khan.
Where we have concerns, we raise them. Without interfering in Pakistan’s domestic matters or advocating for bespoke arrangements, we remain committed to supporting Pakistan’s democratic resilience, its human rights protections, and the stability and prosperity that will flow from strong and accountable institutions, as noble Lords have said. We do so as long-standing partners; we engage constructively and honestly, and this is in the UK’s national interest. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and look forward to continuing to work with colleagues on these important issues.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
My Lords, the debate we were due to hold on the UK’s civil preparedness for war has had to be postponed, because we have run out of time. I take this opportunity to wish all Members, clerks, doorkeepers and our Hansard writers a peaceful and restful Easter Recess.
House of Lords
AI Growth Lab
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Holmes of Richmond
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to bring forward any legislation required to establish their proposed AI growth lab.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interests as set out in the register as adviser to Endava plc, the Crown Estate, Submer Ltd and Simmons & Simmons LLP.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
The AI growth lab is a regulatory sandbox designed to accelerate AI innovation and adoption across the UK in a supervised and safe setting. In the recent call for evidence, we asked for views on how best to operationalise the AI growth lab. Responses are being carefully considered in ongoing policy development and will inform forthcoming legislation that we intend to bring forward.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, the AI growth lab is an excellent intervention. We have a great tradition in this country of sandboxes, and this follows on from there. It will require primary legislation, and it is not alone in that: there is an increasing number of areas where the Government say they want to act in terms of AI, all of which will require primary legislation. Rather than taking a bit by bit, Bill by Bill approach, does the Minister not agree that clarity, consistency and coherence will be better served by bringing forward a cross-sector AI Bill that would be good for the citizen, the creative, the consumer, the innovator and the investor? Will the Government take the opportunity of the upcoming King’s Speech to bring forward such a Bill?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord has a great deal of expertise in this area and, as he knows very well, AI is a technology that has many different applications. We are committed to a context-based regulatory approach where most AI systems are regulated at the point of use. As a novel technology, it can develop in areas which cross regulatory barriers or give particular opportunities for new product and service development. That is the reason for the AI growth lab, which will model a new approach to regulation, with the power to make rapid temporary amendments to regulation to safely test and prove application. As the noble Lord says, the UK’s experience of sandboxes is emulated around the world.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, any AI growth in this country will depend on trust between tech companies and content rights holders. This will depend on robust transparency requirements being created, and quickly. However, the Government, in their report on AI and copyright last week, said they were going to sit on their hands and monitor the effects of transparency rules in other countries. Why is this country not taking the lead on this crucial issue to create a world-class, transparent copyright system for AI development?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
As the noble Viscount knows, we published our report and impact assessment on AI and copyright and we have outlined three or four specific areas we will be taking forward, including digital replicas, AI labelling and looking at mechanisms for creatives to control their works online. It is clear that we need to keep considering the approach and we have not as yet found a solution that will address all the concerns.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, the Government have conspicuously rebranded their AI Safety Institute as the AI Security Institute and have been shifting their language from “safety” to “growth”. Can the Minister confirm that safety obligations will be among the regulatory red lines that can never be modified in the sandbox, and, if safety is genuinely protected, why are the Government so reluctant to bring forward safety duties in a proper AI Bill?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
There will indeed be safeguards built into the AI growth lab. Modification powers would operate with robust safeguards to protect fundamental rights and safety. The lab’s design must balance the need for rapid reform and, as both noble Lords have mentioned, the importance of retaining public trust and confidence in the UK’s high regulatory standards.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I understand the need for proportionate regulation in this area, particularly because the UK already has considerable investment and wishes to see more investment in the future. But there is one area, superintelligent AI, where there is the potential for loss of control, particularly over defence and security systems, and where some legislation is required to prevent some of these developments. In taking this forward, will the Government consider this?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The specific proposals around the AI growth lab are separate from considerations on the development of superintelligent AI and the risks that poses. We are extremely fortunate in the UK to benefit from the AI Security Institute, which is testing those models and is also able to advise the Government, and indeed the wider economy and all market participants, on the risks that superintelligent AI may pose. As we speak today, it is uncertain exactly what some of those risks are.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, we have had a plethora of initiatives on AI. We had the welcome announcement of the sovereign AI fund last week. All of them are welcome individually: Innovate UK, ARIA, the AI Security Institute, the British Business Bank, and the National Wealth Fund. Could we perhaps have a moratorium on announcements of AI initiatives and perhaps an overview and co-ordination of this plethora of bodies?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
In our AI opportunities action plan we have indeed set out a plethora. That is because this is a technology that provides great potential benefits, and adoption is absolutely key. We need all areas of the economy to be thinking about the implications. We are a heavily service-based economy and it is very much in our future interests to adopt this technology and harness its benefits, whether that is in healthcare, energy efficiency or many other areas. So we will continue to focus on all areas of the development of AI, from data centres to regulation.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, my experience as Health Minister in this space is that we have fantastic innovation and fantastic pilots: the joke in the NHS is that the NHS has more pilots than British Airways. But the challenge is always the scale-up funding and, because that scale-up funding is not there, we then lose the best to America. The problem is that the AI budgets are all fragmented across hundreds of different hospitals. What are we doing to centralise those budgets so that we have the firepower to truly scale them and not lose our best British innovation to America?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Building on both noble Lords’ recent questions, we need to look across the whole of the economy. There will be a great amount of private investment going in, as well as investment from our public financial institutions. We are also thinking about how we can harness the benefit of sovereign AI here in the UK, and we are making a particular effort to think about where our sovereign AI fund is going to invest, so that the UK can benefit British frontier AI companies, not seeking total self-reliance but to build and defend comparative advantage.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am no AI expert, as my colleagues will tell you, but I do know something about environmental devastation, and AI growth is going to impact very strongly on environmental issues. So, as well as the huge AI Bill that my noble friend Lord Holmes is suggesting happens, is there going to be new legislation to actually make sure that we achieve our climate goals?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The purpose of the AI growth lab is to provide a sandbox so that we can harness some of the novel uses. Those novel uses might for example be in energy efficiency, or water efficiency. There are many ways in which AI can be harnessed to minimise environmental impacts. We are cognisant of the potential sustainability challenges from the energy demands of data centres or other areas. That is why we have set up the AI energy council, co-chaired by the Secretaries of State for DSIT and DESNZ, bringing leaders together to think about how we move forward sustainably and take up the promise of AI, while keeping to our net-zero goals.
Antisemitism in International Human Rights Bodies
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Deech
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they have taken to coordinate with international partners to address the proliferation of antisemitism in international human rights bodies, as reported by organisations such as UN Watch and NGO Monitor.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, after the heinous events in north London just a few days ago, we must state once more that antisemitism has no place in our or any society. This Government are committed to stamping it out wherever and however it occurs, both in the UK and around the world. At the UN, OSCE and other multilateral fora, we consistently speak out against antisemitism and co-ordinate effective action to combat it in collaboration with international partners. This includes raising concerns directly at senior levels when they arise.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I am sorry that two Questions this morning have to deal with antisemitism—I never thought it would come to this. Unfortunately, the United Nations and other bodies, such as Amnesty International and the United Nations Human Rights Council, treat Israel—and have done for a long time—as the emblem of everything that is bad in the world, making no distinction between Jews and the state. For example, the resolutions they have passed over the last few years greatly outweigh resolutions on any other state. The epitome of this perversion is Francesca Albanese, special rapporteur on the Palestinian territories, whose antisemitic comments verge on the deranged, blaming Mossad for the Charlie Hebdo murders, comparing Israel with the Third Reich and calling it the common enemy of humanity, and saying the BBC is an Israel lobby. Will the UK join France, Germany, Czech and Austria in calling for her dismissal?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I hear what the noble Baroness is saying and it is true. I agree that Francesca Albanese has a history of making inflammatory comments such as this. Although special rapporteurs do not represent the UN, they are associated with the UN. We understand that they are independent, but it matters, and we have raised these concerns directly. The right way for this to be done is that special rapporteurs need to have objectivity and credibility. Where there are concerns, the comments that have been made need to be tested against the code of conduct, and then appropriate decisions ought to be taken.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I associate myself totally with the Minister’s remarks about the fight against antisemitism, both in the UK and internationally. On specific action with international partners, she will know that the previous Government, in 2023, together with the United Arab Emirates, passed Resolution 2686, which targeted the issues of antisemitism, Islamophobia and, importantly, the persecution of and hate against Christians globally. That is the kind of collaboration we need. I seek the Minister’s reassurance that we will continue to collaborate with international partners on specific initiatives such as those.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I meet regularly with our FORB envoy, David Smith, and support him very much in the work that he is doing around the world on this. I acknowledge, as I find myself doing very frequently at the Dispatch Box, the work that the noble Lord led in his time in the Foreign Office.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that it is often difficult to draw the appropriate line between legitimate criticism of Israel—for example, in relation to Gaza and Iran—and antisemitism? Will she agree to undertake robustly to challenge any state that goes beyond that line into antisemitism?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not find it difficult to draw the line between criticism of the State of Israel and antisemitism. I have expressed my concerns on the record around some of the problems with access of aid into Gaza, for example, and other issues over time. At no point does this criticism ever get anywhere near anything that could be described as antisemitic. People who do not know the difference need to educate themselves, and it is their responsibility to make sure that any comments they make could never be interpreted as being antisemitic. It is perfectly possible to hold strong views about the Middle East without being antisemitic. We need to be clear about that.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, it is disturbing that Jewish individuals and communities feel themselves vulnerable to attacks, threats, criticisms and abuse. It is absolutely right, especially if it comes from within international organisations that we support, that we call it out, condemn it and show solidarity to the community. I echo the words that have been said. There is legitimate criticism of Israel, and it is perfectly possible to criticise. I chaired two committee reports that were very critical of Israel. Never did we stray anywhere near antisemitism. Criticism of Israel should never be justification for making antisemitic remarks. The State of Israel and the worldwide Jewish community are different and separate, and can always be kept separate.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I broadly agree with the comments of the noble Lord.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield
My Lords, as noble Lords have said, we should all be deeply concerned by the resurgence of antisemitism around the world. We must all unequivocally condemn the sickening recent incidents in our own country. The definition of antisemitism agreed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance is widely, though not universally, accepted, including by our own Government. It has also been adopted by the Church of England. Attached to that definition is a list of 11 possible examples of contemporary antisemitism, of which seven reference attitudes to the State of Israel. Would the Minister agree that one-sided, simplistic or inaccurate accounts of what is a complex and contested situation in Israel-Palestine can fuel the growth of antisemitism and other forms of religious hatred, including in our own country? If so, what support are His Majesty’s Government able to give to interfaith organisations that seek to present more balanced views and to encourage dialogue and learning around these difficult issues?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Interfaith organisations have an important role to play in this area and in many others, too. The Government are willing to, and do, work alongside many interfaith organisations in this endeavour.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, recently, the Health Secretary introduced welcome powers to dismiss antisemitic medics. Will the Government consider applying similar provisions to international organisations that we fund?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am not aware of any international organisation that we fund where we have direct capability to hire and fire. That is not how multilateral organisations tend to work. As I have said, we raise concerns directly and openly about the conduct of individuals, as and when that is the right thing to do. We will continue to work in that way.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will hear from the Cross Benches next and then the Labour Benches.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that the UN Human Rights Council has placed a disproportionate focus on Israel over the years? If she does accept that, what will the Government do to genuinely combat the institutional antisemitism that that can entrench?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As my friend the noble Lord will know, we are opposed to item 7 in the Human Rights Council, and we will use our leadership to try to persuade others that that is not an appropriate item to have. That is probably what he is getting at, and I suspect we probably agree.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, we were the first country in the world to adopt the IHRA definition. We are regarded by many countries, in some areas, as being world-leading in how we tackle antisemitism, not least in the way in which we have succeeded in working on a cross-party basis for the last two decades in challenging antisemitism, unlike many other countries. The Foreign Office has often been a little shy in briefing our embassies and commissions abroad on some of our successes. Could it perhaps be encouraged to do more in letting our representatives abroad know what some of our successes are, so that we can have an honest dialogue, about both successes and failures, show others what we are doing well and learn from others?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I have not detected and was not aware of the timidity that the noble Lord alluded to. I am very happy to have further conversations on how we can appropriately talk with our allies and partners around the world about the work we have done.
HBOS: Fraud Investigation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sikka
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the adequacy of Lloyds Bank’s investigation of fraud at HBOS; and when they expect Dame Linda Dobbs’s review of the fraud to be completed and published.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, in 2017, Lloyds Banking Group independently launched the Dobbs review to assess the handling of the fraud, which took place in the early 2000s, and to determine what it knew or should have known and whether it reported it appropriately to the regulatory authorities. The Government understand that drafting is under way, and the review’s findings will be shared with the Financial Conduct Authority once completed, which will then consider what actions are appropriate to take.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. It would be helpful to have a bit of background. Fraud at HBOS goes back to 2002. The regulators did little. In 2017, the Thames Valley Police and Crime Commissioner secured six criminal convictions. Still the FCA, SFO and the police did not fully investigate. The Government left it to Lloyds Bank, which owns HBOS and which then appointed Dame Linda Dobbs to investigate and prepare a report. There has been no report to date. Victims are still awaiting compensation, and many have died since. Does the Minister agree that it is a government duty to deliver justice to victims of bank fraud?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The Government share the frustration at how long processes relating to this issue are taking to conclude. In 2017, Lloyds Banking Group independently launched the Dobbs review to assess the handling of the fraud, what it knew or should have known, and whether it reported it appropriately to the regulatory authorities. The noble Lord mentioned the FCA. The FCA has undertaken an investigation into this matter historically and has taken enforcement actions. The FCA previously investigated and, with the PRA, jointly reported on the failure of HBOS. There was a criminal investigation resulting in six convictions in 2017. The FCA investigated knowledge of these matters with HBOS and its communications with the FCA after the initial discovery of the misconduct. Lloyds Banking Group has informed the Government that it is providing all the assistance and resources that Dame Linda and the review have requested, and that drafting is under way. It has reiterated the point that it will make the findings of Dame Linda’s review available when completed and will co-operate with Parliament. The Government inherited a series of processes that are independent of government and not accountable to us or the FCA. With our having inherited that legacy, it is right that the Dobbs review, alongside the work of Sir David Foskett, is allowed to conclude.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I am going to press the Minister to take a stronger position on this issue, which was £1 billion of criminal financial manipulation by HBOS Lloyds. The FCA spectacularly failed to investigate, initiating a report only under strenuous insistence from Vince Cable. It then misrepresented, to this House and others, the conclusions of that report—as was exposed when the original document was leaked to the Treasury Select Committee. Given all that, will the Government now back Dame Meg Hillier, who has demanded that when this report is completed, it is published in full and unredacted, which is not the position that Lloyds appears to be taking?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As I said before, the Government inherited a series of processes that are independent of government and not accountable to us or the FCA. With our having inherited that legacy, it is right that the Dobbs review, alongside the work of Sir David Foskett, is allowed to conclude. Lloyds Banking Group has informed the Government that it is providing all the assistance and resources that Dame Linda and the review have requested and that drafting is under way. It has reiterated the point that it will make the findings of Dame Linda’s review available when completed and will co-operate fully with Parliament.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
Will the Government reconsider their decision not to publish the report in full? I fully support what the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has said. I chaired the Treasury Select Committee through a substantial period during which these issues developed. It really is wholly unacceptable, so long after the development and exposure of this fraud, that people are not receiving compensation. We now need the publication and full transparency of that report.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As I have previously said, Lloyds Banking Group has reiterated the point that it will make the findings of Dame Linda’s review available when completed and will co-operate fully with Parliament. The noble Lord mentioned compensation. As I understand it, the independent Foskett Panel was established by Lloyds Banking Group in 2020, in part following engagement with the FCA and the Treasury, to determine the right level of compensation in individual cases. That review is independent. I understand that it has made its determinations and settled compensation for the majority of victims, but there are a few outstanding cases and I very much hope that this work will conclude in the near future.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the victims of this incredible £1 billion HBOS fraud will have the opportunity to challenge and correct the published version of the Dobbs review?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am afraid I do not know the answer to my noble friend’s question. I will very happily check and write to him in due course.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, the truth is that this was an appalling state of affairs, with many small and medium enterprises driven into insolvency as a result of the HBOS Reading fraud. Following the 2017 convictions which the Minister has mentioned, courts made several Proceeds of Crime Act confiscation orders—for example, a £10 million order against David and Alison Mills—yet their criminal benefit was assessed to be far higher, at around £69 million. Can the Minister tell us how much has been recovered and returned to victims to date? Will the Minister commit to a victim-first distribution plan for any further recoveries?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As I said to the House previously, the independent Foskett Panel was established by Lloyds Banking Group in 2020, in part following engagement with the FCA and Treasury, to determine the right level of compensation in individual cases. As I said before, the review is independent. I understand that it has made its determinations and settled the compensation for the majority of victims, although there are a few outstanding cases. I hope this work will be able to conclude in the near future.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I speak as an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Investment Fraud and Fairer Financial Services. The Government have placed considerable reliance on developing financial services as an engine of growth in our economy. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that transparent and clear anti-fraud activity is an essential element and that any doubts about the effectiveness of our anti-fraud policy will weaken the opportunities open to us. As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said, the extent of the pain and problems caused by this fraud should not be underestimated. Somewhat oddly, it only really came to light because of the work of the Thames Valley Police. We really do need to get better on this.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My noble friend is far more expert in these matters than me, and I think I agree with what he said. As I said, the Government share the frustration at how long processes related to this issue are taking to conclude. We very much hope that the findings of Dame Linda Dobbs’ review will be available very shortly. My noble friend mentioned the importance of the financial services sector, and I would like to reiterate that. The financial services sector is critical to the ambitions of our country; it is one of the largest and most productive sectors of the UK, worth around 9% of total economic output, employing 1.2 million people across the UK. So, I very much endorse what my noble friend says.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
Does the Minister accept that some of the difficult political challenges facing western societies today are a consequence of the destruction of the faith that people have in the effectiveness and fairness of the socio-political economic model following the financial crash of 2007 and the economic consequences? Therefore, issues such as the HBOS scandal are not just one-offs; they are not just a matter of dealing with certain financial consequences. If, as a society, we do not clearly address these things, the difficult political challenges that we currently see will continue and, indeed, get worse.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
It is very difficult to disagree with what the noble and gallant Lord says, and I am sure I agree with much of it. Substantial protections were put in place in terms of financial services after the financial crisis that he described, and those protections remain; that is, adherence to international standards, ensuring robust NRA remains in place, commitment to ring-fencing and the new FPC, FCA and PRA—that whole architecture. The reforms that were put in place post financial crisis are incredibly important in ensuring ongoing confidence in our financial services sector.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister now answer the question from the Conservative Front Bench? How much money has been got back from the fraudsters and how much of that has ended up with the victims of this appalling crime?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As I said before, that is a matter for the independent Foskett Panel, which was established by Lloyds Banking Group in 2020. The review is independent. I understand that it has made its determinations and settled the compensation for the majority of victims, although there are, of course, a few outstanding cases. I hope this work will be able to conclude in the very near future.
Golders Green Ambulance Attack
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Polak
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the antisemitic arson attack on ambulances in Golders Green, and what steps they are taking to protect Jewish communities from similar attacks in the future.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, the police are in the early stages of their investigation. They have arrested two British nationals, who are now on bail, and the police are looking at possible motivation. I cannot speculate further at this time. The Government have supported the Jewish community with record levels of security funding, police support, and clear action to root out antisemitism wherever it appears.
Lord Polak (Con)
I thank the Minister, but as we celebrate Passover next week, the ancient festival of freedom, it is shocking that the Jewish community needs help to enjoy that freedom in 2026. Over the past weeks, I have stood in this place and spoken of the Golders Green ambulance attack, antisemitism on campus, 20 failed IRGC plots, proscribing the IRGC, West Midlands police lies, BBC antisemitism, proscribing the IRGC again, hate marches, and the deadly terrorist attack in Manchester. I am not sure whether noble Lords have noticed a pattern. The Jewish community is being intimidated and terrorised at home, here in the UK. I ask the Minister just one question: can he name any other community that is obliged to have professional guards and enhanced security systems to protect all its places of worship, all its schools and all its communal buildings?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord will know that I think the attacks he has listed are vile crimes. Some are still under investigation, but they are vile crimes and there is absolutely no place in this United Kingdom for antisemitism. There is a range of other communities which regularly face attack, but I share his concern that the Jewish community is being singled out. In this Government, from the Prime Minister downwards, we will take a stand against antisemitism, we will not tolerate it, and we will take steps both to protect the Jewish community and ultimately to drive out the causes of those attacks in the first place.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I must first declare an interest in that Hatzola, which runs the ambulances, came to my home when my wife broke her leg, and it came to my home when I fell down and was unconscious, and took me to hospital. It is a Jewish organisation but it does not help only Jews. I have been in Golders Green, the area we are talking about, when a woman fell down in the middle of the street, and Hatzola came to deal with it. There was a man lying prone on the pavement, of who knows what religion, and Hatzola came to help him. This is a charitable organisation. I ask the Minister this question with great reluctance, because I have always said we must not conflate the things that happen in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza with what happens in the UK, but is there not a similarity between these attacks on the ambulances in Golders Green and the Hamas attacks on the peaceful settlements of kibbutzim in southern Israel? Is there not a playbook here, where Jews in Israel and the UK are being targeted? Can the Minister ask the police authorities whether Hamas is active in the UK?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
First of all, I share the noble Lord’s concern about the attack and about the damage that was done. In response to that damage, the Government have replaced those four ambulances that were burned and will help support that organisation in future to rebuild the types of services that the noble Lord referred to so that we can have a continuum of support in that way. I hope the House will recognise that I cannot comment on the motivation of the attack. Two individuals have been arrested and they are on bail. We do not know what their motivation was, but I say to the noble Lord that antisemitism, whether in Israel or in the United Kingdom, is a vile action. It needs to be attacked and shown up for what it is, and the Government, both at home and abroad, as my noble friend Lady Chapman mentioned earlier, will take action to ensure that we drive it out. We can of course attack the State of Israel and its policies but antisemitism is an entirely different thing, and I share the noble Lord’s concern on that matter.
Lord Roe of West Wickham (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to ask my noble friend the Minister a practical question, but first I must commend the actions of my former colleagues in tackling this terrible incident—this vile attack on the Jewish community in London—because they faced great danger and difficulty in doing so; having spoken to them, I am sure of that. My question is focused on, and builds on, the question from the right reverend Prelate: what is the Home Office doing in combination with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in interfaith work? My experience in these matters is that after events escalated in the Middle East, in the London Fire Brigade and in the Metropolitan Police we saw an extraordinary rise in physical attacks on both the Jewish and Muslim communities, almost in parallel. Our view as professionals in the security and safety space was that more work needed to be done to generate co-operation and mutual understanding and to counter some of the vile politics, antisemitism and Islamophobia that we were seeing played out in the most awful way in physical attacks on the streets. What are we doing in the interfaith space to support local community groups, which very often do great work but not always with the resources they need?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend is right to praise the emergency services that responded to the event, because they do not know what they are walking into at the time of an attack. The Government are very keen to support, and are doing a lot of good work through the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, with the Home Office and others, to encourage, that genuine interfaith co-operation, so that faiths understand and support each other and the division between Jew, Christian and Muslim is not one that is reflected by the community at large, and so that they put resilience in place to help give support after incidents such as this across community bases.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of His Majesty’s Official Opposition I too express my absolute horror at the antisemitic arson attack in Golders Green, which was an abhorrent attack on community ambulances provided by a peaceful volunteer-led service. Unfortunately, this is what happens when we have slogans such as “Globalise the intifada” and “From the river to the sea” aired so publicly on our streets. In light of this, what action will the Government take to choke off the rising tide of antisemitism, particularly arising from Islamist extremism? Will the Government perhaps now act to outlaw and proscribe the IRGC, which we asked for in debates on the Crime and Policing Bill?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government have taken very strong action and recently published Protecting What Matters. That will include, for example, specialist disruption units to detect, expose and counter extremist influence across the UK. We are looking at giving state threats designation powers, which is another form of proscription, in relation to a range of bodies. We are also increasing efforts to stop hate preachers and extremists both entering the UK and using platforms outside the UK to influence activity as a whole. The noble Lord knows that we keep the IRGC proscription under review, but that also does not mean that we do not take sanctions against the Iranian regime and very strong measures generally. But the review is ongoing, and we will never trail any proscription that we finally undertake.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, next and then we will come back to my noble friend on the Labour Benches.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I absolutely agree with the Minister’s assessment that this was a vile attack on the Jewish community. As a Christian, I stand in solidarity with that Jewish community today. Does the Minister agree with me that the growth of extremism and indeed the continued glorification and normalisation of terrorism in our society lead to attacks such as these, particularly with the impressionable young people who listen to these chants all the time and are influenced by them?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We should never glorify terrorism. I know that we have had debate on this in the Crime and Policing Bill, and we are still reflecting on points that the noble Baroness has mentioned. It is important that the Government and every individual citizen make a stand against antisemitism and extremism. We will do that, and I hope that I will have the support of the House in trying to devise policies to put that into practice.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, we know from our security services that they have so far foiled at least 20 Iranian-backed, potentially lethal plots against the Jewish community on British soil in recent years. On Monday, Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamia claimed responsibility online for the attack on the Hatzola ambulances, the veracity of which I know is under investigation. Can my noble friend the Minister say what assessment the Government have made of the extent, nature and severity of the Iranian threat against the British Jewish community?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We recognise that the Iranian state is a malign influence, and we have taken steps to sanction individuals and prevent them entering the United Kingdom, and, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, we keep the issue of proscription under review at all times. We have also given £28 million to the Jewish community to help protect synagogues and schools, and we will keep that under review. In addition, as my noble friend mentioned, the security services are active, day in, day out, in order to take intelligence-led action against potential plots against the Jewish community, and indeed in other areas of our society. This is an existential threat and the Government will take action when it is needed. However, we keep the issue of proscription under review as to whether that is an effective way of supporting our security services in achieving the objectives that we all want, which are that people from the Jewish community—to go back to the supplementary question from the noble Lord, Lord Polak—have a right to enjoy their religion and their community and to live safely in the United Kingdom like anybody else.
Arrangement of Business
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, as a pre-recess treat, I will update the House on planned recess dates. I have already announced most recess dates until Christmas this year. I will now add those for the short November weekend, when the plan is to rise at the conclusion of business on Wednesday 4 November and return on Monday 9 November.
I am delighted to update noble Lords with the plan for the February and Easter Recesses of 2027. To save noble Lords from hurrying to write these down, my office has arranged a notice to be in the usual places with all recess dates. I will shortly email all noble Lords. Subject to the usual caveat of the progress of business, the House will be adjourned as follows: in February 2027, we will adjourn the House at the end of business on Thursday 11 February and return on Monday 22 February. For Easter Recess, we will adjourn at the conclusion of business on Thursday 25 March and return on Monday 12 April. I hope that noble Lords will find this helpful in planning, especially for booking well-deserved holidays and meeting family and friends.
I thank all noble Lords and staff for a productive term. We have concluded a range of important business. I am grateful to the whole House for facilitating the vital scrutiny that we undertake. Finally, noble Lords may also note that the Leader of the House of Commons has just confirmed in the other place that State Opening of Parliament will take place on Wednesday 13 May. Noble Lords will get further information on the arrangements from Black Rod’s Office in due course. We will return in April for the last few sitting weeks of this Session. Before I am asked, I should say that the date of Prorogation will be announced in the usual way, subject to the conclusion of business. I wish everyone a restful and well-deserved Easter Recess.
Business of the House
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday 14 April to enable the Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill and Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill to be taken through their remaining stages that day.
Middle East: Economic Update
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, for the third time in as many weeks, the Chancellor came before the other place on Tuesday and once again delivered a Statement remarkable only for its lack of substance.
I welcome the confirmation respecting nuclear power, including the implementation of the Fingleton review, which should help to accelerate construction. The references to relations with the EU are less convincing. What price will we be expected to pay for these supposed benefits? The Government’s history of giving in unnecessarily to the EU does not give confidence. We are also suspicious of claims about the need for new powers regarding alleged price-gouging. This smacks of playing to a not very well-informed gallery, but what exactly do the Government intend here?
The Chancellor has praised countries such as Norway and Canada for increasing oil and gas production and for playing their part in securing energy supplies during a time of conflict. Yet here at home the Government refuse to do the same. The Energy Secretary continues to block increased production in the North Sea, so the Government applaud others for strengthening their energy security while wilfully weakening our own. That is pure masochism.
We could scarcely be entering this crisis in a weaker position. We face the highest industrial energy costs in the developed world, with consumer prices not far behind. Just today, the OECD has said that the war in the Middle East will hit UK growth hardest of all, with inflation set to accelerate. The Government speak of reducing dependence on energy imports, yet their own actions are driving us in precisely the opposite direction. That is a self-inflicted vulnerability.
This is a dangerous position to be in. I gently say to the Minister that the public will not thank the Government for ideological gestures; they will expect practical action to secure our energy future. It ought not to be beyond the wit of government to expand green energy supplies while also sustaining supply through oil and gas—which we will simply import more of if we do not produce it at home.
I will also briefly mention the defence investment plan. It was very unedifying to see the Prime Minister discomforted when he was asked about it at the most recent Liaison Committee meeting. On Tuesday, the Defence Select Committee heard from industry leaders that without the defence investment plan—which is now well overdue—some defence manufacturers are going bust, while others have been left in “paralysis” and “bleeding cash”. The plan was originally expected last autumn, but it has been repeatedly postponed, despite repeated warnings that our Armed Forces face a £28 billion funding gap. When will we see the plan?
The Chancellor said that her response to the crisis in the Middle East would be “responsive” and “responsible”. What on earth is responsible about this: a refusal to agree a defence funding plan when the MoD faces a £28 billion black hole, British defence firms going under—and all at a moment of acute global instability, when our sovereign territory has been attacked and our citizens are being threatened at home?
Our economic and defence situation is perilous. Gilt yields are at levels not seen since the 2008 financial crisis. Inflation and employment are disturbingly high. Our defences are in a mess. Taxes, borrowing and spending are at record levels and interest rates are going the wrong way. No wonder a respected commentator said this week that he had never been so concerned that the person nominally in charge of the economy—the Chancellor—was manifestly out of their depth. We need better than this.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, if this war with Iran continues, and especially if the Strait of Hormuz remains closed as we approach autumn, the global economy will be in serious trouble and the crisis will impact severely—directly on energy prices and, more broadly, on the cost of living. There was far too little in the Chancellor’s speech to give ordinary folk, never mind the markets, real reassurance. People are not naive. Simply to repeat the steps that the Government planned for the economy anyway in the pre-Iran war world is not sufficient.
The Chancellor indicated that any support beyond changes that are already in the system would be targeted at those who are most in need. What does that mean? Is it limited to the 6 million people who claim welfare or pension credit? Is it correct that the Treasury lacks the capacity to identify and assist those who do not qualify for those benefits but are still very low earners? What should the earnings threshold be for support? Will the Chancellor act immediately to, at the very least, zero-rate VAT on heating oil and liquefied petroleum gas? Will she introduce a proper price-cap mechanism for off-grid fuels? Will the Government also reverse their senseless cuts to home insulation programmes, which will be important to a wide range of people?
In her speech, the Chancellor failed to recognise the dire position of small businesses. Inflation in January pre-war was at 3%. We have found today that UK business activity is growing at its slowest pace since September, with a huge jump in manufacturing input prices. At such a time, tax, NICs and other blows from the Budget will fall on small businesses in April—a few days away. This Government seem cavalier about loading small businesses with additional costs, even though they are the backbone of our economy and jobs, and sustain our local communities.
The Government know that small businesses face a broken energy market that leaves most of them paying inflated energy prices. Will they now instruct the Competition and Markets Authority to investigate suppliers that are blocking small business access to the best energy deals? Will they now change the business rate system so that small businesses can improve their energy efficiency without facing business rate penalties? Will they adopt the idea of an energy security bank to provide low-cost loans for households and small businesses to invest in energy efficiency?
When the country is anxious, it needs a speech from the Chancellor that recognises and responds to the changed reality. Will someone from the Government please give that speech before anxiety becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy?
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, for their comments and their questions. As it is the last day before Recess, I wish both noble Baronesses a very happy Easter in advance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, began her comments by welcoming what we are doing on nuclear, and I am grateful for her support on that and for her support as we implement the Fingleton review. As she knows, we have already begun to rewrite the story on nuclear for this country: we have begun construction at Sizewell C, we have agreed an extension to Sizewell B and we are due to sign the contracts on the UK’s first small modular reactor in Anglesey in partnership with Rolls-Royce. The Chancellor has also confirmed that we will legislate to implement the Fingleton review on nuclear and wider infrastructure in the next Session and has also written to industry and to regulators to get them to set out their plans to fast-track its implementation.
I was disappointed to see the noble Baroness indulge in some anti-EU rhetoric, which I know she does not actually believe. I think it makes absolute sense at this time of global instability that we deepen our economic relationship with our closest partners. It is clear that that is where maximum growth will come from for this country.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, spoke about the Competition and Markets Authority. It has stepped up its statutory monitoring of fuel prices and will publicly update on fuel pricing later this month. It is also working with Government to monitor the cost of household essentials, including groceries, for price rises and disruption. It has launched a market study into heating oil on top of its existing work to identify and tackle breaches of consumer law in the heating oil market. The Chancellor also announced this week that we are going further to make sure it has the bite it needs to detect and crack down on price gouging, bringing in a new anti-profiteering framework and considering time-limited targeted powers for the CMA and other regulators as needed. Yesterday, the Chancellor and the Business Secretary both met and convened the regulators’ council to discuss its work to protect consumers and small businesses, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, mentioned.
On oil and gas, I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said. We will ensure the North Sea oil and gas plays an important role in our economy for years to come. Last week, the Chancellor met with the North Sea industry leaders to discuss their role in jobs, investment, growth and energy supply. The noble Baroness also mentioned energy security. She did not mention the fact that the last Government’s failure to invest in energy was a failure to protect our country. But, through determined long-term action, this Government are taking control of our own energy supply. We are investing in renewables, lifting the ban on onshore wind, streamlining grid connections, bringing the next renewables auction forward to this July and driving forward negotiations on the UK’s participation in the EU internal electricity market. We also ran the biggest ever floating offshore wind auction last year.
As I mentioned already, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, welcomed nuclear, and we must guarantee that our domestic oil and gas industry can play a crucial role as well for years to come. So we are investing in tie-backs to make the most of existing production facilities. The Chancellor has also announced that she has instructed officials to develop plans to back critical energy projects with indemnities if their planning consent is challenged in the courts, so that we can build the infrastructure that we need.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, mentioned the OECD projections out this morning. As she knows, the war in the Middle East is not one that we started, nor is it a war that we have joined, but it is a war that will have an impact on our country. The OECD’s projections are highly sensitive to the duration of the shock and reflect the impact of higher energy prices, which the UK, as she knows, is more susceptible to. But, in an uncertain world, we have the right economic plan. The decisions we have taken have put us in a better position to protect the country’s finances and family finances from global economic instability.
Both noble Baronesses touched on the economic situation that we find ourselves in. The full economic impact of the conflict remains uncertain, but the spring forecast showed that the Government have the right economic plan, that we enter this period of global uncertainty with the fundamentals of our economy strong and that we are more prepared for a more volatile world. We have cut inflation, which now stands at 3%—a lower base than at the outset of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. We have prioritised growth to drive up living standards. The OBR forecast before this conflict showed that GDP per head was set to grow more than was expected at the Budget, with growth of 5.6% over the course of this Parliament. We have stabilised the public finances, having already reduced the deficit by £20 billion this year from 5.2% to 4.3% of GDP—its lowest level for six years and the fastest reduction in the G7. Of course, these forecasts predate the current conflict in the Middle East, but Britain today is in a stronger position to withstand whatever uncertainty comes our way.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noble-Rolfe, spoke about defence. We are delivering the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War. The Chancellor has approved access to the Ministry of Defence to use the special reserve to deploy additional capabilities to the Middle East, meaning that the net additional cost of these operations will be funded by the Treasury. The defence investment plan will be published in due course. We are investing £270 billion over this Parliament, after years of our Armed Forces being neglected under the previous Government. We will increase defence spending to 2.6% of GDP from 2027, and we are increasing spending on defence by £5 billion in this year alone.
Finally, both noble Baronesses spoke about energy bills. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked me what “responsible” means. It means that, as we respond to this crisis, we should learn from the mistakes of the past. The previous Government pushed up borrowing, interest rates, inflation and mortgage costs with an unfunded, untargeted package of support under Liz Truss that gave the most support to the wealthiest households. Between 2022 and 2024, under the last Government, households in the top income decile received an average of £1,350 of direct energy bill support. That left us with high levels of national debt—a cheque written then for a bill that is still being paid today. Contingency planning is taking place for every eventuality so that we can keep costs down for everyone and provide support for those who need it most, acting within our iron-clad fiscal rules to keep inflation and interest rates as low as possible.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Colville of Culross) (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Lord to speak.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, on the background to this strategy and the shock referred to by the Minister, as post-conflict Iran at some stage moves from regional threat into a period of post-conflict reconstruction, do we intend to stand by and watch as Israel takes advantage of the situation by accelerating its programme of land annexation, thereby further promoting regional insecurity and international tension? These conditions challenge the very recovery projects and programmes we are funding, which were identified in the Statement. We all support Israel in its hour of need, but should we not be demanding in response and end to the settlement expansion, as it challenges the stability we all want? It will destabilise recovery.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am pleased to say that this is a Statement about the economic situation, and I do not think anyone would ever put me in charge of diplomacy. I am not going to stray into matters that are much more properly a subject for my colleagues in the Foreign Office, so I shall leave it there.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I am a 40-year veteran of the fertiliser industry, and two weeks ago I raised for the first time the prospect of shortages of ammonia causing a fertiliser-led food security shock in this country. Last week, I highlighted the effects of the Iran war on our foundational chemical industries based on soda ash, aniline, vinyl, chlorine, ethylene and others. This morning, the Financial Times’ leading article echoes my concerns, and elsewhere there are reports that the EU is backpedalling fast on new carbon taxes and reviewing the emissions trading system. When are the Government going to announce a delay to the counterproductive food chain taxes that will turn an inflation disaster into a cost-of-living catastrophe by driving up the cost of beer, bread, biscuits, milk and cheese to new heights in short order?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I know he has a great deal of expertise in the specific sectors that he mentioned. Of course, the Treasury and the Department for Business and Trade are constantly monitoring the impact of this crisis on those sectors and we will take action if necessary. It is not currently our intention to take the specific measures that he mentioned but, as I say, we will be reviewing and monitoring those sectors very closely.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I welcome this Statement and join the Chancellor speaking in the other place in paying tribute to our Armed Forces. In particular, I welcome support for those families and households hardest hit; however, I share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for small businesses, and extend that with a question around what we are doing to support the charitable sector: for example, from my recent experience, in the transport costs associated with food banks, in heating warm hubs and so on. We have a responsibility to care for those who care for others, and I ask what the Government are doing to support that work.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his question and I agree with him and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on the importance of small businesses to our economy. As the Chancellor said, we do not yet know what the full impact of this conflict will be, so we must be agile in responding appropriately at each moment. It remains the case that the best way to protect families and businesses, large and small, and charities, which the right reverend Prelate mentioned, is by the rapid de-escalation of this conflict.
He mentioned transport costs and we have already taken action: we have extended the fuel duty cut of 5p and have pushed out the cheaper fuel finder, empowering people to avoid rip-off prices. We are chasing down the last few filling stations, so that we can reach 100% compliance with that. He will also know that, when wholesale kerosene prices more than doubled overnight, we stepped in within a matter of days with £53 million of support for those who needed it most. From next week, households will benefit from £150 off their energy bills, thanks to the action that we took in the Budget. Also, the price cap is giving households certainty on their bills until July, ahead of the winter months when people use 78% of their gas.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, the Government say that they will directly reduce food bills by joining the EU SPS. Can the Minister give us a forecast of how much cheaper food is going to be? It certainly never worked when we were in the EU and it is a very complicated and expensive scheme.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
No, but I am certain that it will lead to lower food prices, just as I am certain that the Brexit that the noble Lord championed has led to all manner of difficulties for consumers, households and businesses. I am sorry that he is still unable to concede that very important point. As I have said before, at a time of global instability, getting closer to and building a deeper economic relationship with our closest partners is in our national, security and economic interest.
Lord Livingston of Parkhead (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in coming back to the comment on oil and gas made by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, the growth of green energy and the growth of oil and gas are often described as somehow at odds with each other. It is quite clear that we need both for our energy security. We should grow our green energy while oil and gas remain transitional fuels. Therefore, as Norway is doing, the UK should grow its energy and gas supplies so that we can support our tax base and improve our energy security. It may not affect prices, but it is an important role that the UK can play not just for itself but for other countries, and it is not at odds with the energy transformation.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I agree with every word that the noble Lord said. We will ensure that North Sea oil and gas play an important role in our economy for years to come. Last week, the Chancellor met with North Sea industry leaders to discuss their role in jobs, investment, growth and energy supply. As the noble Lord and I have said, and I agree with him, we are investing in renewables at the same time. We are lifting the ban on onshore wind and streamlining grid connections. We ran the biggest ever floating offshore wind auction last year and have brought forward the next renewables auction to this July, and we are driving forward negotiations on the UK’s participation in the EU internal electricity market.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
We will take Labour next.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, could the Minister confirm the number in the OBR report which accompanied the Spring Statement that public sector real investment will increase by 12% this year? Could he explain to what degree that 12% is repairing the damage done by the previous Administration and increasing productivity for the future?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing this to the House’s attention. I absolutely agree with what he said and am happy to confirm the figure that he set out. As he knows and we all know, investment was a particular failure of the previous Government over the last 14 years. When we won the election, private sector investment was the lowest in the G7. Public sector investment was no better and was set to fall again, from 2.5% to 1.7% of GDP. We have increased capital investment by £120 billion over this Parliament, ruling out a return to the austerity of the past. As my noble friend said, that is incredibly important for increasing growth and productivity in the economy.
The OBR has estimated that the eventual growth impact of this increase in capital investment will add 1.4% to GDP. Cutting this now and returning to austerity would be the worst thing that we could do for growth and the very definition of short-termism, yet that is precisely what previous Chancellors with previous fiscal rules have done. In the years following the financial crisis, austerity took demand out of the economy when it was most needed, undermining investment in critical infrastructure, weakening productivity and choking off growth. We will not repeat the mistakes of the past.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, the Climate Change Committee was clear last week that the cost of another oil price crisis would be greater than the cost of reaching net zero by 2050, so these Benches fully support the need to roll out renewables at a faster rate. However, we continue to have high energy bills and there is a need to decouple gas, so I ask the Minister what further action the Government are considering in this space, so that we can bring down energy bills.
The Minister spoke about the need to target support so that it reaches the most vulnerable. I briefly want to ask whether he agrees that there is a need for the Government to do a greater piece of work on data, so that they can identify those people who are in most need of support with energy bills.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Earl for his question and his consistent support for the action we are taking on renewables. He is absolutely right that it is important that the Government enable the country to take control of its own energy supply. As he says and I have said, we are continuing to invest in renewables by lifting the ban on onshore wind and running the biggest ever floating offshore wind auction last year.
On household energy bills, I have said that contingency planning is taking place for every eventuality. I agree with what he says about data, and of course that work is ongoing. It is very important that we keep costs down for everyone, while providing support for those who need it most and acting within our fiscal rules to keep inflation and interest rates as low as possible.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, I hope I am not going to test the noble Lord’s legendary diplomatic skills in answering this question but, last year, the Prime Minister said that “security and defence” were
“not one priority amongst many others but the central organising principle of government. The first thought in the morning, the last at night, the pillar on which everything else stands or falls”.
In light of the Statement that the Chancellor delivered the other day, could the noble Lord confirm that that statement from the Prime Minister is still the case and that defence is the overall organising principle of government? Can he therefore explain when we will see a rapid rise in defence spending and why current forecasts show a welfare spending increase way above that of defence?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. He knows that the previous Government increased welfare spending by £88 billion in their last five years, which is quite a legacy for us to have inherited. He also knows that we are delivering the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War. As I have said already, the Chancellor has approved access for the Ministry of Defence to use the special reserve to deploy additional capabilities in the Middle East.
He asked me how we will increase defence spending. We are investing £270 billion over this Parliament, after years of our Armed Forces being neglected under the previous Government. We will increase defence spending to 2.6% of GDP from 2027 and we are increasing spending on defence by £5 billion in this year alone. Our ambition is to reach 3% in the next Parliament, when fiscal and economic conditions allow. We are not going to put an arbitrary date on that percentage until we know exactly where the money is coming from.
I should also say that, this week, the Chancellor announced a new defence procurement mechanism. A core group of NATO allies—Finland, the Netherlands, the UK and other partners—have announced that they are exploring setting up a new mechanism for financing by 2027. The aim is to aggregate demand to drive joint procurement, accelerate defence investment and increase the availability of critical capabilities.
Baroness Primarolo (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend the Minister’s Statement, for the steps the Government are taking, and that they will keep under review the impact on families and businesses, particularly small businesses. I return to the question of energy security. Is my noble friend in a position to give us more details on the work being done on the grid infrastructure to ensure its efficient use, speedily bringing down energy prices as we shift to more renewable sources? Will the Government consider returning to their considerations on zonal pricing as a way of bringing energy bills down?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for her question on energy security. As she rightly says, energy security for this country is about making the best use of all the resources at our disposal. It is why we are investing more in nuclear, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said at the outset: we are investing in the construction at Sizewell C and have agreed an extension to Sizewell B, and we are due to sign the contracts on the UK’s first small modular reactor in Anglesey in partnership with Rolls-Royce SMR. It is why we must, as several noble Lords have said already, make the most of our oil and gas reserves—we will ensure that North Sea oil and gas plays an important role in our economy for years to come—and why we are meeting with industry leaders to discuss their role in jobs, investment, growth and energy supply. It is, of course, why—again, as several noble Lords have said—we must make the most of our transition towards renewables and why we should invest heavily in those, as we are doing. We are taking action, as my noble friend says, to streamline grid connections, and that work goes on. We are undertaking a series of very important initiatives in that respect. On zonal pricing, as I understand it, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has said that that is not the direction that it intends to go in.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister tell us whether the Treasury has made any estimates of how much oil, in value, Iran needs to export before it drops below a way of maintaining any form of international economic viability? Has the Treasury estimated how Iran will cover its shortfall in foodstuffs and such materials that are, and have always been, needed by Iran beyond those that it grows itself?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Those are both very interesting questions. I cannot say that I am aware of estimates on either of those—they certainly have not crossed my desk—but I am more than happy to look into them for the noble Lord. If I find anything, I shall write to him.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lord, I declare my interest as director of the Army Reserve. I listened carefully to the Minister’s Statement about the increase in defence spending, which is, of course, most welcome. Can the Minister perhaps then confirm to me that, next year, the Ministry of Defence will not be required to make significant in-year savings?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As I think I have said clearly, the Chancellor has approved access for the Ministry of Defence to use the special reserve to deploy additional capabilities in the Middle East, meaning that the net additional costs of these operations will be funded by the Treasury.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as I understand it, the Government’s commitment on defence spending is to increase it from the 2.3% of GDP that it inherited to 2.6% of GDP, which the Minister has reiterated now. In the 1930s, in the five-year period after 1933, defence spending in this country increased from about 2.3% to 6.8%, which is a trebling. Do the Minister and the Government appreciate that, to deal with the scale of the threats with which we are now faced, we need to take dramatic action on defence—to increase it at considerable pace, far faster than the 0.3% to which the Government are committed at present?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I think I have set out very clearly the pace at which we are increasing and will increase defence spending. From 2027, we will increase defence spending to 2.6% of GDP, and we are increasing spending on defence by £5 billion in this year alone. Our ambition is to reach 3% in the next Parliament, when fiscal and economic conditions allow.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, following on from the noble Baroness’s question about grid capacity and upgrading the grid, does the Minister not agree that the more small nuclear we can introduce instead of intermittent renewable sources—such as onshore and offshore wind—the better, because it is firm baseload power? Also, it reduces the need to upgrade the grid because, for example, high-temperature gas-cooled reactors—50-megawatt reactors—can be placed over the fence, alongside data centres or industrial clusters. Our Japanese friends have almost given up on us and are now considering working with different partners on commercialising their high-temperature gas-cooled reactor technology, which was originally a British invention. When will the Government confirm their commitment to early deployment of this very effective and useful technology?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Viscount, who clearly has a great deal of expertise in this matter. I agree with everything he said, certainly in the first part of his question. SMRs and AMRs being deployed in the UK will form an incredibly important part of our energy mix. We have set out and published a framework so that we can see more private sector investment in exactly those technologies. As he says, AMRs in particular can provide very high heat to decarbonise a lot of our industry, which is incredibly important. They do not need to connect to the grid, so they do not use up grid connections. That is exactly the kind of technology that we would like to see deployed more. As I said, we have published a framework so that we can see more private investment in exactly those technologies.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, while the Minister is not transferring to the Diplomatic Service—we would miss him greatly—there does seem to be a sense of denial in the question by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and the Minister’s answer. GDP is now expected to expand by just 0.7% this year, according to the OECD interim economic outlook, which he will know was published today. That is down by 0.5 percentage points from the organisation’s prior prediction of 1.2%. This would put the UK second last in the G7 growth table and represents the largest downgrade in growth projections for any G20 economy. Rather than denial, we need to face reality. I am particularly concerned that, in the debate on this matter in the other place earlier this week, the Chancellor kept referring to the fact that borrowing will fall. Does the Minister think she really understands the difference between deficit and debt?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Yes, I am absolutely certain that she understands the difference between those two things. As I have said already, the war in the Middle East is not one that we started nor one we have joined, but it will have an impact on our country. The OECD’s projections are highly sensitive to the duration of the shock and reflect the impact of higher energy prices, to which the noble Lord knows we are more exposed than many other countries. But I am absolutely certain that, in an uncertain world, we have the right economic plan. The decisions we have taken have put us in a better position to protect the country’s finances and family finances from global instability.
Pension Schemes Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Pension Schemes Bill, has consented to place his interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a cross-reference to section 26(7B) of the Pensions Act 2008, left out by a report stage amendment in the name of Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I did not expect to be back moving amendments quite so quickly, but despite the 20 consequential amendments that I moved on Report, four more have come to light. They are printed on the Marshalled List. They are entirely consequential on Amendment 52, which deleted mandation. All I seek to do with Amendments 1 to 3 and 8 is to move them formally when the time comes. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I will say a word or two at this stage about government Amendment 4, because I understand it relates to Amendment 156, which the Minister moved on Monday. That Amendment 156 had wide Cross-Bench support, coming as it did after an amendment in the other place that was supported across parties and particularly by the Liberal Democrats. It gave the Government the responsibility and ability to issue statutory guidance on the fiduciary duty of trustees in relation to systemic issues, including climate change and many more.
In response to that, the Minister in the Commons said that the Government would bring forward plans to ensure that the guidance reflected the views of all within the sector and that it could be useful to trustees. All I have ever been interested in is bringing forward something that would help those involved with investment decisions for pensioners to be able to take into account with confidence the long-term systemic issues that they found. I am sure the Whip would not want me to repeat their arguments, which I am in danger of doing.
Following the vote on Amendment 156 on Monday, which I still do not understand, I am concerned about what the Government will now do. They are committed to this course of action and have taken a great deal of effort in setting up the technical working group and getting views from across the sector. It would be a real shame if that work were somehow to be halted by the procedural issues of how we get the legislative base to do this.
I should pay tribute here to the Minister and her officials, who moved at great pace and put a lot of effort into coming up with a solution that unfortunately was not accepted by the House on Monday. I would very much appreciate some understanding from the Minister, when she winds up, of how this issue will go forward. Because it was a government amendment, we do not have the opportunity of asking the Commons to think again; it is dead in this House. I would very much value an understanding that the need for this guidance has not gone away. As I understand it, the Government’s commitment to the guidance has not gone away, so it would be very interesting to know how we take the next steps.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, my Amendment 6 is entirely consequential on the amendment your Lordships agreed to. I am very grateful to the Public Bill Office for its advice in helping me to correct this, and I will move it formally when the moment comes.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments here are minor and technical following Report, and the Government will not oppose them today. Amendment 4 in my name is also minor and technical. This amendment was tabled to correct an error concerning Amendment 178, which was moved by mistake on Report on Monday 23 March. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, that amendment relates to the commencement of Amendment 156 on investment duties guidance, which was disagreed by the House. The amendment now removes the commencement clause to honour the usual channels’ agreement on the package, as it was a missed consequential amendment.
In response to the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman—I commend her on her work on this important issue—the Government introduced their amendments to this House to honour the commitment given by my honourable friend the Minister for Pensions in the other place. Since the House disagreed with those amendments, obviously that cannot proceed. They were removed from the Bill in this House. Therefore, the other place will not get to consider them again. However, she is right that the need for guidance and clarity does not go away.
The Government remain committed to improving clarity around trustees’ existing investment duties, including how schemes consider long-term and financially material factors such as climate and systemic risks, while maintaining their core duty to act in members’ best interests. We will press ahead with this important work. We are currently reviewing next step options to ensure this objective continues to be progressed in the most important way in the light of the decision of the House on this matter.
The technical working group, which was discussed at some length in our proceedings, bringing together legal, actuarial and investment experts, will continue to play a central role in helping government develop high-quality guidance and ensuring it is workable, proportionate and valuable to schemes. Further updates will be provided in due course. I hope that gives enough information; it is all I am able to say at the moment. In the meantime, Amendment 4 is a necessary step, and I hope the House will support it.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is connected to another amendment in the name of Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted to the commencement clause.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a cross-reference to section 26(7B) of the Pensions Act 2008, left out by a report stage amendment in the name of Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted.
Baroness Sherlock
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment corrects a mistake.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(g) section 130 comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision for the commencement of clause 130, which was inserted by an amendment in Baroness Neville-Rolfe’s name at report stage.
Viscount Thurso
“(g) section 131 comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision for the commencement of clause 131, which was inserted by an amendment in Viscount Thurso’s name at report stage.
Baroness Stedman-Scott
“(g) section 132 comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision for the commencement of clause 132, which was inserted by an amendment in Baroness Stedman-Scott’s name at report stage.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a cross-reference to section 28G of the Pensions Act 2008, left out by a report stage amendment in the name of Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the House for its scrutiny of the Pension Schemes Bill. The Bill will make a real difference for people saving for their retirement. It will help their money to work harder by improving how pension schemes operate, reducing unnecessary costs and enabling larger, better-governed schemes to secure stronger long-term returns. It will also make pensions easier to follow by tackling the growth of small dormant pots, and it will give people clearer and more dependable support when they come to draw their pension so they can make choices that meet their needs. For those in defined benefit schemes, the Bill strengthens long-term security through a well-regulated superfund regime. It brings clarity to areas that have caused uncertainty for savers, including historic scheme alterations and support for those facing a terminal illness.
Taken together, these reforms help build a system that is easier to navigate, better run and more supportive of people as they move towards retirement. During the passage of the Bill, the House voted for amendments that the Government did not support. I can assure the House that we will reflect carefully on these as the Bill moves to the other place.
I thank noble Lords who have contributed to the debates. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for their engagement throughout proceedings. I thank my noble friend Lord Katz, my Whip, for doing so much work on the Bill and being such a great source of support.
I am also grateful to all those who worked so hard on the legislation, including the excellent Bill managers, Jo and Amanda, for advice, encouragement and the provision of excellent cupcakes; our officials, Sam, Rob and Anna, and their brilliant teams; and my private office, especially Hussein and Ollie, who have worked incredibly hard and kept me upright, well briefed and organised as time has gone on. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I am pleased that the Bill is to pass. It is a good and welcome Bill because it deals with administrative and bureaucratic complexities in the present system. I have to admit that it is not quite as good as it would have been if it had adopted some of the amendments I tabled in relation to people who were denied pre-1997 pension increases, and the release of surplus, but we have to accept that. I am therefore pleased that on Report my noble friend the Minister gave an assurance that the Government will closely monitor how the powers of surplus release will be used and will keep that very much under review. This was reinforced in the House of Commons Adjournment debate last Thursday, when the Minister for Pensions made clear the extent to which they will closely monitor how the Bill will be operated in the context of surplus release.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, if only we had dealt with all the amendments during the passage of the Bill as quickly as we have today, we would not have been here quite so late on many occasions.
I thank my noble friends Lady Bowles—whose expertise has been amazing—Lord Sharkey and Lord Thurso, and our hard-working political adviser, Ulysse Abbate. I also thank profusely those on the Conservative Front Bench, with whom we have worked very well on things on which we agreed. When we disagreed, we did not come to a bunfight. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, a former Pensions Minister, whose expertise has been valuable in dealing with the Bill. I also thank the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Katz, and their team, for their superb work on a very technical Bill with high-stakes issues. I realise that there are pressures from the other end as well as here, but we think we have worked well and come out with something pretty reasonable.
On these Benches we recognise and welcome some of the measures in the Bill, such as the value-for-money framework and the superfunds legislation. We have also noted large gaps in the regulation, including on pension scandals such as the AEAT pension scandal and injustices that no one seems to want to face up to, such as the pre-1997 indexation issues. The Liberal Democrats will continue to challenge the Government on going further.
We have worked hard to expose the flaws in the Government’s plans on mandation. This is probably one of the most important issues. Not only is a reserve power dangerous, in that it gives this and future Governments huge powers, but the clause itself has flaws, which my noble friend Lady Bowles and others across the Chamber have pointed out extensively in our debates.
We have had a very good run with this Bill. I again thank the Minister for engaging with us and, I hope, coming up with something that maybe, as time goes on, we can tweak in some ways, but not necessarily in primary legislation.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I warmly acknowledge the collegiate and genuinely cross-party approach that has characterised the passage of the Bill through your Lordships’ House. I know I also speak for my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie in expressing our sincere thanks to colleagues across the House for their constructive engagement. It has been a pleasure to work alongside them, and our collective efforts have ensured that this important Bill has been subject to the careful and thorough scrutiny it deserves.
This is a fundamentally important Bill, and I am pleased that we have agreed several amendments to address some of the concerns that together we have identified. I had one amendment on the Marshalled List today, a technical amendment necessary to commence Amendment 169 passed by your Lordships’ House on Report. The Government accepted this amendment today.
I will not rehearse an exhaustive list, but the Government now have an obligation to return with clear answers to the concerns we have raised, including in particular: the Local Government Pension Scheme and whether it is truly fit for purpose for its members; whether the proposed consolidation timetable is workable in practice for ordinary working people; whether the scale requirements risk undermining innovative and high-performing schemes; and the scope, rationale and implications of the mandation power—there was a resounding view that it should be removed entirely.
Many noble Lords have made valuable contributions to our deliberations on this policy through amendments, speeches and constructive engagement both inside and outside the Chamber. It is not possible to thank everyone, but I place on record my particular gratitude to the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann, Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lady Noakes and Lady Penn, and the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Lucas. I also extend my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, the noble Lords, Lord Palmer and Lord Sharkey, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, with whom it has been a genuine pleasure to work. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, for his thoughtful engagement on the Bill.
Finally, I thank the Minister for her work in steering the Bill through the House, and the noble Lord, Lord Katz, for his support. The Minister has responded to a great many questions, often highly technical and searching ones, and has given considerable time both in Committee and on Report to what is, in many respects, a dense and complex piece of legislation. I thank noble Lords for their engagement, particularly in Committee, which has been helpful and much appreciated.
This Bill contains a number of significant flaws and shortcomings. Your Lordships’ House has offered the Government a clear opportunity to make necessary and timely improvements. I very much hope that we will continue to work together with the Minister and her colleagues in the department to take that opportunity.
Arrangement of Business
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the House of the guidance I provided on Tuesday about the conduct of debates on Report. As we enter the second day on this Bill, there are 13 groups to be considered. In providing noble Lords with guidance, I intend to help the whole House to make progress and proceed to votes. First, as mentioned last week, the House is resolved that speeches should be shorter. Secondly, and particularly relevant, the Companion states:
“Arguments fully deployed in Committee … should not be repeated at length on report”.
Thirdly, although interventions are in accordance with the customs of the House, there should be brief questions for clarification, and lengthy and frequent interventions should not be made. This is Report, not Committee, so a continued collective focus on ensuring that debates are contained, with those objectives in mind, as we saw on day one, would be welcome to help Report proceed in an orderly way.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
13:14 - Division on Amendment 82 - Ayes: 64 / Noes: 140 - Amendment 82 disagreed.
13:25 - Division on Amendment 83 - Ayes: 115 / Noes: 197 - Amendment 83 disagreed.
13:38 - Division on Amendment 84 - Ayes: 171 / Noes: 146 - Amendment 84 agreed.
16:13 - Division on Amendment 121 - Ayes: 152 / Noes: 128 - Amendment 121 agreed.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure functions can be removed as well as added to the GLA.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this first group of amendments concerns the Greater London Authority and the London councils. We expressed concern regarding Clause 15 in Committee as we do not see why conferring more powers on the Mayor of London should be such a priority in a Bill supposedly concerned with devolution to the rest of England. Although we recognise that London’s governance is unique, we do not believe that this alone shields its governance arrangements from scrutiny.
Amendment 82 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, would expand the London Assembly’s existing powers to require the attendance not only of the mayor but of experts and professionals involved in the delivery or oversight of London’s services. It is clear that further democratic oversight of London’s services is needed, and not from the mayor alone.
Amendment 84, also in the name of the noble Baroness, would alter the voting requirement for the assembly to change the authority’s consolidated council tax requirement with a simple majority, rather than a two-thirds majority. The two-thirds majority requirement has proved to be a barrier to effective scrutiny, particularly over taxation. This is especially pertinent amid the rising cost of living for households in London and has our full support.
All these concerns and proposed changes can be deliberated further through Amendment 83, tabled by my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley, to whom I am very grateful. This amendment would initiate a full review of London’s governance model within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, giving Parliament the opportunity to look at the GLA’s effectiveness, accountability and outcomes. This amendment also has our full support.
The amendments in my name seek to give the Government the flexibility to respond to such a review or to any changes Parliament decides on in the future. By amending Clause 15, our amendments would ensure that functions can be both removed and added to the GLA without requiring more and more primary legislation. I look forward to hearing noble Lords’ valuable contributions and I hope the Government will consider our constructive proposals to allow the Government flexibility in the future.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for meeting me so that I could explain more about my amendment, in particular the need for the wider power of summons for the London Assembly. Amendment 82 is about the need for a greater power of summons. The London Assembly has a limited power of summons over individuals and documents, but it can currently summons the Mayor of London only in very limited circumstances. The assembly is also prevented from summonsing those delivering services in London. At times, organisations refuse to attend hearings, including London councils. That cannot be right. Organisations that are delivering services to Londoners and spending huge amounts of money should be required to attend and answer questions.
When I met the Minister, it was suggested that the assembly should simply ask the mayor to secure guests who were reluctant to attend. That would be rather like the Lords asking the Prime Minister to help with our work—completely inappropriate. This power would strengthen the London Assembly and the scrutiny of services to Londoners. I therefore hope that Members across the House will support this simple amendment, which has always received cross-party support at the London Assembly. Given that there has been a shift between Committee and Report and a clear understanding of a need to increase scrutiny and transparency of mayors across the country, this amendment would help address that issue.
Amendment 84 would remove the requirement for a two-thirds majority to amend the mayor’s budget at its final stage. This is an anomaly; it does not exist in other parts of local government. This simple amendment would remove it and make it the same as for other levels of government. I am pleased to have received support from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley. This is about basic democracy and powers for a scrutiny body. It would mean that any mayor would have to work cross-party to secure his or her budget. Again, I hope all Members will support this.
I turn to the other amendments in this group. Our Benches do not support Amendments 81, 154 and 156, which go against the devolution agenda by suggesting that powers can just be taken back by the Government from the GLA. Why would you single out London for this? Surely we should be looking at devolving far more services and powers to local and regional government, rather than just trying to recentralise.
Amendment 83, which we will hear about shortly, calls for a review of the London model. I believe that work may already be under way looking at London. I hope the Minister can update us on that but I am sure that this probably should not be in the Bill.
The Government’s Amendment 243, which allows for grants to be paid to joint committees of London councils, rather than the current messy situation where one borough has to take the lead, is a tidying-up exercise and we support it. I look forward to hearing a positive response to my amendments from the Minister in due course.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as a councillor in the London Borough of Bexley. I was previously Bexley’s longest-serving leader, with associated involvement in London Councils and the Local Government Association. I will speak to my Amendment 83 and to Amendment 84 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, to which I have added my name, as they are interlinked Before I do, I thank the Minister for Amendment 243 and the power to grant funding for distribution via a joint committee, as this will, I hope, resolve some of the issues I raised in Committee.
I raised the suggestion of a review of London governance in Committee, given that the mayoral GLA governance structure in London was the first of its kind and has been in place for about 26 years. The Minister promised me a conversation before this stage, but I suspect she ran out of time. It would still be helpful to have that conversation; it is interesting that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, got one.
As I said, the governance arrangement in London has been in place for nearly 26 years. It is interesting that that structure has never been repeated. Indeed, the Bill does not seek to replicate that same arrangement. That appears to be an indication that it is not viewed to be the most successful governance structure, so surely it would be worth considering the learning from mayoral authorities set up since, with a view to improving the arrangements in London. The irony is that I sat here the other night listening to the Minister talking about commissioners, and it occurred to me that a review of London that picks up some of the issues and shows some of the weaknesses could be of benefit to others. That would be an additional benefit.
The main difference with the arrangements post-London is that their governance relationship is between the council leaders and the mayor in pursuit of devolution, we hope to the lowest common denominator. Indeed, the proposal in this Bill suggests overview and scrutiny arrangements, whereas the London arrangement—the GLA—is considered to be for checks and balances.
In London there are 25 elected members of the assembly; 14 are constituency members and 11 are London-wide. They can call people before them, but they cannot instruct or make things happen, which comes back to the earlier point. The only real power over the mayor is to overturn the budget with a two-thirds majority, which in effect has never happened—something that Amendment 84 seeks to address. According to Google, the GLA’s budget for 2026-27 is £22.7 billion; that is an awful lot of money. It includes the mayor’s office, Transport for London, the Metropolitan Police and London fire. Each council tax payer on a band D property in London pays just under £500 per annum towards that.
It is an awful lot of money and, given the responsibilities, would not it be more effective to have the mayor and boroughs working together for the best outcomes for London? I am talking about outcomes such as tackling crime, making sure that our public transport is effective and efficient, and building the homes that London needs—outcomes that impact every Londoner, as well as those who come to London to work, learn or visit. In fact, in Manchester those outcomes even include health, and it could be beneficial to join up the public health or prevention knowledge in councils to deliver better health outcomes for London.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as co-president of London Councils and, like the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, as a former borough leader. I think I was also the longest-serving leader in my particular borough at various times, and I am a former member of the London Assembly.
I rise particularly to address government Amendment 243, to welcome it and to say how grateful I am to my noble friend the Minister for the consultations that she had with me and also with London Councils about the content of it. The amendment that has come forward is a welcome compromise. Obviously, there is a desire from London Councils that perhaps written in somewhere should be a formal requirement to consult. But I am very pleased that the Minister and the department have been able to respond in this way, and I am pleased that it is now going to be in the Bill.
To underpin the comments made by other noble Lords in respect of the other amendments, I think that what is being forgotten is that the basis of the settlement in London was that people should work together. I do not know whether that is a criticism of the three mayors that have been, the various iterations of London Councils or the relationship with government, but I suspect that that could be improved. Whether it requires the sort of review that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, has suggested, I do not know. But all I would say is that noble Lords should be careful what they wish for in such a review, because it might produce outcomes that they do not like.
I will sit down by concluding again with my thanks to my noble friend the Minister for bringing forward Amendment 243.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott, Lady Pidgeon and Lady O’Neill, for their amendments on the functions and governance of the Greater London Authority and London boroughs.
I turn first to Amendments 81, 154 and 156. This Government are committed to delivering a permanent transfer of power from Whitehall to our regions. Strategic authorities, including the Greater London Authority, will not be able to deliver for their residents if they fear that a future Government will be able, on a whim, to easily remove functions that have been devolved. Parliament is, of course, sovereign. The Government will always be able to introduce primary legislation that changes which functions should sit with which level of authority. However, this Bill makes sure that the Government will have to make that argument through the various stages of a parliamentary Bill; it must not be easy to take devolved powers away from strategic authorities. That is why this Bill limits the ability of this Government and future Governments to remove functions from strategic authorities using secondary legislation so that they can be exercised again by central government. It would be wrong to single out the Greater London Authority and allow its functions, and only its functions, to be removed by secondary legislation.
On Amendment 82, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for meeting me to discuss this issue. Her insight into the governance of London was very valuable to me. First, I would note that the Mayor of London is already required to appear before the assembly 10 times a year for Mayor’s Question Time. This affords assembly members an opportunity to question the mayor on a regular basis. It is a tried and tested mechanism for questioning the mayor, and is backed up by a strong incentive for the mayor to attend, in that generally, if they fail to attend six consecutive meetings, they will be removed from office. This amendment would not remove the existing mayor’s Question Time mechanism; rather, it would represent an additional burden on the mayor of London potentially requiring them to appear before the assembly multiple times within a given month.
Secondly, this amendment would enable the assembly to summon witnesses who are not connected to the Greater London Authority or work on its behalf. In using a broad definition, it could allow the assembly to require attendance from virtually any entity linked to activity in, or related to, Greater London. The assembly’s power is backed up by powerful enforcement mechanisms. A person who fails to comply with the assembly’s request can be liable for a fine or even imprisonment for not more than three months. I am sure noble Lords can appreciate that the expansion of a power with such an enforcement mechanism needs to be considered very carefully. In London, the assembly has broadly either the same or similar powers to those being introduced for local scrutiny committees. As London’s devolution settlement continues to evolve, the Government will continue to work with relevant partners, including the noble Baroness.
I turn to Amendment 83, for which I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. I recognise her very long and dedicated service to Bexley and to London. The Mayor of London is directly elected by the people of London every four years, alongside the London Assembly, which scrutinises the mayor’s work. This model is unique among strategic authorities, and it has successfully served the people of London for the last 25 years. The Government are regularly in contact with the GLA to understand how its governance, scrutiny, arrangements and partnership working arrangements are delivering for London and Londoners. As London’s devolution settlement evolves, we want to continue to see positive working between the GLA and its partners, including London borough councils, to deliver on shared priorities.
With this ongoing conversation already happening, it is not necessary to impose a formal review of London governance to be reported on at an arbitrary point. Indeed, it would be unusual to put such a requirement into primary legislation. The accountability arrangements for all mayoral strategic authorities, including the Greater London Authority, will also be strengthened by revised guidance, such as new iterations of the English Devolution Accountability Framework and scrutiny protocol.
I turn to Amendment 84 from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. Simple majority voting in London would make it harder for the mayor to exercise executive authority and deliver for Londoners in areas where other mayors are being empowered. As I have said, London’s devolution settlement has served Londoners well for 25 years, striking the balance between the executive authority of the mayor and the scrutiny of the assembly. Mayors in combined authorities and combined county authorities can have their budget amended only by a two-thirds majority, and there is no reason why London should be different.
Finally, my Amendment 243 would enable central government to pay grant funding directly to a London joint committee, such as that run by London Councils. This will address a long-standing anomaly in London’s governance. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, among others, for bringing this issue to my attention, and I also thank him for his very long service to London government.
Where there are cross-borough initiatives which are outside the remit of the Greater London Authority, the committees established by London Councils are best placed to receive and direct related funding on behalf of boroughs. Among many other examples, this is evident in the Freedom Pass, which the London Councils transport and environment committee negotiates with Transport for London and pays for on behalf of boroughs. At the moment, when central government wishes to pay funding for initiatives co-ordinated by London Councils, it must use cumbersome workarounds, such as paying to a nominated lead borough or routing it through the GLA. This creates additional barriers in time and complexity to getting money where it needs to go. It also lacks transparency, making it hard for citizens to follow who is involved in the spending of their money.
This amendment is a simple yet significant change that will allow money to flow directly from central government to joint committees established by London Councils, speeding up and simplifying delivery for Londoners. It is important that any entity receiving public money has the appropriate governance and oversight in place. Therefore, this amendment enables payment to take place only once the Secretary of State has made regulations setting out eligibility requirements. Those regulations will be approved by resolution of this House and the other place.
I commend my own amendment to the House and ask the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott, Lady Pidgeon and Lady O’Neill, not to press their amendments.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, could she clarify something? With the new mayors of strategic authorities, I understood that the committees voted using a simple majority. Are we now saying that it is a two-thirds majority, the same as for London, in the new mayoral authorities?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My advice, as I read out, is that it is a two-thirds majority.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I read the Bill yesterday and thought that it was a simple majority, but there we are.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for making the clear and compelling case for the need for change to specific London governance arrangements. These amendments are ultimately intended to help improve services for Londoners and to strengthen democratic scrutiny of the mayor, whoever he or she might be, by elected members.
I thank my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley for making the case for a full London governance review. I restate our support from these Benches for her amendments. We feel strongly that this is necessary in London, as is happening across the whole country. The Government may wish to contemplate further the possibility of that review, and therefore consider more seriously at the moment our proposed amendments to Clause 15, which would allow for the removal of functions from, as well as the conferral of functions to, the GLA.
If the London governance arrangements are so unique, as the Minister made plain in Committee, we believe Parliament ought to have further oversight and that democratic scrutiny should be strengthened in London. I hope that the Government will not dismiss these proposals but give them serious consideration. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Pidgeon
“Power to require attendance at Assembly meetings(1) Section 61 (power to require attendance at Assembly meetings) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), for “or (5)” substitute “, (5), (5A), or (5B)”.(3) After subsection (5) insert—“(5A) This subsection applies to the Mayor of London.(5B) This subsection applies to—(a) any person who has professional competence, specialist knowledge or relevant experience connected to the delivery, management or oversight of services provided in or on behalf of Greater London, and (b) any person who is a member of, or a member of staff of, a body which employs individuals with such competence, knowledge or experience.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment expands the London Assembly’s existing powers under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to require the attendance of the Mayor, as well as experts and professionals involved in the delivery or oversight of London’s services.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I thank the Minister for her response, but I think it misses the point. There is a gap in the existing legislation which means that key organisations can simply refuse to attend meetings and to answer questions. That includes organisations such as High Speed 2, London Councils and the Environment Agency. This is about transparency and accountability. I therefore beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley
“Review of the London governance modelWithin 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a review of the effectiveness, accountability and outcomes of the Greater London Authority governance model, including lessons applicable to mayoral and combined authority arrangements established under this Act.”
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to the debate. There may have been few speakers, but they were fairly powerful. The Minister said that the current structure has served London well, yet she has spoken to a member of the GLA and, with all due respect, she has not spoken to the Official Opposition—she might have had a different view had she done so. This is a pragmatic amendment. It asks for a review within a year of the Bill becoming law. In reality, that would mean that we could look at the good things and the bad things in London and learn from those, which surely has to be beneficial for everybody. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Pidgeon
“Greater London Authority Act 1999: amendment of Schedule 6(1) The Greater London Authority Act 1999 is amended as follows.(2) In Schedule 6 (procedure for determining the Authority’s consolidated council tax requirement), in paragraph 8(4), for “two-thirds of the Assembly members voting” substitute “a simple majority of the Assembly members voting”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment alters the voting requirement for the Assembly to change the Authority’s consolidated council tax requirement by replacing the two-thirds majority currently required under paragraph 8(4) of Schedule 6 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 with a simple majority of the Assembly.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I thank the Minister for her response. I heard her say clearly that it is a two-thirds majority that is required in other authorities when voting on a budget. This particular piece of legislation, however, refers clearly in Part 1, Clause 6(2), to
“a simple majority of the voting Members present and voting”.
I would like to have in-writing clarity on that, but, in the meantime, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, would it be in order to make a correction in relation to what the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, has just said?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have double-checked the voting arrangements. It is a two-thirds majority for combined authority and combined county authority budgets. It is a simple majority, including the mayor, for most other things in a combined authority, and a combined county authority. The Bill does not override existing voting arrangements set out in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, or the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act. This has to be done by consequential SI. The existing voting arrangements are set out in Article 8 of the Combined Authorities (Finance) Order 2017, and will continue to stand. I hope that is helpful.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, does the noble Baroness wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 84?
Lord Shipley
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment extends the disqualification provisions in Clause 16 to elected members of a local authority.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I hope this group will be very brief, because I seek clarification from the Minister on a matter that has caused me some concern. Clause 16 of the Bill refers to
“Members of legislatures disqualified for being a mayor of a strategic authority”.
There is a whole variety of rules which, in my view, are right.
I want to address the issue of elected local councillors, who do not seem to be part of Clause 16. Clearly, a local authority councillor can stand for election as a mayor, but I would assume—and hope the Minister will confirm—that they must resign if they are elected a mayor. But if they are elected a mayor when they are not a councillor in the first place, can a mayor become a local councillor? In other words, in terms of Clause 16, the issues are understood and well defined for members of legislatures—but a local authority is not, it appears, a legislature. I just wonder whether a mayor can also be a councillor at the same time, either as a member of the combined authority or as a member of a local authority somewhere else. I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has raised an interesting point which deserves an answer. On this side of the House, our views were made very clear in Committee: we are on the side of democracy, we believe it is up to the electorate to decide who is best placed to represent them, and we should respect their views.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his amendments relating to disqualification for being a mayor of a strategic authority. These amendments seek to prevent an individual from simultaneously being a councillor of a local authority and holding the office of the mayor of a combined county authority.
The noble Lord will know that existing law already prohibits council members of constituent councils in both combined authorities and combined county authorities from being elected or holding office as the mayor at the same time. This is provided for in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. These amendments would have the effect of almost mirroring that prohibition, in relation to combined county authorities only, for councillors of any local authority.
However, the Government are planning to replace all two-tier council areas with unitary authorities and hence replace all combined county authorities with combined authorities before the next planned mayoral elections in two-tier areas. This means that the prohibition would very likely not be required. With that in mind, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the clarity of his explanation: that as of today, existing legislation holds sway in this respect. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(f) the rate and distribution of economic growth in devolved areas, with particular reference to the impact of newly devolved powers, and(g) results of any evaluation of the overall quality and value for money of local service delivery in those areas.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment expands the Secretary of State’s reporting duties to provide a five-yearly assessment of the effects of newly devolved powers on economic growth, local service delivery, and value for money for taxpayers.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the group of amendments beginning with Amendments 87 and 184 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson. We have highlighted time and again that we have had no guarantee that the Government’s plans for local government will save money for the taxpayer, deliver economic growth or tangibly improve local services. Today’s announcements put that even more in doubt.
Therefore, our amendments, while they differ slightly, would enable the Secretary of State to review the impact in two ways. Amendment 87 would expand the Secretary of State’s reporting duties under existing Clause 19 to provide an assessment of the effects of newly devolved powers on the rate and distribution of economic growth in devolved areas, focusing particularly on the impact of newly devolved powers. The report must include the results of any evaluation that has been undertaken of the overall quality and value for money of local service delivery in those areas. Clause 19 already requires that this report be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as is practicable.
Our Amendment 184 would require the Secretary of State to report annually for the first five years after the passage of this Act, this time via a Statement, with copies laid before Parliament. The Statement must assess the performance of strategic authorities established under the Bill, rather than the effects of devolved powers generally, in relation to the quality of service delivery and to the extent to which their functions have been exercised efficiently and represent value for money. I hope that the Government will give these amendments serious consideration.
Amendment 318A from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London—of Manchester, I beg your pardon; that was a Freudian slip—would require the Government to report annually on the effectiveness of community empowerment measures under the Localism Act 2011. In particular, the report must assess effectiveness in relation to land access, green spaces, food production and local decision-making mechanisms. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to those asks. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I think I have been cued in. I will speak to my Amendment 318A as—yes, still—the Bishop of Manchester. There is a vacancy in London, but I think I am too old to be considered.
Over the last 18 months, I have been chairing the Manchester Social Housing Commission. Central to our work has been the contributions that local residents and communities representing their neighbourhoods make to our thinking and, eventually, our recommendations. We have seen how empowered communities make a real difference. They are the people who know what it is like to live where they do. They can shape local services for the best results.
Far from being a problem for authorities to manage, communities continually demonstrate how they respond to the cost of living crisis or the epidemic of loneliness. People in communities are vital in driving their own solutions. As I go around my diocese, I see again and again how local people taking the initiative really make a difference.
I admit that, as a bishop, I sometimes get frustrated that my local parishes and clergy do not always do exactly what I want them to do—that would make life simpler for me—but the high degree of autonomy and agency that the parish system gives them means that they are often empowered to exercise the local knowledge that puts them in a much better position than me to know what would work well in their local context.
The community charter that is referenced in my Amendment 318A contains a short number of provisions that would give individuals and communities both protections and positive opportunities to drive change. Some of these rights already have clear legal precedent in other jurisdictions. Some reflect the UK’s obligations and international conventions, but they have not been effectively implemented in England or assessed. They have all been subject to legal advice, which confirms they are capable of legal implementation. Many of the specific concerns, whether about pollution or land ownership, can be dealt with by ensuring that such rights are carefully constructed and balanced with responsibilities.
Upholding many of the rights would require actions by regulators, rather than individuals. I declare an interest in clean air: I live on a major road, the A56, into Manchester, between the city centre and the motorway, and it fails every air quality test that it is ever subjected to. I know how important it is, from all the work I have done in housing—pretty much the whole of my adult life—to ensure that families can live healthy lives.
There are good examples of community empowerment from other jurisdictions: New Zealand’s right to a healthy home, promoted here by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, as the Healthy Homes Bill, and New York’s constitutional right to a healthy environment. The rights shown in the community charter are perfectly possible in England.
When His Majesty’s Government published the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill last summer, I was very much looking forward to the changes it would propose, but the content of the Bill is overwhelmingly focused on the creation of strategic-scale local authorities. That is not a bad thing, but what is there that is genuinely about community empowerment at community level? To fulfil the ambition that is there in its title, a devolution and community empowerment Bill needs to enable communities to have a strong, democratic voice and to deliver positive solutions for their area.
Communities need to know the extent to which they have such rights, so they know whether they have a chance of their views being heard and listened to. My amendment simply requires the Secretary of State to report on progress that is being made in community empowerment in relation to the rights listed in the amendment. I will not take up time listing them all here. It is quite simple, it is quite modest; I am not intending to test the opinion of the House on it. I would be grateful if the Minister would agree to a future meeting with me and colleagues to consider how progress towards these community rights could be measured and assessed. With that in place, I think we will have a Bill, eventually an Act, that can live up to the words “community empowerment” that stand so prominently in its name. I also support the other amendments in this group, because I think it is important that we measure what we are doing to know whether it has worked or not.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, there are three very important amendments here, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
I have two caveats. The first is that it is quite difficult for central government to undertake some of the detailed analysis across the whole of England, with its population of 56 million, and to manage that effectively. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester has raised a slightly different issue, which is about community empowerment. We talk a lot about English devolution, but community empowerment is a much more locally based, neighbourhood concept. The problem that communities will face is that they will have no money to do the work that they would like to do.
I am very supportive of anything that can be done to assess how community empowerment is working, but my second caveat is that overview and scrutiny committees are supposed to be doing this very job within their own areas. There are people who have the responsibility of scrutinising what is happening—having an overview of what is happening. It seems to me that we should go to those people first to assess the success of the Bill when it becomes an Act, rather than going straight to central government and expecting it to do it all.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the right reverend Prelate for their amendments.
As drafted, Amendment 87 would be much more burdensome for the Secretary of State and require yearly reporting via the annual report on English devolution, rather than every five years, as the noble Baroness intended. The annual report, introduced by the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016, is designed to update Parliament on the progress that government is making in implementing devolution across England, rather than monitoring progress on individual policy areas. This amendment does not align with the focus of the annual report, but I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government are already committed to assessing the impact of devolution on local economic growth and public service delivery.
On the mayoral strategic authorities receiving an integrated funding settlement, we already have an integrated settlement outcomes framework in place. This is published on GOV.UK. The framework outlines a number of outcome indicators and outputs which the mayoral strategic authority will be assessed against to determine whether it is delivering effectively for its residents. For example, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority’s outcomes framework includes several outcome indicators relating to economic growth and public service delivery. This includes the number of supported businesses that have increased productivity, and measuring the success of support for residents with long-term health conditions, getting them back into employment. As more mayoral strategic authorities receive an integrated funding settlement, more mayors will be subjected to the integrated settlement outcomes framework.
At the local authority level, the Government recently published the local outcomes framework, which enables outcomes-based performance measured against key national priorities delivered at the local level. The outcomes that are measured include: economic prosperity and regeneration, adult social care, and child poverty.
The outcomes and metrics for each local authority area will be published on GOV.UK through a new digital tool. This will improve transparency and enable the public, local authorities, strategic authorities and central government to have a shared view of progress for all areas in England. The performance against the outcomes and metrics for each local area will also allow local authorities, strategic authorities and central government to work together to identify what needs to be done at a local level by different partners to tackle local challenges.
The noble Baroness also seeks in her amendment to ensure value for money for residents. The introduction of local scrutiny committees for mayoral strategic authorities will allow local areas to hold their mayors to account, including by undertaking value-for-money assessments. Although I welcome the spirit of this amendment, it would place undue burden on the Secretary of State, and we cannot support it.
On Amendment 184, the quality of service delivery by strategic authorities, the efficiency with which they deliver their functions, and the value for money they provide are matters of importance to Members on all sides of the House. As new powers and functions are devolved through the Bill it will be essential that scrutiny and accountability keep pace, ensuring that all strategic authorities are well run and operate effectively.
I have already touched on the role of local scrutiny committees and the integrated settlement outcomes framework. In addition, strategic authorities are expected to adhere to the process and principles set out in the English devolution accountability framework. This includes the scrutiny protocol, which encourages the engagement of residents through mayors’ question times and other equivalent opportunities for the public and journalists to put questions directly to elected mayors.
As part of our commitment to effective governance, we are also undertaking annual conversations with strategic authorities. These are regular engagements with strategic authorities, intended to foster an understanding of strategic authorities’ roles and challenges, sharing learning from across the sector to drive positive outcomes for residents. Strategic authorities are also subject to the best value duty, including inspections and, if necessary, the appointment of commissioners.
Where parliamentarians may have concerns about the performance of strategic authorities, it is entirely appropriate that they raise them with the Government through the usual means. I trust that your Lordships will see how strategic authorities will be subject to both non-statutory and statutory mechanisms to drive performance, efficiency and value for money.
I thank the right reverend Prelate for Amendment 318A. My noble friend will be more than happy to meet him and his colleagues to discuss these issues further. Through the Bill we are building on the foundations of the Localism Act 2011 with a more effective community right to buy and a new duty on local authorities to make arrangements for effective neighbourhood governance. We regularly engage with local government and the community sector to understand how existing powers are working on the ground. We know from this engagement that the current community right-to-bid provisions are not strong enough to enable communities to protect valued local assets for future use, which is why we are strengthening them with the introduction of community right to buy. This will help communities safeguard a range of assets that play a key role in community life, including green spaces such as parks, recreation grounds and allotments. We will explore the best way to monitor the effectiveness of the scheme going forward.
On the parts of the Localism Act which relate to community rights and local services, we think that effective neighbourhood governance is the right route to help to ensure that local decisions are made more effectively by people who understand local needs. A core goal of neighbourhood governance is smarter, more responsive decision-making that is closer to communities, giving communities a greater say in what matters to them.
Through regulations we will set out the criteria for the arrangements that must be in place. We will continue to engage with local government and the community sector to ensure that we understand the best way to do this and the effectiveness of current community empowerment frameworks such as the Localism Act. Although it is crucial to ensure that communities have access to pleasant and attractive environments that provide the spaces they need for recreation and growing food, there are other ways the Government are doing this, including through the planning system.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Government have consulted on a new planning policy framework designed to make planning policy easier to use and underpin the delivery of faster and simpler local plans. It proposes a number of changes to improve the approach to climate change and the delivery of green infrastructure, nature-based solutions and community facilities. We are analysing the feedback received and will publish our response in due course. All these measures seek to ensure access to community spaces and the ability to shape local decisions. An annual report is not necessary or proportionate. As usual, the Government will continue to keep all policies under review. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I think we all agree that it is crucial that we have oversight over the consequences of legislation as big as this. Five years down the line, how will smaller strategic authorities have delivered, in comparison with the larger strategic authorities? How costly will the transitions alone have been? Will local people be better off and feel their taxes are being well spent? Will local service delivery be better and more efficient? These are all questions that the Government should answer and be held accountable for. I understand the views of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that local councils and strategic authorities in the future will also have to be doing this work. But it is for the Government to look at the system as a whole and to ensure that it is delivering what it is intended to deliver in this Bill.
Local government reorganisation and the creation of new strategic authorities with new functions should not be done just for the sake of it or to make life simpler for Whitehall. It should be done to ensure that it serves a principled and practical purpose, as we made clear on the very first day in Committee. Our amendments would allow just that and help to inform Parliament of how to move forward in the future. I hope that the Government will see the value of these amendments to assess the real-world outcomes of their efforts.
I thank the Minister for explaining how some of these challenges will be implemented. I need to read Hansard tomorrow to see whether we still have concerns. My overall concern remains—that there is still a lack of good parliamentary scrutiny in the first years after this big reorganisation of local government in this country. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would make this wording consistent with the wording used in paragraph 4 of Schedule 25 (in the definition of “eligible function”).
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Bichard, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Ravensdale, for amendments on collaboration. I will start with the government amendments in this group, which are minor and technical in nature. Their purpose is to align relevant definitions across the Bill. Taken together, they update wording in Clauses 21, 22 and 51. In doing so, they make the wording consistent with that used in paragraph 4 of Schedule 25 in the definition of “eligible function”.
The effect is to clarify that mayors may convene local partners, collaborate with neighbouring mayors or request an additional function in relation to any aspect of any area of competence. This reflects the Government’s clear policy intention to provide mayors with the flexibility that they need to use these powers effectively in addressing local priorities. For example, the health, well-being and public service reform area of competence should be read as covering its individual component parts of health and well-being and public service reform, rather than as a single inseparable policy heading. These amendments therefore promote consistency across the Bill, avoiding ambiguity or an unnecessarily narrow interpretation of how these powers relate to the areas of competence.
I hope that, with this explanation, the House will support these amendments. I will listen to the noble Lords introducing their amendments before I respond to them.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I rise to talk to Amendment 181, which is grouped with this. Britain has an unwritten constitution, which gives us flexibility but also lacks constraint on changing Prime Ministers or Governments beyond trust in their behaving like good chaps. As we have discovered in recent years, not all Prime Ministers do behave like good chaps or chapesses. The Minister herself earlier today referred to the question of whether a future Government might “on a whim” change the way they operate in crucial ways. The purpose of this amendment is to entrench the role of the mayoral council in the future governance of England and to make sure that a future Government cannot simply muck things up on a whim.
Lord Bichard (CB)
My Lords, my Amendment 309 in this group seeks to impose a duty to co-operate on local public service partners. I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for adding his name in support.
I will not repeat at length the arguments I rehearsed in Committee in support of the amendment, many of which are equally relevant to my Amendment 182, which we debated on Tuesday. Suffice it to say that the recent fragmentation of our public services has resulted in disjointed services that do not align with the perceived needs of ordinary citizens, in wasted resources and in a damaging culture of competition rather than collaboration between providers. Ordinary folk just want to see collaboration and partnership working to improve the quality of the services they receive.
Many attempts have been made to address this problem. Noble Lords will recall initiatives such as the joining up central government initiative—a work in progress—health and well-being boards, integrated care boards and the troubled families programme. In all honesty, none of these has resolved the problem. Perhaps only Total Place, in which I played a part, was enthusiastically embraced by all sectors.
The Bill takes a different approach and includes a provision for strategic authorities to convene meetings that partners will be required to attend, but I am really not convinced that the power to convene meetings will resolve the deep-seated problems that have beset multi-agency working.
To succeed, we need to be more radical. Rather than setting up yet more working groups, liaison committees and joint boards, we should attack the problem at its root and place on public sector agencies a duty to co-operate with the strategic authority, principal councils and each other when they are formulating policies and plans or delivering services. If such a duty were imposed, the responsibility for ensuring that it was met would rest with the agencies themselves, which is exactly where it should be.
There is nothing new in this proposal. After all, the public sector equality duty places a duty on public authorities to consider how their policies or decisions affect people who are protected under the Equality Act. Under the Children Act 2004, a local authority must co-operate with relevant partners, bodies and individuals to improve the well-being of children in the local authority’s care. In doing so, it must consider the role of parents and others who play a part in caring for children.
So there is no reason why an overarching duty to collaborate should be difficult, and the advantages of it are immense—I think it would be a complete game-changer. For a start, it would send a very clear and necessary message that this Government expect to see collaboration between agencies, not competition. It would change the culture of our public sector entirely. It would show that the primary driver of public services must be to meet the needs of clients, citizens, customers or whatever you want to call them, not to serve for their own convenience or to enhance their own profile.
This amendment is supported by the Local Government Association, and I am given to understand that the Minister and the Secretary of State want to explore it further. I entirely understand that: there is probably more policy development to do, and there is a need to consult all the players in this sector. That is why I will not push this to a vote, although there is probably a majority in this House in support of the proposal. At the end of the day, this is a decision not for the providers themselves, some of which may find this inconvenient, but for the Government, to decide what kind of local public service they need. I think they need this duty.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak on this group of amendments on collaboration. I will not comment on the government amendments, other than to say that we consider them to be technical and will not stand in the way of the Government. I must declare my interest as an ex-chairman of the Local Government Association.
Amendment 181 from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, raises a number of serious points that the Government need to respond to. However, we have some concerns that a mayoral council risks duplication of work that is already happening in other forums, such as with the Local Government Association, and therefore risks increased bureaucracy.
On Amendment 309 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, we share his ambition for joined-up public services that co-operate effectively. That will be important to deliver the high-quality services we would all like to see locally. The Government need to consider how best this can be achieved. However, we have some concerns about how this amendment would work in practice as regards the legal duty to attend meetings and the interpretation of “reasonable”. We are therefore not convinced that the amendment as set out is the right way forward, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, that the Government need to think about how this can be made to work in practice.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the debate on this group. I will start with Amendment 181. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, about the overcentralisation of decision-making in England, and that is part of the whole rationale for bringing the Bill forward. I must be clear that I appreciate the spirit of the amendment, as I know how much good work the mayoral council has done since this Government established it.
I will say just a little bit about the mayoral council: the existing mayoral council, and the Leaders Council of local authority leaders, are non-decision-making bodies so do not need to be in statute. The current format of the mayoral council and the Leaders Council has received very positive feedback on their collaborative nature from members of all political parties. The mayoral council has run a shadow right to request process, ahead of that process being made statutory through the Bill, without needing to be a statutory decision-making body. As a statutory process, the right to request provides certainty that engagement will take place.
The mayoral council and the Leaders Council are still relatively new forums, and they have already adapted to respond to feedback from members and the Government. As more devolution is delivered across the country and we get more mayors with more powers, their needs and best use may change. Retaining flexibility by not having forums set in statute will allow us to once again respond quickly to feedback to make sure these continue to be useful forums.
The Bill is already establishing a process to extend devolution in a more streamlined way and to deepen that devolution through the mayoral right to request process, so it is not necessary for the mayoral council to create a framework for further devolution. Funding is discussed regularly at the mayoral council, but it is right and proper that local government funding is provided through the local government finance settlement process, where allocations of needs-based funding are done fairly across the country.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, can she clarify one point? We are heading towards a model of English governance in which there will be roughly 35 elected mayors. Do the Government envisage that the Council of the Nations and Regions will then have the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Irish Government and, on the same basis, 35 English mayors?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Those bodies are new bodies, and they will be evolving and changing as we evolve and change the model. They are not decision-making bodies. That is the main reason for saying we do not want to put them in statute, particularly in view of the fact that they will change fairly rapidly as we increase the mayoral model across the country.
Member's explanatory statement
This would make this wording consistent with the wording used in paragraph 4 of Schedule 25 (in the definition of “eligible function”).
Member's explanatory statement
This would make this wording consistent with the wording used in paragraph 4 of Schedule 25 (in the definition of “eligible function”).
Member's explanatory statement
This would make this wording consistent with the wording used in paragraph 4 of Schedule 25 (in the definition of “eligible function”).
Member's explanatory statement
This would make this wording consistent with the wording used in paragraph 4 of Schedule 25 (in the definition of “eligible function”).
Lord Ravensdale
“103F Regional collaboration(1) Two or more elected mayors may collaborate across mayoral combined authorities and create convening bodies whose purpose, priorities and membership are decided at a regional level. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), convening bodies must work with existing regional organisations, and may—(a) convene regional, public and private sector partners to promote a region internationally,(b) develop investable propositions in key sectors and align trade, investment, major infrastructure and land use issues,(c) coordinate arts, heritage, cultural and sporting activities, and(d) ensure coherence across transport, skills, energy, social mobility and other areas of competence.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for partnerships at a pan-regional level (eg. the North or the Midlands) to enable broader collaboration between strategic authorities relating to economic growth, infrastructure and other areas of competence.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 93, 119 and 183. I thank all noble Lords who supported these amendments across Committee and now on Report, including the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham, Lord Shipley and Lord Blunkett, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I thank the Minister for her engagement between Committee and Report. I hope she will be able to offer a substantive proposal in response to these amendments in her summing up, particularly Amendments 119 and 183.
Starting with those amendments, I will add to what I said in Committee. Social mobility is a long-standing problem in this country. The noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, said yesterday in the Chamber, around the Government’s aspirations, that where you come from should not determine where you are going. We know that relative income mobility—the strength of the link between a parent’s income and that of their child—is poor, when we look at that internationally, ranking near the USA as one of the least mobile developed nations.
That echoes my personal experience growing up in inner-city Nottingham. I saw too many young people who did not meet their potential because of where they were from. The tragedy of lost potential that that represents led me to put forward a proposal for a special inquiry committee to look into this, which has now delivered, although we await the Government’s response on that. One of the things that that committee report highlighted, along with lots of recent work by the Social Mobility Commission, is the regional nature of the problem. We know that in places such as London and the south-east, social mobility is relatively good, but in the regions, such as the north and the Midlands, it is relatively poor, which highlights the importance of specific place-based approaches to address this issue of social mobility.
We now have a Bill in front of us to do with getting more power into strategic authorities in the regions. We have a good opportunity here to make some progress on this long-standing issue of social mobility and youth unemployment. I look forward to the Minister’s response on these amendments.
My Amendment 93 on pan-regional partnerships, which I have brought back from Committee with some minor changes, is informed by the work I have done in many areas on pan-regional issues across the Midlands over the past four or five years, and seeing the benefits of working at scale on a pan-regional basis and taking advantage of that larger scale.
In Committee, the Minister said that strategic authorities were enabled to do this already. Indeed, there are some successful examples of pan-regional partnerships—for example, the Great North partnership. The issue here is fragmentation. If the Government do not push this approach more widely, it simply will not happen more broadly across the country. The reason this is so important touches on a point that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, made in the last group on economic development—another long-standing problem of the concentration of wealth and economic activity in the south-east of the country, with the Midlands and the north being left behind. Getting the regions together at that larger scale is key to helping to increase the prosperity of the regions in areas such as inward investments, large-scale infrastructure and cultural events, and to linking up cross-cutting issues such as social mobility, energy, and many other areas.
The Government have already committed to this. In the devolution White Paper, they recognised the benefits of a pan-regional approach, and the Minister talked about enabling co-operation with neighbouring strategic authorities. This is about going beyond that, enabling wider collaboration between groups of strategic authorities at a pan-regional level across larger geographies. My question for the Government is this: how will they provide support for the formation of those pan-regional partnerships, which are so important for the regions to develop economically, to tackle cross-cutting issues and to enable broader economic growth across the country? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response when she comes to sum up.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I was delighted to add my name to Amendment 93 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. As we have heard, this Bill aims to put English devolution on to a stronger footing so that local leaders can drive economic growth and close the persistent and deep gaps between regions. But at the same time as we legislate to empower those places, the Government have decided to withdraw core support from the pan-regional partnerships that operate at the real economic scale of labour markets, transport corridors and investment decisions.
In my own region of the south-west, we saw partnerships such as the Western Gateway and Great South West show what can be done when local leaders come together across traditional boundaries. For example, Great South West set out a vision which would lift the region’s GVA by as much as £45 billion and create 190,000 additional jobs, if fully realised. The Government have chosen to end core funding for those pan-regional partnerships, and are offering only a short, time-limited extension in the case of the south-west, despite the scale of the prize. That risks hollowing out the strategic capacity that has been built up with relatively modest sums of public money but considerable voluntary effort from councils, businesses and universities across the peninsula.
As we have heard, this amendment does not seek to create a new tier of government or impose any kind of uniform model from the centre. It seeks simply to ensure that, where there is a clear economic geography, there is an enabling framework in statute so that collaboration can be sustained over the long term and is not vulnerable to short-term funding decisions or changes of ministerial fashion and that we at least have a fighting chance of delivering those tens of billions in extra output and hundreds and thousands of better jobs. I know that Ministers have said that they remain committed to pan-regional collaboration, they want it to be flexible and locally led, and that scarce resources must be concentrated on mayoral institutions. I agree absolutely with the Government that collaboration should be bottom up, and I recognise the fiscal pressures, but the sums involved in supporting these pan-regional partnerships are tiny compared with the potential returns of unlocking major investment in areas with so much underemployment.
As Jim O’Neill, the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, and others have argued in their work on regional growth, those returns depend critically on raising education and skills and giving every young person and adult access to training that matches the needs of the local economy. Pan-regional frameworks are precisely the scale at which universities, colleges, employers and mayors can align skills, from apprenticeships to advanced manufacturing to reskilling programmes in digital and creative industries and others, so the projected jobs in these fields become real opportunities for local people. If we are serious, as all of us in this House want, about spreading high-quality jobs beyond London and the south-east, our regions need both the strong leadership and the ability to act together at scale.
Our amendment is modest and permissive and is entirely consistent with the Government’s stated aims, but it would help to turn those headline ambitions into tangible outcomes for jobs and growth and for people across our country to benefit from.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 119 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. As he said, this has its genesis in the Select Committee which we both sat on—the Social Mobility Policy Committee. The noble Lord referred to the fact that we reported on 18 November. I just say in passing that the Government are meant to reply to Select Committee reports within two months; in other words, by 18 January, we should have had a response. It is not the responsibility of the Minister—it is another department—but when I tabled a Question about this, I discovered that on 29 occasions the Government have failed to reply to Select Committee reports on time. I just put on record what I think is a discourtesy to the House.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I rise briefly to talk about the south-west, following the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and about how well the greater south-west grouping is working. To give noble Lords an example, they have come together and commissioned a successful system of getting wifi continuously on intercity trains. Some noble Lords may think that a complete waste of time, but when you have a five-hour journey, like I do, it is quite nice to have a bit of wifi. All the five counties, I think, have got together and done this. They are about to write to the Secretary of State for Transport to say, “We’ve proved that it works, even in tunnels and things like that. Will you give a small amount of funding to make it cover the whole of the network?” So co-operation works.
I have a question for my noble friend that relates to the relationship between Cornwall Council and the Council of the Isles of Scilly. There is a certain occasional antipathy between the two. Size is one thing: one is very much bigger than the other. The smaller one, the Isles of Scilly, feels that it has been “done down” and that Cornwall has not given it the share of the money that it was due for the last co-operative project. Co-operation sounds very good and I fully support it, but what can be done when it goes wrong?
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I see group 5 on social mobility as one of the most important that we have to consider on this second day on Report. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for his commitment to increasing social mobility and his work to promote that and to promote pan-regional working. These are very important. The Government are determined to reduce youth unemployment and among the ways they will do that is the promotion of growth and devolving power to mayoral authorities. I think all these things can work.
The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, in his contribution on the previous group, said that we need a duty on local service partners to co-operate, because we have to promote co-operation rather than competition. I think the same rule applies to Amendment 93 from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, on pan-regional working.
One of the history lessons of the regional development agencies, which were ended in 2012, was that they competed against each other far too much. One of my fears in this English devolution Bill is that what could well happen is that mayors will compete with each other for funding, rather than trying to work together to increase the outputs from the money that they have. I have found this a very useful discussion, because if we are to have partnerships at a pan-regional level—let us say the north of England or the Midlands—then to enable broader collaboration between strategic authorities would be very helpful, rather than having mayoral authorities within, say, the Midlands or the north of England competing with each other to earn the favours of the Treasury through their mayoral structure.
I have said previously that I think there has to be a system of assessment of the success of devolution to mayoral authorities. How do we know if they are working? We discussed that on a previous group, in one sense. I think that mayors should be targeted far more than we currently seem prepared to do. I think mayors should have a duty to reduce youth unemployment, unless they can demonstrate that central government has done something that prevents them from achieving that objective. I think that that would give a focus on the reason why mayors exist in a local area, which is to ensure that training gets better and that fewer young people, 16 to 24, are not in education, employment or training. Young people must be helped more and we have to invest more in their futures.
Finally, on Amendment 183, to which my name is attached, I think that consulting with the Social Mobility Commission on how we collect the data, and on how the evidence of social mobility outcomes is assessed, will matter. It is about achieving real outcomes, and those outcomes will depend on having the data to assess them. The Social Mobility Commission may have ways in which it can assist us. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said something that I thought was very important: the cost is tiny in terms of the potential gains that can be made. I think that is absolutely right, so I find the three amendments in this group, led by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, to be particularly helpful and appropriate, and I hope the Government will agree when the Minister sums up.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for bringing forward Amendments 93, 119 and 183, which address regional collaboration and the vital issue of social mobility, as we have heard.
Amendment 93, in the name of the noble Lord and supported by my noble friend Lady Barran and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, is a very sensible amendment that will encourage and enable collaboration between strategic authorities. We believe that this can only be a good thing for regional economic development, to the benefit of local residents. I will not repeat all the points so ably set out in support of this amendment, but if the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, decides to press this amendment to a Division, he will have our full support.
Amendments 119 and 183 go to the heart of what devolution is ultimately for. It is not simply about shifting powers between tiers of government; it is about improving life chances, particularly, in these amendments, for young people who are not in education, employment or training. Amendment 119 was ably supported and explained by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, and it highlights the importance of the partnership approach in tackling youth unemployment. This is an area where local knowledge and collaboration between authorities, employers, education providers and community organisations can make a real and lasting difference. Devolution should enable that kind of joined-up working, and it is right that the Bill reflects that ambition. Again, we will support this amendment if pressed to a Division.
Amendment 183 raises an equally important point about measurement and accountability. Taken together, these amendments remind us that economic growth alone is not enough. We must ensure that opportunity is shared and that devolution contributes to widening access to education, skills and employment. We are grateful to the noble Lord for bringing these issues before the House, and we look forward to the Minister’s response, particularly on how the Government intend to embed social mobility considerations into the delivery of devolved powers.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for these amendments, and for taking a great deal of time and trouble to discuss them with me in recent weeks. The amendments relate to pan-regional collaboration, tackling youth unemployment and gathering social mobility data. I agree with the words of my noble friend Lady Blake: where you come from should not determine where you get to. I am a living example of that myself, and I know that there are many around your Lordships’ House. That should apply to anybody, wherever they start out—they should be able to get as far as their aspirations and their ability take them.
Amendment 93 is about pan-regional collaboration, which we have debated in Committee. I recognise the spirit of this amendment and its aim of empowering our strategic authorities to collaborate across administrative boundaries, to tackle shared challenges and to seize regional opportunities. As your Lordships will know, there is already significant pan-regional co-operation taking place between authorities, with mayors encouraged to collaborate across their regions, as set out in the English Devolution White Paper. To give one example, the Great North was established last year by northern mayors as a mayor-led partnership to unlock jobs, opportunity and prosperity across the north.
I appreciate the intentions of the amendment before us, but it largely mirrors what has already been provided for in Clause 21, which gives mayors the power to convene meetings with local partners, and Clause 22, which provides a formal process for mayors to collaborate. These clauses establish a more formal framework for local engagement and partnership working, while allowing strategic authorities to determine their own methods and priorities for collaboration.
We will be publishing statutory guidance on the operation of the duty on mayors to collaborate. This guidance, to which mayors of strategic authorities must have regard, will elaborate on the importance of cross-boundary working and the benefits it can deliver for those who live and work across functional economic areas.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, I am grateful for her words, which really encapsulated some of what we are trying to do. However, on pan-regional partnerships, we had to take very tough decisions on funding because of the legacy we were left. As she indicated, we believe that these functions should now fall into the mayoral remit and it should be for mayors to build up those clear partnerships. I know that some of the pan-regional partnerships continue to exist because they had moved themselves to self-funding, and I am sure our mayors will want to work with them.
In response to my noble friend Lord Berkeley, regarding Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, he and I have discussed this on many occasions, and I have been to the Isles of Scilly with him. The Isles of Scilly are a sui generis authority, so they are not covered by the Bill. Nevertheless, we expect all areas to co-operate across boundaries, and I know there are useful discussions taking place between our friends in Cornwall and in the Isles of Scilly.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that comprehensive response and for the collaborative approach she has taken in response to these amendments and in all the various letters that have been flying back and forth over the past couple of days on this matter. I appreciate the commitments she has made on the guidance on local growth plans; the socioeconomic duty statutory guidance, which will really help drive forward that approach on data; and the strategic authority guidance. There is a comprehensive response there which will help to meet the intent of my amendments on social mobility, and I appreciate that.
I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say on Amendment 93. She mentioned the collaboration clauses in the Bill, but we are of course talking about broader, pan-regional collaboration here, which is not yet adequately covered in the Bill. I ask her whether she would perhaps be willing to meet me and other stakeholders on this matter to look at that guidance and how we can move forward on this issue.
I can see the Minister nodding. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would make this wording consistent with the wording used in paragraph 4 of Schedule 25 (in the definition of “eligible function”).
Member’s explanatory statement
This is an amendment to ensure that providers of non-passenger micromobility vehicles referred to in this Schedule also include those who provide these vehicles for delivery services.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 97, I will speak also to the many others in my name in this group. I apologise for that, although they fall into four distinct subject areas, so that partly explains the number of them. My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb moved and spoke to related amendments in Committee. My noble friend was not expecting to be able to be here, but she is now listening in to see that I do this right on these amendments.
I will start with Amendments 97 and 98, about non-passenger micromobility vehicles. We have others in this group, but I will focus on the ones in my name. As my noble friend said in Committee, what we are talking about here is a future that is already here. The intention of these amendments is to empower councils to act when issues arise with these micromobility vehicles.
Right on cue, an issue has arisen in Bristol. From this month, there are now new delivery robots running up and down Bristol’s Gloucester Road. Anyone who knows Bristol’s Gloucester Road—as I do quite well, having campaigned there often—will know it is a very vibrant place with lots of small independent businesses and lots of people travelling around. One of these little autonomous delivery robots was running up and down this road while one of the Green councillors was walking their dog, which I believe is a very small dog. These micromobility vehicles will have to deal with everything, from very small and very large dogs to children of different ages, and all kinds of different obstacles.
The interesting thing is that in this really complex environment, Bristol City Council says it was not informed about the trial of these Just Eat small-wheeled micromobility robots, and it does not have a policy on the use of delivery robots. As I understand, under the current legal arrangement, it has no real power to do anything about them. There is also the issue of these small delivery robots and people with mobility issues. Even if they do not actually cause a problem for them, it is about how frightening they are going to be.
My noble friend Lady Jones and other Peers expressed concerns in Committee that if the opportunity is not taken in the Bill to provide the framework to take action, it could be many years before anything happens. The example given was of just how long it has taken to deal with the pedicab issue. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, very kindly responded by letter to those concerns, but he did not give us any way forward or an immediate course of action.
This amendment would allow for secondary legislation. We are well aware of the issues around Henry VIII clauses. It is not my intention to push the amendment, or any in this group, to a vote, but I hope the Government are thinking very hard and are prepared to take action with this Bill, which is such an obvious place to be taking actions. This relates to an amendment to Clause 8 of the Crime and Policing Bill, which would tweak existing powers to allow such a vehicle to be seized if it is causing a problem in the local area. That is the first group of amendments.
Amendments 107 to 113 are all about applying the traffic reporting duty to all local roads within an area of the local transport authority, ensuring the alignment of the duty with the scope of its effective transport plans. Again, the response in Committee did not engage with the reality of the effects of the Bill in making strategic authorities primarily responsible for transport. It would not be that difficult to report strategic authority-level data in addition to what is already proposed, but it would be hugely useful. I note that on 12 February, MHCLG published guidance for outcome frameworks at local authority levels, but the traffic levels are not included there. There seems to be a real lack of joined-up thinking between the frameworks and the spirit of the Bill.
Amendments 114 to 116 are about local travel plans. Since we last discussed this, the issue of fuel usage has, of course, become much more pressing and of much more concern. I note the overall figures that UK road fuel usage has increased by 8% since 2020. We talk and hear a lot about modal shift, but we are just not seeing it happen. The Bill could be taking us in the opposite direction.
I move to the parking levies element of this—Amendments 117 and 118. We need a power to create parking levies from local authorities to strategic authorities. That would enable the relevant national authority to widen the purposes of parking that a levy could apply to. With a strategic authority becoming a local transport authority, and therefore responsible for the local transport plan, it would deem that the plan, forming the policies of any constituent authority, must be the purpose of this part.
Finally, to put that in an overall context, the Committee on Climate Change’s most recent report to Parliament called for new powers and funding for local government to help it deliver the modal shift that is in the target by 2035. We have so many pressing needs here, and the incredible Parkulator tool shows just how much space in our towns and cities is given over to parking—space that could potentially be used for much better purposes including, in many cases, the housing we so often talk about. In a rather complex set of amendments, I beg to move Amendment 97.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 99, which picks up the issues of providing parking and docking for licensed micromobility vehicles at the appropriate density and standard, and requiring traffic authorities and Great British Railways—when it is fully completed—to co-operate on the provision of parking at or near railway stations. This builds on the discussion we had in Committee. The amendment is about managing the problems that we all encounter, day in, day out, with bikes and scooters parked dangerously on our streets. This requirement would help ensure the right amount of suitable parking for micromobility vehicles and help to address this problem. It also specifically names the co-operation with the new Great British Railways, which is essential if we are to allow ease of travel to and from our railway stations. This strengthens what is already in the Bill regarding the parking of these vehicles and will ensure that first and last mile connections are improved.
I hope the Minister will be able to support the aims of this amendment and respond to this important issue. There are many amendments in this group, but I particularly welcome the amendments from the Government covering pavement parking outside London. They are long overdue and will be welcomed by pedestrians up and down the country.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in particular to Amendment 100 in this group but congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on opening this group of interesting amendments. I thank the Minister for meeting us prior to Report and bringing forward a first stab at a definition of micromobility vehicles. It was an interesting and successful meeting, and elucidated that currently there is no definition covering this area.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, my task is very simple this afternoon, and that is to thank the Government and congratulate them on bringing forward Amendments 245 and 265, which will ensure that proper enforcement action can now be taken against those who breach parking conditions and park on pavements. This has long been a problem in local government; I can remember it back when I was a local authority leader in the 1980s and 1990s. London has benefited from enforcement greatly and now this is to be shared across the rest of England. The Government should be congratulated on that. The Minister was extremely generous when we were in Committee and said that he would look at this favourably. He has done so, along with his colleague Lillian Greenwood, who I also thank for the time that she has given to this issue.
Local authorities up and down the country will be enormously grateful, but the most grateful will be those who must use wheelchairs, buggies and any other form of transportation to move along our pavements unimpeded and to make those pavements more useful to us as pedestrians. I was happy to put my name to the amendments and my noble friend Lord Blunkett, who cannot be here today, asked me to record his thanks to the Government as well.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I join my noble friend in congratulating the Government on this pavement parking issue.
I will speak in a bit more detail to Amendment 100 and focus on insurance, which the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has been speaking about. She was talking about things that she does not remember in the Highway Code. I suppose that I do not remember things in the Highway Code that were published 50 years ago, when I had a driving licence. The issue is: what are we trying to achieve? Surely the most important thing is safety on the roads. That safety covers not just fast cars, large trucks, fire engines and ambulances but ordinary people trying to get around, often on equipment which has wheels. Are we looking at a series of amendments in this group which say that anything with wheels is, by definition, bad? I hope that this is not the case, because wheels are an essential part of mobility.
Occasionally, the use of this equipment needs to be separated. We spend a lot of time talking about scooters, freight bikes and other related things in between, some of which need insurance and some of which probably do not. You could widen this to a situation where if you are a pedestrian in London and cause an accident which is demonstrated to be your fault, you get the blame. Should you therefore, as a pedestrian, have insurance? It is a very wide subject and I am not sure that it is covered in this amendment.
As it stands, I cannot see why we should have special regulations
“to prohibit the provider of micromobility vehicles from providing a pedal cycle or electrically assisted pedal cycle to a person who does not have insurance”.
Surely it is for the user to decide whether they should have insurance and what the insurance is for. The alternative is to lock it. I cannot support Amendment 100 and hope that my noble friend will agree.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, my name appears in two or three places in this grouping. I join the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, in saying how important Amendment 245 and the consequential amendment are. I have campaigned for many years on pavement parking. I finally feel that action is being taken, so I thank the Government and congratulate them on the step that they have taken.
I began being concerned about some of the transport issues when I was advised that there was doubt about who, between a mayor and a local authority, would be responsible for traffic calming measures in residential areas. In some parts of the country, it was being alleged that mayors would control the decisions on where traffic calming would take place, rather than the local council. I had a concern about that, and I wanted it clarified.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am beginning to feel slightly left out. I have not been the beneficiary of a large amount of correspondence from the Minister in the way other noble Lords scattered around the Chamber appear to have been. I do not have the advantage of his support and the wording that he might have supplied to help me make my speech.
I was very interested in the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and I look forward to hearing the Government’s response to them. I also had a great deal of sympathy with the remarks made by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
I will just pause for a personal recollection about the Highway Code. Back in, I think, 1973 or 1974, I was part of the team representing my school, which was triumphant in the West Midlands competition on mastery of the Highway Code. It was a sort of quiz and we had to train for it, but it was sponsored by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. To this day, I still have a very detailed recollection of the contents of the Highway Code as it stood in 1974. The most devastating consequence of this afternoon’s debate is that I have learned only today, from my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, that it has become a very much larger document and that it is available only online. I have been living by the 1974 version very satisfactorily ever since.
But my noble friend makes a very serious point and she illustrates a degree of confusion and delay on the part of the Government. The uninsured losses that have been accumulating in the motor insurance system have fallen to the expense of responsible motorists, who pay their insurance. They are paying for all these uninsured losses and the Government will have to deal with that. If the Minister is not in a position to do so today, I agree with my noble friend that the Government will need to return to it urgently—certainly in the next parliamentary Session.
I do not object to the government amendments on pavement parking; I broadly welcome them. I find most attractive that they very properly make it a local decision, including on the exemptions required. It is very unlikely that there will be a blanket ban on pavement parking in any part of the country—there will have to be some exemptions in certain areas—but these matters should be decided locally and sensitively in consultation with residents.
That brings me to my Amendments 104 and 105, where I am motivated by a similar consideration of the sensitivities of local residents. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for indicating his support for these two amendments. Through this Bill, the Government are creating a key route network that I imagine is not unlike the red route network in London, but applied to other great conurbations. Unfortunately, there is no restriction on the roads in which that network could be created.
The purpose of my amendment, which we debated in Committee, is to prevent that network being created on residential and minor roads, in essence. The way that I have done that—and it is a slightly rough measure—is to confine the key route network to
“classified numbered roads carrying strategic motor traffic”.
I realise that some of those roads may also be residential in character, but at least they are major roads at the moment, so the residents know where they stand. People need to be protected from the thought that their possibly quiet residential road could become an extension to an urban motorway, with very little say on their own part. The purpose here is to protect those people, and I think the Government could easily agree to this, because it is most unlikely that they would want those consequences to arise, and this would be a way of protecting from them. I give the Minister notice that, unless he is very accommodating on this point, I will test the opinion of the House.
Finally, my Amendment 103—again debated in Committee—would leave out Clause 27. The history of this clause is that, when the Greater London Authority was created, the Mayor of London was given the power to dispose of non-operational land belonging to TfL, but only with the approval of the Secretary of State. There would have to be permission from the Secretary of State before the disposal should take place. The effect of the Bill is to remove that requirement and to leave it entirely to the Mayor of London.
I emphasise that the comments I am making have no relationship to the current, or any other, incumbent. The remarks I am making arise because, since the Greater London Authority Act was passed, the mayor has had housing responsibilities added to his portfolio. Those responsibilities did not exist in 1999; I think it was the Localism Act 2011 that added them, but it was around that time that housing responsibilities were added. There is now, irrespective of the personality of the incumbent, an institutional conflict built into the mayoralty about the best use of land under his disposal: would it be for transport purposes or housing purposes? Depending on the political pressures on him at a particular time, poor judgment might be exercised in deciding on the disposal of that land.
The effect of my amendment in removing Clause 27 would be simply to maintain the status quo: the mayor may order to TfL to, or may on behalf of TfL, dispose of TfL land, as currently, but he would require, as currently, the approval of the Secretary of State. That is an important point for ensuring the proper integrity and responsibility over any decisions to do with the disposal of land given the potentially conflicting roles that the Mayor of London has in this regard.
I think this has been a very useful debate, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, since, at least in my case, it will be for the first time.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Moylan, Lord Shipley and Lord Bassam, and the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh, Lady Pidgeon and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their amendments, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley for his contribution. I say in response to him that this Government are very much in favour of mobility, but it has to be subject to appropriate regulation. I would also be delighted to supply the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, with scripts for his future speeches in response to Bills such as this; my only condition is that he reads them as I give them to him. I will try not to shower him with more correspondence than he needs.
Government Amendments 245 and 265, on pavement parking, will enable the safe use of the pavement by all pedestrians, especially people with mobility or sight impairments and those with prams, pushchairs or luggage. On 8 January, my department published the response to the 2020 public consultation on pavement parking. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Blunkett for tabling an amendment in Committee on this subject, and I am sorry that he is unable to be in his place today, but I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Bassam has so clearly echoed his views.
Amendment 265 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to create a coherent and adaptable framework under which English local transport authorities could prohibit parking motor vehicles on pavements and verges in their areas. The prohibition introduced by regulations will be subject to civil enforcement. The regulations under the new clause will address matters including how local transport authorities will exercise the power to prohibit pavement parking, which vehicles would be excluded, permissible exemptions for parking on the pavement in a prohibited area, and the governance by which local transport authorities decide to implement a prohibition, among others.
These regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure so that Parliament can examine and approve the detailed regulatory framework before it takes effect. In the meantime, we plan to give local authorities powers later this year to issue penalty charge notices for vehicles parked in a way that unnecessarily obstructs the footway. This can be achieved through secondary legislation.
Lord Moylan (Con)
It was not my suggestion that the mayor needed to be supervised: it was the suggestion of the Labour Party drafters of the 1999 GLA Act, which I am simply standing up for. So reject it by all means, but do not cast that upon me.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I say to the noble Lord that the successors of those people have changed their minds, so it is about time that he did, too. We have had the experience of three mayors, over 25 years, and there is no evidence that they have been incapable of taking these decisions. In 1999, there had not been a mayor, but the mayoralty has self-evidently been very successful.
We discussed Amendments 104 and 105 in Committee and I said that the powers in the Bill were based on the principle of devolution: that is, it should be for places to consider what is right for them. We plan to use the existing powers available to us in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act and the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act to provide concise guidance on the designation of key route networks, as well as on the use of the associated power of direction. This will assist combined authorities and combined county authorities in considering factors that should be important in designating a key route network road, including traffic levels, public transport—especially buses—and links to key employment or development sites. That balance will help places in their consideration of important factors on designating roads, as well as respecting principles of devolution and the fact that such choices are ultimately local. We intend to produce such guidance very shortly.
There are strong reasons why roads that are not classified numbered roads could be key routes under certain circumstances. They might well be roads with high levels of bus and public transport use, or linked to locally important employment or development sites. In both cases, the number of people carried, as well as numbers of vehicles, might be important in the designation. I hope that the commitment I have given to produce guidance on designating a key route network and using the associated power of direction will reassure the noble Lord that we have considered the reasons behind his amendment. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his helpful intervention on that and for our recent discussions.
Amendments 107 to 113 relate to the duty to provide reports on traffic levels. I understand the noble Baroness’s desire to align duties with others in particular geographies, in this case with local transport plans. Any duty to make reports on traffic should be accompanied by meaningful powers to affect such reports directly. There should not be a duty to make a report without any power to affect it, but that is why there are changes elsewhere in this schedule to give mayors of combined and combined county authorities powers to direct highway authorities in the use of their powers on key route network roads. That aligns with the geography on which they will produce these reports. In contrast, these amendments would give combined and combined county authorities duties to make reports on traffic on non-key route network roads, but without any direct control of the traffic on them. As was noted in a similar amendment in the other place and discussed in Committee, this proposal is duplicative. Principal councils already have a duty to make such reports for local roads in their area and, as the highway authority with the relevant powers, are best placed to influence traffic levels on those roads.
Amendments 114 and 115 refer to local transport planning. Close working between strategic authorities and constituent councils is vital to support a successful local transport network. Clause 29 supports this close working by requiring the constituent council to implement the strategic authority’s policies set out in the local transport plan and to have regard to the proposals in the plan. This clause extends an existing duty placed on some existing constituent councils and aims to standardise arrangements for all constituent councils. The clause is intended to maintain a balance, encouraging close collaboration between strategic authorities and constituent councils, without giving the strategic authority excessive control over how councils manage their local highway network. These amendments would undermine this balance by requiring constituent councils to implement rather than have regard to proposals in a local transport plan, giving strategic authorities indirect powers over how constituent councils manage local roads.
Amendment 116 refers to reviewing and updating local transport plans. Adopting a local transport plan is a key strategic decision for non-mayoral strategic authorities. For existing non-mayoral strategic authorities, all constituent councils have to agree to adopt the local transport plan. This approach is in line with the Government’s commitment in the English devolution White Paper to ensure that all strategic decisions for non-mayoral strategic authorities would have the support of all constituent councils. Under existing legislation, it is up to local transport authorities to keep their local transport plans under review and amend them to reflect local transport circumstances. The Government will produce updated guidance for local transport authorities on local transport plans. This will provide advice about when authorities should review and update their plans, and the mandatory intention of the amendment is therefore not needed.
Amendment 117 would remove the word “workplace” from the framework. Extending the levy-introducing power to spaces other than workplaces would be a significant extension, and not necessarily a desirable one. The aim of workplace parking levies is primarily to reduce congestion, which is greatest at peak commuting times. Furthermore, the definition of parking spaces to which this framework applies is set out clearly, so this part of the amendment would not have its desired effect. The amendment would also add strategic authorities to the list of bodies that can introduce a workplace parking levy.
I touched on this in Committee, in response to an amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton. As I said then, I am aware of calls for a greater role for strategic authorities and their mayors. The Nottingham scheme has been a success, and it is understandable that strategic authorities would like to play a greater role here. However, I know that a number of local traffic authorities are considering introducing schemes and we need to consider carefully the impacts of any changes on existing plans.
Finally, this amendment would add the local transport plan to the definition of local transport policies, which a workplace parking levy must support, under the Transport Act 2000. As I know the Minister set out in the other place, the 2000 Act already defines local transport policies with reference to the local transport plan, so this change is unnecessary.
Amendment 118 would have no effect, I am afraid. Local authorities outside London already have powers under Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to direct surplus parking revenue towards highway improvement projects. These include maintenance under certain circumstances within the meaning of Section 62 of the Highways Act 1980.
I turn to the environmental improvement element of the amendment. Adapting the highway to future resilience needs is an established part of highways maintenance best practice and is therefore already included under the Act. Likewise, improvements to the natural environment within a highways context support pollution reduction and are also included. The definitions in the Act are already broad enough and do not need to be expanded further. I therefore ask all noble Lords not to press their amendments, and I beg to move the amendments in my name.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for a typically thoughtful and comprehensive response to a very large and complex group of amendments, and I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in debating this group. I also join other noble Lords in celebrating government Amendments 245 and 265. I have been in your Lordships’ House for more than six years and I have heard much talk of doing something about pavement parking. At the weekend I happened to be in Chorley, where people were pointing out to me particularly egregious examples of such. I know from Sheffield that there was quite a phase of social media having daily “awful piece of pavement parking” posts, so I think this is really encouraging.
“(3) The regulations must make provision for a licence to prohibit the provider of micromobility vehicles from providing a pedal cycle or electrically assisted pedal cycle to a person who does not have insurance.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I would like to clarify something on the Highway Code. The Minister was absolutely right that the Highway Code is available in hard copy. It is when it is updated more than once in quick succession that the changes are available only on the internet.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would be consequential on the other amendment of Schedule 7 in my name.
“(5A) But the mayor for the area of a mayoral combined authority or a mayoral CCA is not the appropriate authority in relation to an approval order if the application for that approval order is made on or before the day on which the first mayor for that area takes office; and accordingly—(a) the Secretary of State is (by virtue of subsection (2)(b)) the appropriate authority in relation to that approval order (and continues to be the appropriate authority in relation to that approval order after the first mayor takes office);(b) the application for that approval order must be made to the Secretary of State.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would ensure that an approval order can be requested and made where the appropriate authority would normally be the mayor for the area of a combined authority or CCA, but the first mayor for that area has not yet taken office.
Lord Moylan
“(1C) The key route network must consist only of classified numbered roads carrying strategic motor traffic.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the highways or proposed highways that constitute the KRN are genuinely strategic.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I heard the comments of the Minister in relation to guidance to be issued and, with that, I will not move the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This provision is about combined authorities, and so this amendment would correct the reference to “CCA” that appears here.
Lord Jamieson
“Brownfield land priority(1) A mayor, combined authority, or combined county authority may not designate greenfield land for development unless it is satisfied that no suitable brownfield land is available within the relevant area.(2) In determining suitability under subsection (1), regard must be had to—(a) the availability of land, and(b) the viability and environmental impact of development.”
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, this amendment is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook. There is near universal agreement that a “brownfield first” strategy is the right one. Not only does it save green fields but new developments benefit from existing infrastructure, homes are delivered where they are needed most, it supports regeneration and, finally, it is better for the environment. However, greenfield sites offer the potential to landowners and promoters of huge planning gain, from a few thousand pounds an acre as agricultural land to hundreds of thousands once planning permission is received—hence their willingness to push and challenge the system. Once planning permission is received, building on it is so much easier for developers. As a result, in effect we have a default “greenfield first” approach, losing precious green belt and productive farmland.
If the current crisis has taught us anything, it is that we cannot be dependent on imports; we need to grow our own. Yesterday’s announcement on local government reorganisation, with urban areas expanding into their rural hinterland, will only encourage building on green fields rather than focusing on the urban footprint. For years, Governments of all colours have tried to prioritise brownfield first, but guidance alone is simply not enough; we need something more forceful. We need it in legislation. If we make this a requirement of strategic plans, mayors and combined authorities will need to address the issues facing brownfield in their areas up front, to make it easier to speed up and deliver brownfield development. Without it, greenfield will continue to be the default, the environment will suffer, more money will need to be spent on infrastructure and we will continue to lose valuable agricultural land. We will also fail to deliver the homes we need where they are most needed, continuing the housing crisis, with young people unable to afford their own home and increased homelessness.
In Committee the Minister raised a concern that this would be used as an excuse to delay development of sites. In fact, the very opposite is the case: this is all about getting more sites and more homes faster and where they are needed most. When we are facing a housing crisis and we are failing to build, and that failure is biggest in urban areas such as London with the greatest need, it can only be right that we build more in urban areas through gentle densification and repurposing of redundant sites. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I will say a few words in general support of the principle of this amendment. We supported it during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act, so it would make sense to do so here.
It was good old John Prescott who first promoted “brownfield first” and, ever since then, councils have been encouraged to promote it, for all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, has just outlined. But brownfield alone cannot meet our housing needs, and that is the real issue I have with this. Brownfield development is more costly. Decontamination and development costs alone make it much more costly. There is a fear of lopsiding development, and I would be interested in further discussion—but clearly not here now—about how we square the very emotional debates we have had over the last day on Report with rural issues, the lack of housing in rural areas and how people need it, for all the reasons given. This amendment squarely says, “Leave the green areas alone”, so I have a little problem with it, although we on these Benches absolutely support the overriding principle.
Given the large area of combined authorities, there will clearly be a massive range of sites, covering all sorts of greenfield and brownfield sites, so I will leave the Minister with the thought that perhaps the Government need to give more incentives to develop brownfield first. There are lots of ideas that I am sure she is aware of that would encourage that more, but the key thing is that brownfield alone will not meet housing needs. Rural areas need more housing, but clearly we need strong protections for our green belt and our countryside.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for Amendment 121 about brownfield land. I agree that we should always use brownfield land wherever possible. As succinctly articulated by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, one reason for promoting the development of town centres and cities is that there is more brownfield land there. We are trying to promote that kind of development as part of the reorganisation process, but there will always be a need for some development in rural areas. We have a rural housing crisis that we must tackle, and there are other uses, such as data centres, for which it might also be appropriate.
Once the relevant provisions of the Planning and Infrastructure Act are commenced, combined authorities and combined county authorities, including those with mayors, will be required to prepare a spatial development strategy. These strategies will provide the framework for local plans and will identify broad locations for growth, key infrastructure requirements and housing targets for individual local authorities, but they will not allocate sites for development. In preparing a spatial development strategy, authorities will be required to have regard to the need for consistency with national policy.
The effective use or reuse of brownfield land is strongly encouraged in the current National Planning Policy Framework, which expects substantial weight to be given to the benefits of developing suitable brownfield land within existing settlements. The revised National Planning Policy Framework, mentioned earlier, goes further still. New proposed policies on development within and beyond settlement boundaries are designed to promote a more sustainable pattern of development by directing growth to appropriate locations, maximising the use of suitable urban land and taking a more selective approach to development outside of settlements.
Mayors will also have the ability to grant upfront planning permission for specified forms of development on identified sites through mayoral development orders. We want the legislation to be sufficiently flexible to allow mayors to use these powers across a range of uses and land types in line with their ambitions for growth. It is right that we continue to promote the effective use of previously developed land. However, we should be cautious about introducing overly rigid legal requirements that may not be appropriate in all circumstances and could risk constraining the growth that this country needs. While I understand the intention behind the amendment, it is for these reasons that I do not consider it to be necessary or proportionate. I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her comments and the Minister for hers. Let us be clear: this is about doing what everyone has said that we need to do, which is developing on brownfield first. It is not about preventing development anywhere else. This is about creating more sites, it is about getting more building done, but it is also about regenerating cities and providing the homes that we need. I am afraid that I do not agree with the Minister. This is not about blocking; it is about enabling. I therefore wish to test the opinion of this House.
Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment of clause 2 in my name would add culture as an “area of competence” in the Bill, and it would appear as the last in the list of areas. Clause 41 falls more readily in the new “culture” competence and so this amendment would mean that its position in the Bill reflects the order in which the areas of competence appear.
Lord Fuller
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with other amendments from Lord Fuller in Clause 42, seeks to make clear the separation of duties between Mayor and Local Government Pension Scheme to avoid any potential conflicts of interest between the mayor and pension scheme.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I will speak briefly to this group, and I am grateful to the Minister for engaging with me on the narrow point. These three amendments, which are mostly the same, are supportive of what the Government are trying to achieve.
In Clause 42, there is a requirement for mayors to co-operate with the LGPS to finance infrastructure. I have no problem with that—in fact, it is to be welcomed. My amendments are based on the simple truth that if they are to grow the economy, mayors need to have a complete understanding of how money is raised, deals are put together and bright ideas are turned into investible opportunities.
In essence, mayors need to understand the difference between funding and financing. Funding is writing the cheque; financing is putting that deal together. Of course, they are completely different disciplines. My amendments simply substitute “develop” with “promote”. This recognises that it is the role of mayors to produce investible opportunities but not necessarily that of the LGPS to buy them. This is not purely semantics; it is a simple word change that stops accusations of a degree of connivance or collusion between the mayor and funds, which could lead to conflicts of interest.
This group ensures that there is a proper separation of duties between the mayor and the funds. The word “promote” helps everybody be clear: it is the mayor’s job to punt the opportunity, but the scheme is not necessarily mandated to accept it. Promotion makes it clear that the mayor needs to work harder to be clearer about what the market and investors require, to turn that idea into a proposition. In so doing, the important point is that this encourages the wider uptake of good opportunities, not just by the home fund but by the wider pool of investments in the LGPS and beyond.
There would be fewer accusations of connivance, a greater clarity of roles, greater professionalism and understanding of how financing works, and a better separation of duties, which would allow other pools to jump on the bandwagon of good ideas, rather than just being a closed shop. Words matter. This substitution would strengthen the clause and make actual investments more likely. Two minutes—I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller, which all address an important and practical issue: the clear separation of duties between the mayor and the Local Government Pension Scheme. At its heart, this is about avoiding conflicts of interest, as we have heard.
Under the Bill, mayors will rightly have a central role in promoting investment opportunities in their regions, championing growth, attracting capital and supporting local economic development. That is an essential part of the devolution agenda. However, we must be equally clear about who is making investment decisions and on whose behalf. Pension funds exist to serve their members and local taxpayers. Their primary duty is fiduciary: to act in the best financial interests of those beneficiaries.
There is a distinction here that matters. The mayors may promote opportunities, but they should not be in a position to directly or indirectly influence the allocation of pension fund assets. In simple terms, one body promotes the opportunity and another independently decides whether to write the cheque. As has been noted, there are important differences between funding and financing and between providing the capital and structuring the deal. Both require clarity of responsibility and robust governance.
Co-operation between mayors and pension schemes is not only desirable, it is inevitable, but the co-operation must not drift into anything that could be perceived as pressure or direction. We must guard against any blurring of lines. What begins as collaboration must not become, even inadvertently, connivance. These amendments are therefore modest but necessary. They seek to put beyond doubt the separation of roles to protect the integrity of pension decision-making and to give reassurance to local taxpayers and scheme members alike. For those reasons, I support them.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for Amendments 129 to 131 and for the time he took to discuss them with me. I recognise his intention to clarify the roles and responsibilities of strategic authorities and pension funds in making local investments. I agree that it is very important for roles and responsibilities to be completely clear. We want strategic authorities to play an active role in bringing forward investment and guidance. We will further explain the Government’s expectations.
I just point out that there is in the Pension Schemes Bill a reciprocal requirement for local government pension funds to co-operate with strategic authorities. The wording of “identify and develop” in this context is consistent with that requirement, which makes it a bit late to change that just now. The meaning of “development”, however, can be clarified in guidance. Pensions guidance will confirm that there is no requirement to invest in assets that are not deemed suitable as pension investments. This should provide the noble Lord reassurance.
Schedule 20 includes a requirement for local growth plans to set out key projects for achieving economic growth through private or public investment. The guidance on local growth plans already makes clear the expectations and support available to mayoral combined authorities and to mayoral combined county authorities for developing and taking forward that pipeline of investment opportunities. Further, government guidance for local government pension funds will explain the meaning of this requirement for them. This guidance will further clarify our expectations in this context. I am very happy to discuss this with the noble Lord outside the Chamber as we develop the guidance. Therefore, I respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I think I laid out that relationships should be close but not cosy between the mayor and the funds. I accept the reciprocity between this Bill and the Pension Schemes Bill, which we debated earlier. I accept the Minister’s assurance and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(a) the availability and standards of housing, transport services or public safety,(b) environmental factors, including air quality, and access to green space and bodies of water,(c) employment prospects, earning capacity and any other matters that affect levels of prosperity,(d) the degree of ease or difficulty with which persons have access to public services,(e) the use of, level of use of, tobacco, alcohol or other substances,and any other matters of personal behaviour or lifestyle, including physical activity and diet, that are or may be harmful to health.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment replaces the list of general health detriments.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 132 is on the general health determinants listed under Clause 44. Under that clause, combined authorities must have regard to improving the health of people in their area. Our amendments would expand the current list of general health determinants to include the availability, as opposed to just the standards, of housing. In addition,
“matters of personal behaviour or lifestyle”
as referenced in the Bill are specified to include “physical activity and diet”.
On housing, standards are crucial of course, but housing availability should also be considered as it affects housing insecurity and homelessness. On physical activity and diet, it should be clear to all noble Lords that these are major health determinants. This is common knowledge: dietary patterns are a key determinants of chronic disease, and physical activity is a major factor for preventable disease. In 2023, evidence from the Sport and Recreation Alliance showed that the UK was ranked 11th out of 15 comparable European nations for the levels of physical activity that were undertaken, and that we were the third-highest spender on healthcare costs caused by inactivity. Updating the general health determinants in this Bill would inform fthe health determinants referenced in Amendments 133 and 134 from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon.
Evidently, there is scope in this Bill to see what more can be done to make our country healthier, based on common sense. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this very short and very simple amendment.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 133 and 134. As we are aware, the UK’s health is fraying and unequal, with increasing numbers of people unable to work owing to poor health. Compared with other high-income countries, the UK now has one the lowest life expectancies and is among those with deepest health inequalities. This has avoidable and negative consequences for individuals, public services and the economy.
Addressing these inequalities requires action at regional level, where leaders have the powers to shape economic growth, create healthy places and reduce inequalities. This Bill provides a timely opportunity to embed health and health equity at the heart of devolved decision-making, and I warmly welcome Clause 44, which is a crucial lever for improving health and reducing health inequalities.
In Committee, I tabled amendments to strengthen this duty and the proposed local growth plans to ensure that all strategic authorities act consistently to improve health, reduce health inequalities and consider health while growing their local economies. My noble friend the Minister responded that she believes the duty as drafted
“will apply to all functions, including developing a local growth plan”.—[Official Report, 4/2/26; col. GC 613.]
However, the Government have not yet provided any detail on how this duty should be fulfilled or how strategic authorities will be held accountable for this. Without this detail, there is a real risk that inequalities will be worsened, with some strategic authorities taking significant action to improve health and others seeing the duty as a tick-box exercise.
To ensure that the duty is as successful as we and the Government want it to be, I have tabled amendments which would require the Government to report to Parliament on the implementation of the duty. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lord Bichard, for their support.
The Government previously said that they will monitor the health duty, with Miatta Fahnbulleh, the Minister for Devolution, Faith and Communities, saying that
“we will continue to monitor how the new duty beds in and its impact across the country, so we can ensure that the intent is aligned with practice and delivery”.—[Official Report, Commons, English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill Committee, 21/10/25; col. 358.]
These amendments would formalise the Government’s commitment, providing a mechanism to identify whether further support, guidance, resources or requirements are needed in the future. It would also provide a mechanism to support shared learning across strategic authorities.
The amendments focus on implementation and process rather than outcomes, given the time it takes to see shifts in health inequalities. Information could be collected with a light-touch approach of returns from strategic authorities covering actions taken, strategies produced, partnerships formed, et cetera, and desk research by civil servants. Without these amendments, there is a risk that the new health duty remains well intentioned but inconsistently applied across regions and will therefore fail to have any real impact on reducing health inequalities. This would be a significant missed opportunity to reverse worrying health trends. If the amendments are not acceptable, I hope that the Government will agree to guarantee strong guidance on this issue to ensure that the duty is properly implemented across all regions.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, I support these amendments. I spoke to Amendment 132 in Committee. I will not repeat what I said then, but I just want to say that the Minister said in Committee that the reason why the Government want to stick with their own wording on Clause 44—a clause that we all support very strongly—was that they did not want to be too prescriptive regarding what areas should be looking at as health determinants. However, if we do not reflect what is known about the determinants of health, we will not be able to set down what we need to measure to evaluate the success of Clause 44, which is so important and which the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, spoke about in connection with her amendments. I therefore urge the Government to look very carefully at these amendments to see whether some adjustments can be made that would make Clause 44 as strong as we all want it to be.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Royall, for their amendments relating to the new health improvement and health inequalities duties. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, for her helpful contribution.
On Amendment 132, I stress our ambition to enable combined authorities and combined county authorities, which are the experts in their local areas, to take a broad view of the factors that shape health and drive health inequalities in their areas. The Bill illustrates a number of important health determinants to give clarity to our intent and indicate areas where authorities are likely to be able to act. It already includes standards of housing and matters of personal behaviour and lifestyle. It also explicitly allows for consideration of any other matters that affect life expectancy or the general state of health.
Setting out large numbers of individual determinants risks restricting flexibility, because it would imply that the specific determinants to be considered are only those which are set out in detail in the Bill. Indeed, the proposed amendment would have the effect of limiting the scope of “general health determinants.” It would set out a narrower list of general health determinants by removing the scope for combined authorities to consider
“any other matters that are determinants of life expectancy or the state of health of persons generally, other than genetic or biological factors”,
and focus instead only on matters of personal behaviour and lifestyle, rather than also considering wider public health and systemic matters which might determine life expectancy or the state of health of a person.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Royall for her Amendments 133 and 134. However, these amendments would add an unnecessary bureaucratic burden on combined and combined county authorities. The Secretary of State would be unable to make such an assessment without placing detailed reporting requirements on combined and combined county authorities. We want to shift power away from Whitehall and into the hands of those who know their communities best. The requirement for the Secretary of State to make an assessment of the
“consistency of implementation of the duty”
is not compatible with our fundamental proposition that combined authorities and combined county authorities are best placed to judge how to put the duty into effect locally.
Furthermore, the requirement on the Secretary of State to define a minimum standard against which to assess authorities would unhelpfully impose a degree of uniformity and have the unfortunate effect of turning a minimum government standard into a default standard. This would constrain local ambition. More broadly, alongside this new duty, we want to simplify requirements in relation to the planning and delivery of health and care services to create more flexibility for areas to respond to the needs of their local populations.
However, I reassure my noble friend that we will pay close attention to how the new duty embeds in the work of combined authorities and combined county authorities to understand the impact that it is having over time, including the different ways in which authorities respond to it. With these reassurances, I ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, withdraws her amendment and my noble friend Lady Royall does not move hers.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, for her amendments. Ensuring that we have a holistic view of housing—not just the quality but the quantity of housing and the role that it plays in health—makes it easier for authorities to respond to this part of the Bill. Explicitly recognising the effects of diet and physical activity on our health is not contentious but will also help authorities to facilitate healthier lifestyles in their communities. I hope that the Minister will give his continued consideration to these amendments.
Lord Rees of Easton
“Corporation Sole Chief Fire Officer for designated mayoral fire and rescue authoritiesPart 3 of Schedule 23 makes further provision in connection with the establishment of the position of Corporation Sole Chief Fire Officers in a mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA.”
Lord Rees of Easton (Lab)
Amendments 135 and 138 are in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Blunkett. I will also speak to Amendment 173. I do not intend to provoke a debate and will withdraw my amendment at the end of this group.
I thank the Minister for her openness and the constructive conversations that we have had on the integration of fire and rescue services into combined authorities in response to questions raised with me by West Yorkshire Combined Authority. Earlier today I got off the phone with Mayor Brabin. It is great to be able to say that we are particularly grateful for the Minister’s commitment to bringing the relevant partners together to ensure that the final shape of these arrangements works for fire services, combined authorities and the communities that they serve. We are also very grateful for the broader ongoing commitment to strengthening the working relationship between government and our metro mayors, which will be critical to meeting the challenge of delivery. I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, these amendments highlight a real tension in this Bill. While powers are being devolved to mayoral combined authorities and CCAs, there remain serious questions about accountability, scrutiny and operational independence for fire services. The financial provisions brought in through Schedule 23 are necessary to ensure that the mayoral fire and rescue authorities are subject to the appropriate reporting and responsibilities. Yet the practical questions remain: will these arrangements be sufficient to safeguard transparency and maintain public confidence, particularly in emergency planning and the management of major incidents? In short, this group of amendments highlights the wider concern that devolving powers to mayors risks concentrating authority without sufficient checks. We will listen carefully to the Minister, but I hope the Government will take these concerns seriously and ensure that robust scrutiny and accountability for fire and rescue functions is embedded in the Bill.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Rees for Amendments 135, 138 and 174 and for being available to explain why he has brought this forward from other mayors. He has passed on their views for us.
I will speak first to Amendments 136 and 137 in my name. As I set out in Committee, these are essential amendments to Schedule 23. They would not create a new duty or expand powers, but they would ensure that existing provisions apply consistently when a mayoral combined authority is acting as a fire and rescue authority. Amendment 136 would bring the inspection regime for mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities—I do hope we can call them the same thing at some point, because I am getting fed up with saying it twice every time—
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Yes—that would be my amendment.
Amendment 136 would bring the inspection regime into line with the existing exemptions for other fire and rescue authority governance models, maintaining consistency and fairness across England.
Amendment 137 would confirm that, where a mayoral combined authority or a mayoral combined county authority assumes fire and rescue responsibilities, it is treated in the same manner as established fire and rescue authorities. This amendment would extend the application of Part 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to mayoral fire and rescue authorities relating to companies in which local authorities hold interests. It would similarly bring them within Section 155 of that Act for the purposes of emergency financial support.
Furthermore, Amendment 137 would clarify the process for handling Section 114 reports for mayoral fire and rescue authorities and the corresponding duties under Section 115 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. When a chief finance officer issues such a report, it must be provided to the relevant scrutiny committee. The authority’s response must then be sent to the chief finance officer, the external auditor and the relevant scrutiny committee. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised concerns about accountability in relation to fire and rescue authority functions, and I trust that her concerns have now been addressed by the introduction of local scrutiny committees.
Turning now to Amendments 135, 138 and 174, I stress that Clause 47 is a key provision, ensuring that fire and rescue services in a mayoral combined authority area are subject to clear and direct accountability through elected mayors. These amendments would cut across that approach by creating a separate legal entity for chief fire officers. Doing so risks blurring the lines of accountability and making it less clear who is ultimately responsible for the delivery of fire and rescue services. The amendments could also introduce unnecessary complexity into fire governance arrangements and move away from the integrated model of local leadership that the Bill is designed to support. For those reasons, the Government cannot support the amendment. I do, however, recognise the strength of feeling on this issue and the interest in exploring alternative governance models. We will continue to consider this very carefully and work with partners across the sector to explore the model in due course.
With these reassurances, I hope my noble friend Lord Rees feels able to withdraw his amendments. I commend the minor and technical amendments in my name to the House.
Lord Rees of Easton (Lab)
I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Matters outside the scope of inspections
4A In section 28 (inspectors), after subsection (A8) insert—“(A8A) When carrying out an inspection under subsection (A3) of a mayoral combined authority, or mayoral CCA, in its capacity as a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 1(2)(f) or (g), an English inspector must not review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge of an excluded mayoral FRA function.(A8B) For the purposes of subsection (A8A), the following are excluded mayoral FRA functions in relation to a mayoral combined authority, or mayoral CCA, in its capacity as a fire and rescue authority—(a) the issuing of a community risk management plan;(b) the variation of priorities and objectives set out in a community risk management plan;(c) the allocation of the draft or actual budget for fire and rescue functions in relation to any financial year;(d) the function of appointing, suspending or dismissing the chief fire officer;(e) the function of holding the chief fire officer to account for the exercise of—(i) the functions which are delegated to the chief fire officer; and(ii) the functions of persons under the direction and control of the chief fire officer;(f) the function of approving a pay policy statement prepared for the purposes of section 38 of the Localism Act 2011;(g) the function of approving arrangements to enter into a reinforcement scheme under section 13;(h) the function of approving arrangements with other employers of firefighters under section 15;(i) the function of approving arrangements under section 16;(j) the function of approving plans, modifications to plans and additions to plans for the purpose of ensuring that—(i) so far as is reasonably practicable, the mayoral combined authority, or mayoral CCA, is able to continue to perform its fire and rescue functions if an emergency occurs; and(ii) the mayoral combined authority, or mayoral CCA, is able to perform its functions so far as necessary or desirable for the purpose of preventing an emergency, or reducing, controlling or mitigating the effects of an emergency, or taking other action in connection with it;(k) the function of approving any arrangements for the co-operation of the mayoral combined authority, or mayoral CCA in relation to its fire and rescue functions with other general Category 1 responders and general Category 2 responders in respect of—(i) the performance of the mayoral combined authority’s, or mayoral CCA’s, duty as a fire and rescue authority under section 2 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004; and(ii) any duties under subordinate legislation made in exercise of powers under that Act.(A8C) In subsection (A8B)—“community risk management plan” has the same meaning as in Schedule ZA1;“emergency” has the meaning given in section 1 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 for Part 1 of that Act;“general Category 1 responder” means a person who falls within Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Civil Contingencies Act 2004;“general Category 2 responder” means a person who falls within Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Civil Contingencies Act 2004;“priorities and objectives” has the same meaning as in Schedule ZA1.”” Member's explanatory statement
This would provide for matters which inspectors of fire and rescue authorities may not review or scrutinise when inspecting mayoral combined authorities or CCAs which are fire and rescue authorities.
“Local Government Finance Act 1988
5A (1) The Local Government Finance Act 1988 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In section 114 (functions of responsible officer as regards reports), in subsection (4)(b)—(a) in sub-paragraph (iiic), omit the final “and”;(b) after sub-paragraph (iiic) insert—“(iiid) a mayoral FRA, the relevant scrutiny body (and here “mayoral FRA” and “relevant scrutiny body” have the same meanings as in Schedule ZA1 to the Fire and Rescue Act 2004), and”.(3) In section 115 (authority’s duties as regards reports)—(a) after subsection (1BA) insert—“(1BB) In the case of a report made by the chief finance officer of a mayoral FRA (which in this section has the same meaning as in Schedule ZA1 to the Fire and Rescue Act 2004), that mayoral FRA must consider the report and decide whether the mayoral FRA agrees or disagrees with the views contained in the report and what action (if any) the mayoral FRA proposes to take in consequence of it.”;(b) in subsection (1E), after “section 4A fire and rescue authority” insert “, the mayoral FRA”;(c) after subsection (1FA) insert—“(1FB) As soon as practicable after the mayoral FRA has prepared a report under subsection (1E), the mayoral FRA must arrange for a copy of the report to be sent to—(a) the chief finance officer;(b) the person who at the time the report is made has the duty to audit the authority’s accounts; and (c) each member of the relevant scrutiny body (which has the same meaning as in Schedule ZA1 to the Fire and Rescue Act 2004).”;(d) in subsection (2), after “section 4A fire and rescue authority” insert “, a mayoral FRA”.Local Government and Housing Act 1989
5B (1) The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 is amended in accordance with this paragraph.(2) In section 67(3) (meaning of “local authority” in Part 5), after paragraph (h) insert—“(ha) a mayoral combined authority (which has the same meaning as in Part 6 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 — see section 107A(8) of that Act) in its capacity as a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 1(2)(f) or (g) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004;(hb) a mayoral CCA (which has the same meaning as in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 — see section 27(8) of that Act) in its capacity as a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 1(2)(f) or (g) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004;”.(3) In section 155(4) (local authorities that can receive emergency financial assistance), after paragraph (ha) insert— “(hb) a mayoral combined authority (which has the same meaning as in Part 6 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 — see section 107A(8) of that Act) in its capacity as a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 1(2)(f) or (g) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004;(hc) a mayoral CCA (which has the same meaning as in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 — see section 27(8) of that Act) in its capacity as a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 1(2)(f) or (g) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004;”.”Member's explanatory statement
This would bring mayoral combined authorities or CCAs that are fire and rescue authorities within sections 114 and 155 of the Local Government Finance Act 1989 and Part 5 and section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting new provisions into the Licensing Act 2003 to confer powers on the GLA and the Mayor of London.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords from all sides of the House for the seriousness with which our new proposed strategic licensing measures were considered during Committee. The attention given to the detail of these clauses and to their practical implications has been valuable.
I begin by stating clearly that this Government recognise the important role of local licensing authorities, which are often best placed to make licensing decisions based on their local knowledge. This is reflected in the design of the new strategic licensing functions for the mayor and the Greater London Authority—for example, by requiring the Mayor of London to consult London licensing authorities before determining the London-wide strategic licensing policy. The Government intend to consider this and may seek to engage with key licensing stakeholders before setting out thresholds in regulations of what is meant by “potential strategic importance” to Greater London.
London licensing authorities remain the default licensing decision-makers in Greater London, and the mayor will be able to “call in” decisions made by a London licensing authority only on applications of potential strategic importance to Greater London and in a limited set of circumstances. Even then, the mayor may choose to uphold the decision of the London licensing authority.
The Greater London Authority has launched a consultation on the new London-wide strategic licensing policy. I am pleased to hear that many London licensing authorities have responded. This will help to inform the criteria by which the Secretary of State will be responsible for setting out in regulations what “potential strategic importance” to Greater London means. We intend to conduct further engagement with London borough councils and other licensing stakeholders before laying these regulations, as well as any other statutory instruments that are needed to determine the procedural elements of the call-in process.
Nevertheless, our amendments establish some important parameters that prevent the mayor encroaching on local licensing authorities’ decision-making unnecessarily. This includes preventing the mayor rejecting an application that would otherwise have been granted by a London licensing authority, reflecting our intention to establish a clearly defined role for the mayor in promoting London-wide strategic objectives to drive growth in London’s sporting, cultural, hospitality and nightlife sectors. The call-in power is intended to be used as a measure of last resort and only in specific circumstances—effective as much in its existence as in its use—to encourage a more enabling and joined-up approach to licensing across the capital.
I turn to some of the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, in Committee. While my time in local government was spent some 30 miles outside of London, I am acutely aware that large urban areas cannot be treated as homogeneous—least of all our diverse capital. I therefore recognise that the licensing priorities of inner and outer London boroughs will vary significantly, as will their demographics and local policing capacities. There is no inherent contradiction between this reality and the establishment of new strategic licensing functions at the mayoral level. When determining strategic licensing policy, for example, the mayor will be under a duty to have regard to the requirements on local licensing authorities when carrying out their licensing functions—including, for example, the setting of local licensing policies—as well as locally published cumulative impact assessments. The mayor will be required to state his reasons for giving any direction to ensure an appropriate level of transparency. New rights of appeal against mayoral directions will also be established to mitigate against improper use of the call-in power. The Government will monitor the new strategic licensing measures, and the Secretary of State will be able to repeal the measures up to five years after they come into force.
I must conclude by emphasising that licensing decisions are, by their nature, nuanced judgments. They involve weighing competing factors and exercising discretion, rather than arriving at a binary outcome. Through the piloting of new strategic licensing measures in Greater London, our intention is to give greater weight to economic growth and the reputational importance of London’s hospitality and nightlife sectors, while recognising the importance of promoting the licensing objectives to help ensure that people’s local concerns are protected.
I commend to noble Lords the amendments in my name, and I will listen to other noble Lords before I comment on theirs.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, our Amendments 140 and 148 seek to remove the London licensing provisions in the Bill. Talking to a number of London boroughs, I found that many of them were quite unaware of this proposed change, seeing it, in effect, as a power grab by the Mayor of London, potentially causing real issues locally in boroughs, where licensing can be a very sensitive issue.
Licensing decisions should be taken locally, with local context and knowledge. For example, in Kingston, I understand that for any licensed premises, their security staff are required to work closely with the police, street pastors, the VAWG team and VAWG charities. This is not just during operational hours but after closure and at local events. This is a detailed local arrangement that works for this borough. Having the Mayor of London call in a licence application and change conditions or impose longer hours on a community would simply not be right and would go against the spirit of this legislation, which is supposedly about devolving down local powers. Those are our concerns. Are the Government really confident that a future mayor, perhaps of a different political persuasion and approach, would not be far more interventionist, blocking the very growth opportunities it is claimed that these new powers are seeking to free up?
The Minister has talked just now about the important role of local licensing authorities. Licensing works best when it is grounded in detailed local knowledge, through local councillors and local communities working together. These proposed call-in or direction powers for the Mayor of London risk overriding this expertise, increasing tension and introducing uncertainty in the system for boroughs, businesses and residents. A key concern I have picked up is how potential conflicts between local priorities, which are reflected in a council’s licensing policy, and pan-London priorities, potentially driven by the mayor’s decisions, will be resolved. There is a genuine fear that this could lead to an additional burden on boroughs, including increased casework, appeals, additional workloads for borough staff and, no doubt, additional costs to the boroughs.
We talked earlier about this being strategic. What does that mean? Take sectoral activity zones, such as Wembley or Twickenham stadia, which sit in the middle of highly residential areas. Those boroughs work really closely with communities. They know what hours and noise levels are acceptable. I am concerned that centralising this in some way could cause a huge risk. We urge the Minister to think again on giving these additional powers to the Mayor of London at this time.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, as has been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, these provisions introduce a substantial change to the licensing framework for London by creating a role for the Greater London Authority and, ultimately, the Mayor of London in applications deemed to be of strategic importance. This raises important questions about the balance between strategic oversight and the principle of local decision-making.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, has already mentioned, licensing has traditionally been a core function of borough councils, rooted in local knowledge and expertise, and accountable to their local communities. The introduction of a mayoral call-in power therefore represents a major shift, which could result in significant duplication, added bureaucracy and the loss of local voice and expertise.
This raises questions of clarity and process, particularly around the definition of strategic importance, and I am grateful that the Minister said that that will be defined. I would appreciate clarity on the time scale. What assurance will the Minister give that strategic importance will mean what the man on the street would determine to be genuinely of strategic importance, and hence would be for a very limited number of situations?
The Minister also commented that the mayor will not be able to reject applications that have already been accepted. However, as I understand the provisions, the mayor would be able to impose a whole series of conditions on an application that had been given approval at the local level, which, in effect, could make that licence inoperable in any event. Could we have some assurance as to what additional conditions could be imposed, and that these would be fair and reasonable and would not be, in effect, an alternate route to a rejection for something that the local borough had already approved? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for their comments. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for Amendments 140 and 148. Our intention behind introducing the new strategic licensing measures in London is clear: to enable a more strategic approach to licensing to boost London’s nightlife and hospitality industries. These industries are essential to London’s economy, supporting over 1.4 million jobs and generating £46 billion in economic activity annually. They also play a vital role in shaping the capital’s global reputation as a vibrant, diverse and welcoming city.
However, there is evidence of unmet potential, particularly when it comes to London’s night-time economy. Night-time spending in the capital fell by 3% from 2022 to 2025. A YouGov survey found that 45% of Londoners stated that they might have ended a night out before midnight in 2023-24, despite wishing to stay out later. Of course, the reasons for this are multifaceted, and licensing is not by any means the sole factor at play. Nevertheless, the Government believe that licensing in London should operate as more of an enabling framework—one that allows responsible businesses to thrive, while continuing to protect residents and public safety. That is very important.
London operates across 32 boroughs and the City of London, with each rightly rooted in its local context and responsive to the needs of its communities. However, when licensing decisions are made in isolation within each of those authorities, the cumulative effect can be a fragmented and inconsistent approach to issues that may have consequences across the capital. For example, a venue of regional or international significance, such as the ones that noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, mentioned, a major cultural destination or a late-night operation tied closely to transport hubs and visitor economies, does not serve one borough alone. Yet, at present, the licensing system often means that proposals are assessed solely through a local lens, even where their impacts and benefits are distributed far more widely.
It is precisely to address this gap that a carefully constrained strategic role for the Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority is justified. Other major cities, such as Amsterdam and New York, have shown what is possible when licensing is approached not solely as a reactive regulatory tool but as part of a broader strategic framework for nurturing culture, hospitality and the night-time economy.
Our underlying aim is to enable London to be the best version of itself: vibrant, safe, inclusive and globally competitive. The measures before us are a necessary and proportionate step towards that end. I hope that my reassurance about the consultation we intend to carry out relating to the meaning of “potential strategic importance” to London will have helped reassure the noble Baroness. I ask her therefore not to press her amendments.
Baroness Pidgeon
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment omits the London licensing provisions to probe the Government’s rationale behind their inclusion.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I have put on record our clear concerns here and I hear what the Minister has said about a carefully constrained strategic role. The consultation on “strategic importance” will be key, but we will watch this space and see how this develops. I wanted our clear concerns on record. There is a lot of work to do to get all the London boroughs on board. With that, I will not move my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting new provisions into the Licensing Act 2003 to confer powers on the GLA and the Mayor of London.
“1A In section 3 (licensing authorities), after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) In this Act, “London licensing authority” means each of the following licensing authorities—(a) the council of a London borough,(b) the Common Council of the City of London,(c) the Sub-Treasurer of the Inner Temple, or(d) the Under-Treasurer of the Middle Temple.”” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting new provisions into the Licensing Act 2003 to confer powers on the GLA and the Mayor of London.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting new provisions into the Licensing Act 2003 to confer powers of the Mayor of London.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting new provisions into the Licensing Act 2003 to confer powers on the GLA and the Mayor of London.
“4A In section 13 (authorised persons and responsible authorities), in subsection (4), after paragraph (ha), insert—“(hb) where the premises are situated in Greater London, the Greater London Authority,”.4B After section 17 insert—“17A Licence applications of potential strategic importance: Greater London(1) A London licensing authority must as soon as possible give notice to the Greater London Authority of any application made to it under section 17 that is a relevant licence application.(2) A “relevant licence application” is an application for a premises licence in Greater London which would authorise the premises to be used for one or more of the following activities—(a) the sale by retail of alcohol;(b) the provision of regulated entertainment;(c) the provision of late night refreshment.(3) The Greater London Authority must give notice to each interested party if the Authority considers that the relevant licence application is an application of potential strategic importance to Greater London.(4) On receipt of a notice under subsection (3), the London licensing authority must as soon as reasonably practicable advertise the determination of the Greater London Authority.(5) The Secretary of State must by regulations specify the form and manner in which an advertisement under subsection (4) is to be made.(6) For the purposes of subsection (3),“application of potential strategic importance to Greater London” is to be interpreted in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.(7) In this section, an “interested party” in relation to an application means—(a) the London licensing authority that the application was made to;(b) the applicant;(c) each responsible authority in relation to the premises to which the application relates.”4C In section 18 (determination of application for premises licence), after subsection (9) insert—“(9A) Where a London licensing authority is to hold a hearing in accordance with subsection (3) in relation to an application of potential strategic importance to Greater London, the authority must give to the Greater London Authority—(a) in advance of the hearing, specified information relating to the hearing within the specified period; (b) following the hearing, specified information relating to the hearing within the specified period.(9B) In subsection (9A)—“application of potential strategic importance to Greater London” means a licence application that has been notified to the London licensing authority by the Greater London Authority under section 17A(3) as being of potential strategic importance to Greater London;“specified” means specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”4DIn section 22 (prohibited conditions: plays), in subsection (2)—(a) the words from “a licensing authority” to the end become paragraph (a);(b) after that paragraph, insert“or,(b) the Mayor of London directing a London licensing authority under section 25C(1)(a)(i) or (b)(i), or section 41ZB(1)(a) or (c) to impose conditions which the Mayor considers appropriate on the grounds of public safety.”4E In section 23 (grant or rejection of application)—(a) after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) Where an application of potential strategic importance to Greater London is granted with no steps taken under section 18(4)(a) to (c) in relation to the licence, the relevant licensing authority must as soon as possible give notice to that effect to the Greater London Authority.(2B) Subsection (2A) does not apply if the Greater London Authority made relevant representations in respect of the application.”;(b) in subsection (4), after “this section” insert—“ application of potential strategic importance to Greater London” means a licence application that has been notified to a London licensing authority by the Greater London Authority under section 17A(3) as being of potential strategic importance to Greater London;”.4F In section 24 (form of licence and summary), after subsection (2)(f), insert—“(g) if it is issued on a direction from the Mayor of London, specify this.”4G After section 25A insert—“Power of Mayor of London to determine licence applications
25B Power of the Mayor of London to determine applications(1) This section applies where on an application of potential strategic importance to Greater London a London licensing authority—(a) grants a premises licence having taken one or more of the steps under section 18(4)(a) to (c) in relation to the licence, or(b) rejects the application to grant a premises licence under section 18(4)(d).(2) The London licensing authority must as soon as possible give notice to the applicant and the Greater London Authority of—(a) its decision to grant the premises licence and the steps, and reasons for the steps, taken under section 18(4)(a) to (c) in relation to the licence (including the detail of any modifications made to conditions under section 18(4)(a)), or(b) its decision to reject the application under section 18(4)(d) and the reasons for doing so. (3) But the decision of the London licensing authority in relation to the application does not otherwise have effect unless and until the Mayor of London gives notice under subsection (6) of a decision under subsection (5)(b).(4) Accordingly, the London licensing authority must not take any steps under this Act in relation to the decision (including giving notice under section 23) unless and until such a notice is given.(5) The Mayor of London must by the end of the specified period decide—(a) to give a direction to the London licensing authority in relation to the application (see section 25C), or(b) that the decision of the London licensing authority in relation to the application is to have effect for the purposes of this Act (and, accordingly, any requirements in relation to that decision now apply).(6) The Mayor of London must give notice of the Mayor’s decision under subsection (5) to—(a) each interested party;(b) any person who made relevant representations in relation to the application under section 18.(7) On receipt of a notice under subsection (6), the London licensing authority must as soon as reasonably practicable advertise the decision of the Mayor.(8) The Secretary of State must by regulations specify the form and manner in which an advertisement under subsection (7) is to be made.(9) In this section—“ application of potential strategic importance to Greater London” means an application that has been notified to a London licensing authority by the Greater London Authority under section 17A(3) as being of potential strategic importance to Greater London;“ interested party” has the same meaning as in section 17A (see subsection (7) of that section);“specified” means specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.25C Directions by the Mayor of London(1) Where section 25B(5)(a) applies the Mayor of London must direct the London licensing authority—(a) to grant the licence in accordance with the application subject only to—(i) such conditions specified in the direction as are consistent with the operating schedule accompanying the application, and(ii) any conditions which must under section 19, 20 or 21 be included in the licence,(b) to grant the licence subject to—(i) the conditions mentioned in subsection (1)(a)(i) with such permitted modifications as may be specified in the direction, and(ii) any condition which must under section 19, 20 or 21 be included in the licence,(c) to grant the licence in accordance with paragraph (a) or (b), but to also do one or both of the following—(i) exclude from the scope of the licence any of the licensable activities which were excluded by the decision of the London licensing authority in relation to the application under section 18(4)(b);(ii) refuse to specify a person in the licence as the premises supervisor where the London licensing authority refused to specify that person in their decision in relation to the application under section 18(4)(c), or(d) to reject the application. (2) The Mayor may only give a direction to the London licensing authority under subsection (1)(d) to reject the application if the application was rejected by the authority under section 18(4)(d).(3) The London licensing authority must grant the licence or reject the application in accordance with the direction given under subsection (1).(4) When giving a direction under this section the Mayor must have regard to—(a) the licensing policy statement published by the Mayor under section 8A, and(b) the importance of promoting the licensing objectives.(5) Directions given under subsection (1)(a) or (b) may have the effect of requiring a premises licence to be granted subject to different conditions in respect of—(a) different parts of the premises concerned;(b) different licensable activities.(6) A direction under this section must state the Mayor’s reasons for giving the direction.(7) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b)(i) the conditions mentioned in subsection (1)(a)(i) are modified if any of them is altered or omitted or any new condition is added.(8) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b)(i), a modification to a condition is “permitted” if—(a) the condition was modified by the London licensing authority when granting the licence under section 18(4)(a), and the modification is—(i) the same as that modification, or(ii) in the Mayor’s opinion less restrictive than that modification (but see subsection (9)), or(b) the condition relates to an application that was rejected by the London licensing authority under section 18(4)(d).(9) The Mayor may not make a modification to a condition under subsection (8)(a)(ii) if the effect of the modification would be that the condition would apply to a different part of the premises, or to different licensable activities, than that it applied to as modified by the London licensing authority under section 18(4)(a).25D Issue of licence etc by licensing authority(1) A London licensing authority that grants a licence on a direction under section 25C(1)(a) to (c) must as soon as possible—(a) give notice that the licence is granted to—(i) the applicant,(ii) each responsible authority in relation to the premises to which the application relates,(iii) any person who made relevant representations under section 18 in respect of the application, and(iv) the chief officer of police for the police area (or each police area) in which the premises are situated, and(b) issue the applicant with the licence and a summary of it.(2) A London licensing authority that rejects an application on a direction under section 25C(1)(d) must as soon as possible give notice that the application is rejected to—(a) the applicant,(b) each responsible authority in relation to the premises to which the application relates, (c) any person who made relevant representations under section 18 in respect of the application, and(d) the chief officer of police for the police area (or each police area) in which the premises are situated.(3) A notice under subsection (1) or (2) must state the Mayor’s reasons for giving the direction as notified to the London licensing authority under section 25C(6).”4H After section 34 insert—“34A Applications to vary of potential strategic importance: Greater London(1) A London licensing authority must as soon as possible give notice to the Greater London Authority of any application made to it under section 34 that is a relevant application.(2) A “relevant application” is an application to vary a premises licence in Greater London where the premises are, or would after the variation be, used for one or more of the following activities—(a) the sale by retail of alcohol;(b) the provision of regulated entertainment;(c) the provision of late night refreshment.(3) The Greater London Authority must give notice to each interested party if the Authority considers that the relevant application is an application to vary of potential strategic importance to Greater London.(4) On receipt of a notice under subsection (3), the London licensing authority must as soon as reasonably practicable advertise the determination of the Greater London Authority.(5) The Secretary of State must by regulations specify the form and manner in which an advertisement under subsection (4) must be made.(6) For the purposes of subsection (3) “application to vary of potential strategic importance to Greater London” is to be interpreted in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.(7) In this section, an “interested party” in relation to an application means—(a) the London licensing authority that the application was made to;(b) the applicant;(c) each responsible authority in relation to the premises to which the application relates.”4I In section 35 (determination of application under section 34), after subsection (7) insert—“(8) Where a London licensing authority is to hold a hearing in accordance with subsection (3) in relation to an application to vary of potential strategic importance to Greater London, the authority must give to the Greater London Authority—(a) in advance of the hearing, specified information relating to the hearing within the specified period;(b) following the hearing, specified information relating to the hearing within the specified period.(9) In this section—“application to vary of potential strategic importance to Greater London” means an application to vary a premises licence that has been notified to the London licensing authority by the Greater London Authority under section 34A(3);“specified” means specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”4J After section 41 insert—“Power of Mayor of London to determine applications to vary
41ZA Power of the Mayor of London to determine applications to vary(1) This section applies where, on an application to vary of potential strategic importance to Greater London, a London licensing authority—(a) grants an application to vary a premises licence in whole under section 35 and modifies the conditions of the licence under subsection (4)(a) of that section,(b) rejects an application to vary a premises licence in whole under section 35(4)(b), or(c) rejects an application to vary a premises licence in part under section 35(4)(b) and grants the other part (whether with or without modifying the conditions of the licence).(2) The London licensing authority must as soon as possible give notice to the applicant and the Greater London Authority of—(a) its decision to grant the application in whole and modify the conditions of the licence and the reasons for doing so (including the detail of the modifications made),(b) its decision to reject the application in whole and the reasons for doing so, or(c) its decision to reject part of the application and to grant the other part with or without modifying the conditions of the licence, and the reasons for doing so (including the detail of any modifications made).(3) But the decision of the London licensing authority in relation to the application does not otherwise have effect unless and until—(a) the Mayor of London gives notice under subsection (8) of a decision under subsection (7)(b), or(b) the obligations on the Mayor of London under subsection (7) of this section or section 41ZB cease to apply (see section 41ZC).(4) Accordingly, the London licensing authority must not take any steps under this Act in relation to the decision (including taking steps under section 56) unless and until the circumstances in subsection (3)(a) or (b) apply.(5) Where the decision of the London licensing authority has effect by virtue of subsection (3)(b), that decision is to take effect as subject to the intervening decision made by the authority in relation to the licence (see section 41ZC(2)(a)).(6) For the purpose of supplementing subsection (5), the Secretary of State may by regulations make provision modifying any provision of this Act as it applies to a decision of the London licensing authority that has effect by virtue of subsection (3)(b).(7) The Mayor of London must by the end of the specified period decide—(a) to give a direction to the London licensing authority in relation to the application (see section 41ZB), or(b) that the decision of the London licensing authority in relation to the application has effect for the purposes of this Act (and, accordingly, any requirements in relation to that decision now apply).(8) The Mayor of London must give notice of the Mayor’s decision under subsection (7) to—(a) each interested party;(b) any person who made relevant representations in relation to the application under section 35.(9) On receipt of a notice under subsection (8), the London licensing authority must as soon as reasonably practicable advertise the decision of the Mayor. (10) The Secretary of State must by regulations specify the form and manner in which an advertisement under subsection (9) must be made.(11) In this section—“ application to vary of potential strategic importance to Greater London” means an application to vary a premises licence that has been notified to the London licensing authority by the Greater London Authority under section 34A(3) as being of potential strategic importance to Greater London;“interested party” has the same meaning as in section 34A;“specified” means specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.41ZB Directions by the Mayor of London(1) Where section 41ZA(7)(a) applies the Mayor of London must direct the London licensing authority—(a) to grant the application in whole with or without such permitted modifications to the conditions of the licence as may be specified in the direction,(b) to reject the application in whole, or(c) to grant part of the application with or without such permitted modifications to the conditions of the licence as may be specified in the direction (and to reject the other part of the application).(2) The Mayor may only give a direction to the London licensing authority under subsection (1)(b) or (c) to reject the application in whole or in part if the application, or that part of the application, was rejected by the authority under section 35(4)(b).(3) The London licensing authority must grant or reject the application in accordance with the direction given under subsection (1).(4) Subsection (1)(a) and (c) are subject to sections 19 to 21 (which require certain conditions to be included in premises licences).(5) A direction under this section may not require a licence to be varied so as—(a) to extend the period for which the licence has effect, or(b) to vary substantially the premises to which it relates.(6) Directions given under subsection (1)(a) or (c) may have the effect of requiring a premises licence to be varied so as to have effect subject to different conditions in respect of—(a) different parts of the premises concerned;(b) different licensable activities.(7) When giving a direction under this section the Mayor must have regard to—(a) the licensing policy statement published by the Mayor under section 8A, and(b) the importance of promoting the licensing objectives.(8) A direction under this section must state the Mayor’s reasons for giving that direction.(9) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) and (c), the conditions are modified if any of them is altered or omitted or any new condition is added.(10) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) or (c), a modification to a condition is “permitted” if—(a) the condition was modified by the London licensing authority when granting the application in whole or in part under section 35(4)(a), and the modification is—(i) the same as that modification, or (ii) in the Mayor’s opinion less restrictive than that modification (but see subsection (11)), or(b) the condition relates to an application, or part of an application, that was rejected by the London licensing authority under subsection 35(4)(b).(11) The Mayor may not make a modification to a condition under subsection (10)(a)(ii) if the effect of the modification would be that the condition would apply to a different part of the premises, or to different licensable activities, than that it applied to as modified by the London licensing authority under section 35(4)(a).41ZC Intervening decision by a London licensing authority(1) The obligations on the Mayor of London under section 41ZA(7) or 41ZB in relation to an application to vary of potential strategic importance to Greater London cease to apply if the conditions in subsection (2) are met in relation to the obligation in question.(2) The conditions in this subsection are met if—(a) the London licensing authority that made the decision under section 35 in relation to the application to vary the premises licence has, before the relevant time, made an intervening decision in relation to the licence, and(b) the authority has given notice of that decision to the Mayor of London.(3) In this section, an “intervening decision” means a decision—(a) to take any of the steps under section 52(4) on an application for review of the licence;(b) to take any of the steps under section 53C(3) on an application by a senior police officer for review of the licence;(c) to take any of the steps under section 167(6) on a review of the licence following a closure order.(4) The “relevant time” for the purposes of subsection (2)(a)—(a) in relation to the obligation to make a decision under section 41ZA(7), is the time at which the Mayor makes the decision,(b) in relation to an obligation to give a direction under section 41ZB, is the time at which the direction is given.41ZD Notification by the London licensing authority(1) A London licensing authority that grants an application (or any part of an application) on a direction under section 41ZB must as soon as possible give notice to that effect to—(a) the applicant,(b) each responsible authority in relation to the premises to which the application relates,(c) any person who made relevant representations under section 35 in respect of the application, and(d) the chief officer of police for the police area (or each police area) in which the premises are situated.(2) The notice under subsection (1) must—(a) specify the time when any variation takes effect, and(b) specify any modifications to conditions of the licence.(3) The time for the purposes of subsection (2) is the time specified in the application or, if that time is before the applicant is given notice under this section, such later time as the London licensing authority specifies in the notice. (4) A London licensing authority that rejects an application (or any part of an application) on a direction under section 41ZB must as soon as possible give notice to that effect to—(a) the applicant,(b) each responsible authority in relation to the premises to which the application relates,(c) any person who made relevant representations under section 35 in respect of the application, and(d) the chief officer of police for the police area (or each police area) in which the premises are situated.(5) A notice under subsection (1) or (4) must state the Mayor’s reasons for giving the direction as notified to the London licensing authority under section 41ZB(8).”4K In section 54 (form of applications and notices)—(a) in paragraph (a), after “form” insert “or content”;(b) after paragraph (b) insert—“(ba) the period within which it is to be made or given;”.4L In section 56 (licensing authority’s duty to update licence document), in subsection (1), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) a London licensing authority, in relation to a premises licence, is subject to a direction under section 41ZB (directions by Mayor of London),”.4M In section 181 (appeals against decisions of licensing authorities)—(a) in the heading, after “licensing authorities” insert “or the Mayor of London”;(b) in subsection (1), after “licensing authorities” insert “or the Mayor of London”;(c) in subsection (2), in the opening words, after “licensing authority” insert “or the Mayor of London”;(d) in subsection (2)(b), after “authority” insert “or (as the case may be) the Mayor”;(e) in subsection (2)(c), after “authority” insert “or (as the case may be) the Mayor”.4N In section 185 (provision of information)—(a) in subsection (1)—(i) the words from “information which” to the end become paragraph (a);(ii) after that paragraph insert“, and(b) information which is held by or on behalf of the Mayor of London in connection with the Mayor’s functions under this Act.”;(b) in subsection (2)—(i) at the end of paragraph (a) omit “or”;(ii) at the end of paragraph (b) insert“or(c) to the Mayor of London,”;(iii) in the closing words, after “functions” insert “or the Mayor’s functions”;(c) in subsection (3), for “or responsible authority” substitute “, responsible authority or the Mayor of London”.4P In Schedule 5 (appeals)—(a) after paragraph 1 insert—“1A Where the Mayor of London gives a direction to a London licensing authority—(a) to reject an application for a premises licence under section 25C, or (b) to reject (in whole or in part) an application to vary a premises licence under section 41ZB,the applicant may appeal against the direction.”;(b) after paragraph 2 insert—2A “(1) This paragraph applies where the Mayor of London gives a direction to a London licensing authority under section 25C to grant a premises licence.(2) The holder of the licence may appeal against the following aspects of any such direction—(a) to impose conditions on the licence under subsection (1)(a)(i) of that section;(b) to impose conditions on the licence under subsection (1)(b)(i) of that section;(c) to exclude licensable activities from the scope of the licence under subsection (1)(c)(i) of that section;(d) to refuse to specify a person in the licence as the premises supervisor under subsection (1)(c)(ii) of that section.(3) A person who made relevant representations in relation to the application under section 18 may appeal against the Mayor’s direction to grant the licence on the following basis—(a) that the licence ought not to have been granted, or(b) that the direction ought to have imposed different or additional conditions under section 25C(1)(a)(i) or (b)(i), or to have taken a step mentioned in section 25C(1)(c)(i) or (ii).”;(c) in the heading of paragraph 4, after “35” insert “or 41ZB”;(d) after paragraph 4 insert—4A “(1) This paragraph applies where the Mayor of London gives a direction to a London licensing authority under section 41ZB to grant an application to vary a premises licence (in whole or in part).(2) The applicant may appeal against any direction under that section to make permitted modifications to the conditions of the licence.(3) A person who made relevant representations in relation to the application under section 35 may appeal against the Mayor’s direction to grant the application on the following basis—(a) that any variation made ought not to have been made, or(b) that, when directing the licence to be varied, the Mayor ought not to have directed that permitted modifications be made to the conditions of the licence, or ought to have directed that different permitted modifications be made to the conditions.(4) In sub-paragraph (3), “permitted modifications” has the meaning given in section 41ZB(10).”;(e) in paragraph 9—(i) in sub-paragraph (2), for the words from “the day” to the end substitute—“(a) on an appeal under paragraph 1A, 2A or 4A, the day on which the appellant was notified by the London licensing authority of the outcome of the direction appealed against, and(b) on any other appeal under this Part, the day on which the appellant was notified by the licensing authority of the decision appealed against.”;(ii) after sub-paragraph (3) insert—“(3A) On an appeal under paragraph 2A(3) or 4A(3), the holder of the premises licence is to be the respondent in addition to the Mayor of London.”” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts provisions into the Licensing Act 2003 to give the Mayor of London the power to make a new determination on applications to grant or vary premises licences in Greater London if the Mayor considers that the application is of potential strategic importance to Greater London.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting new provisions into the Licensing Act 2003 to confer powers on the GLA and the Mayor of London.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting new provisions into the Licensing Act 2003 to confer powers on the GLA and the Mayor of London.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would make this wording consistent with the wording used in paragraph 4 of Schedule 25 (in the definition of “eligible function”).
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group all concern Schedule 25, which allows the Secretary of State to make regulations in relation to functions of strategic authorities and mayors. We believe that the schedule, as drafted, lacks the appropriate democratic safeguards.
The current test in the Bill for whether the Secretary of State is satisfied that regulations can be made is “appropriate”. That threshold is notably low and subjective for the exercise of very wide powers. These provisions allow for conferral, modification and transfer of significant public functions, including through the amendment of primary legislation. It is therefore reasonable to expect a more disciplined legal standard.
We on these Benches believe that replacing “appropriate” with “necessary and proportionate” would align the exercise of these powers with well-established public law principles. The amendments would require the Secretary of State not only to justify the objective being pursued but to demonstrate that the chosen intervention is genuinely necessary and no more extensive than is needed. The amendments do not prevent action but rather ensure that such action is properly constrained and transparent.
I turn to the issue of consent. Amendments 157, 159, 161, 162, 165, 167 and 169 would require the Secretary of State to obtain the written consent of affected strategic authorities and mayors before they exercise their powers. They would therefore introduce a vital democratic safeguard. As drafted, the duty is limited to consultation, which does not guarantee that local views will meaningfully shape an outcome. Given that these regulations may significantly alter the functions and balance of power within local government structures, it is only right that those directly affected have a decisive voice. Put simply, changes should not be imposed on local people without their consent.
A consent requirement would ensure that changes are made in genuine partnership with local leaders, rather than being imposed from the centre. It would also further enhance transparency and allow both Parliament and the public to see clearly that reforms have secured local agreement.
Amendments 158, 160, 164, 166 and 168 address a clear inconsistency in the drafting of the schedule by applying an established safeguard to provisions where it is currently absent. In Part 1, the Secretary of State is rightly constrained by the requirement to consider whether regulations are justified by reference to the effective exercise of the function concerned. However, despite later parts conferring powers of equal significance, such as the transfer and reallocation of functions, no such discipline is applied. This risks creating a situation in which substantial structural changes to local government could be made without a clearly defined statutory purpose. By inserting this test alongside the requirement that any intervention be necessary and proportionate, the amendment would ensure that all uses of these powers were guided by consistent and principled frameworks.
I turn finally to the amendments on pilot schemes. My amendments seek to place sensible and proportionate safeguards around the use of pilot schemes. As drafted, the Bill confers very broad discretion on the Secretary of State, with limited external scrutiny. Pilot schemes are by their nature experimental. It is therefore essential that they are subject to robust transparency and evaluation requirements. The amendments would ensure that impact reports, consultation responses and written consents were made public. This would strengthen accountability and allow both Parliament and the public to understand how the schemes are operating in practice.
The requirement for an independent evaluation introduces an objective assessment of whether a pilot scheme has achieved its intended outcomes, rather than relying solely on the views of those involved in its delivery. Removing the ability to extend pilot schemes repeatedly prevents what could otherwise become a rolling arrangement that avoids proper scrutiny. The introduction of the requirement to demonstrate measurable improvements supported by evidence, and to show that benefits outweigh any adverse impacts, ensures that pilot schemes are not only well intentioned but effective in practice.
Finally—and I am sorry that I have taken so long—the proposal would require all regulations under this schedule to be subject to the affirmative procedure, accompanied by a clear written statement, which would reinforce parliamentary oversight and ensure that the exercise of these significant powers is properly justified and transparent. I look forward to the Minister’s response on these points.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for all these amendments. I think that there are 26, so it might take a little time to reply with a depth of understanding.
Amendments 150, 152 and 155 seek to alter the wording of the statutory test which the Secretary of State must apply when taking a decision to make regulations to confer a function on a strategic authority or to modify how a function is exercised by a strategic authority. The statutory test as currently drafted in the Bill is already sufficiently robust. The statutory test already requires the Secretary of State to be convinced that any regulations are appropriate for the effective exercise of a function. Introducing a more restrictive statutory test which would require the Secretary of State to be satisfied that regulations are necessary and proportionate could lead to central government being too cautious in using Schedule 25 to proactively make changes to the devolution framework, and could discourage government from expanding the framework in future.
Amendments 158, 160, 163, 164, 166 and 168 seek to apply the amended statutory test to each of the ways in which the Secretary of State can use Schedule 25 to make regulations to modify how a function is exercised by a strategic authority. These amendments are not necessary, as the statutory test does not need to be repeated throughout the schedule. The Bill introduces the statutory test in Part 1 of the schedule, which relates to both the conferral and modification of functions. Parts 2, 3 and 4 of the schedule provide more detail on how the Secretary of State can modify functions, and therefore the statutory test still applies to Parts 2, 3 and 4.
I turn to Amendments 151, 153, 157, 159, 161, 162, 165, 167 and 169. These amendments seek to require the Secretary of State to obtain local consent before conferring a function on a strategic authority or modifying how a function is exercised by a strategic authority. It is right that the Bill includes an extensive list of the authorities and people which the Secretary of State must consult before a decision is taken on the conferral or modification of a function for a strategic authority. This list includes affected mayors, strategic authorities, local authorities and any bodies or persons who are currently involved in exercising the function. In London, the Secretary of State will also need to consult the Greater London Authority functional bodies and the London Assembly. However, it would not be right that the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of all the authorities and people who would be affected by a decision on the conferral or modification of functions.
Schedule 25 allows the Government to expand and update the devolution framework for each class of strategic authority in future. This approach moves us on from the era of bespoke devolution deals for each area, which were time-consuming and complicated to implement, and allows us to more quickly expand and deepen devolution across the country. Under this new and more standardised approach to devolution, it would not be right for an authority or person to effectively have a veto which prevented the Secretary of State conferring or modifying a function on a whole class of strategic authority.
If individual authorities or mayors had a veto, they could limit the rollout of further devolution and hold back opportunities and prosperity for other areas in England. Also, as currently drafted, Amendment 161 appears to mistakenly require the Mayor of London and the London Assembly to provide their consent to the modification of functions which affect strategic authorities outside London.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
That will help me get to sleep, will it not?
I know that the amendments in my name are long and slightly complicated, but they are not intended to frustrate the Government’s objectives or to frustrate Schedule 25. We on these Benches might not agree about the objectives of the Bill—we probably do not—but we think it is important to ensure that the framework in which these regulatory powers are exercised is properly balanced, and from what I heard from the Minister, I have doubts about that in some cases. These amendments are intended to embed the principles that we should have across the whole Bill about transparency and consent, particularly local consent. They would also ensure that there are necessary safeguards in place so that Parliament can scrutinise any use of these significant delegated powers in an effective and simple way. I hope the Government reflect carefully on these amendments, and perhaps the noble Lord will also read Hansard tomorrow, but at this point I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, before we move to the next amendment, I need to tell the House that there has been a slight revision to the voting figures on the last vote, on Amendment 121. The figures as announced were Contents 152; Not-Contents 126. The latter figure has been revised to 128. The outcome is not affected, but the figures are slightly different.
Amendment 171
“Exercise of functions may begin at different times etc
16A (1) This paragraph applies to a power under this Schedule to confer a function on, or provide for a function to be exercisable by, a class of strategic authorities or mayors (the “relevant class”).(2) The power includes—(a) the power to provide for the function to begin to be exercisable by different members of the relevant class at different times or in different circumstances;(b) the power to make further regulations which specify the times at which, or circumstances in which, the function is to begin to be exercisable by different members of the relevant class.(3) Regulations under sub-paragraph (2)(b) may be made in relation to different members of the relevant class at different times.(4) In this paragraph “different members” of the relevant class includes members of the relevant class that are of different descriptions specified in regulations made under the power.”Member's explanatory statement
This would make clear that regulations under Schedule 25 can provide for a function conferred on a class to become exercisable (a) by different members of the class at different times; and (b) by virtue of regulations.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Two more votes: that always makes you feel better. Thank you, Deputy Speaker.
Government Amendments 171 and 180 are technical amendments that provide greater clarity on how Schedule 25 will allow the functions of strategic authorities to be updated and modified over time. Amendment 180 clarifies that Schedule 25 to the Bill allows the Secretary of State to modify and confer functions on new mayoral strategic authorities during the period between their establishment and the inaugural mayor taking office. This amendment ensures that the functions of mayoral strategic authorities can be modified if needed ahead of the mayor being elected, ensuring that the authority is able to operate effectively during this period. A good example is the transfer of fire and rescue authority functions to devolution priority programme areas whose mayoral elections will take place in May 2028. Where local government reorganisation will see the abolition of current fire and rescue authorities in April 2028, the amendment will ensure that we have a mechanism to provide for the new mayoral strategic authorities to become the fire and rescue authorities, thereby ensuring the continuity of service provision critical for public safety.
Amendment 171 clarifies that Schedule 25 allows the Secretary of State to specify whether a function which has been conferred on a particular class of strategic authority is to be exercisable by different strategic authorities within that class at different times. This flexibility will, for example, be important in enabling the appropriate transfer of fire and rescue functions from existing fire and rescue authorities to strategic authorities at the right time for each area. In some areas, strategic authorities may be established in advance of local government reorganisation being completed, and it may not be appropriate to transfer those functions until the reorganisation is concluded. The amendment therefore ensures that such functions can be commenced at a point when an individual area is ready to exercise them.
I turn to Government Amendments 192 and 193. I am grateful to members of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for their consideration of the Henry VIII power in Schedule 26, concerning the conversion of a combined county authority to a combined authority following local government reorganisation. The Government have carefully considered the committee’s recommendation to remove the Secretary of State’s power to amend primary legislation made in future Sessions as it relates to this power. We have concluded that any necessary transition of a combined county authority to a combined authority can be delivered without taking a delegated power. I am therefore able to confirm that the Government not only accept the committee’s recommendation in relation to this specific power but intend to go further, by removing the delegated power to alter any existing primary legislation when undertaking conversion, save for amendments to the 2007 Act that may be necessary. I beg to move.
I know that the House will sit tomorrow on the terminally ill adults Bill, but as I am not likely to participate in those debates, I wish all noble Lords a restful and relaxing recess, and we will continue our deliberations on this Bill on 13 April.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank the Minister for these amendments. They help to clarify certain things and are tidying-up amendments. We fully support them. I also wish the House a very happy Recess.
“Mayoral strategic authorities: period before first mayor takes office
26 (1) The fact that a mayoral strategic authority is in the preparatory phase—(a) does not prevent regulations under this Schedule from making provision which applies to—(i) the mayor for its area, or(ii) the mayoral strategic authority; and(b) where a provision of this Schedule requires consultation with the members of a class which includes the mayoral strategic authority or the mayor for its area, does not—(i) prevent that requirement from being complied with by a consultation that does not involve the mayor, or(ii) require further consultation with the mayor after the first mayor has taken office. (2) Any power under this Schedule to make provision in relation to mayoral strategic authorities or mayors (the “relevant class”) must be read as enabling regulations to make provision in relation to the relevant class which applies only to—(a) those of the mayoral strategic authorities in the relevant class which are in the preparatory phase, or(b) those of the mayors in the relevant class that are mayors for the areas of mayoral strategic authorities which are in the preparatory phase.(3) Regulations under this Schedule may make provision which applies only to—(a) mayoral strategic authorities which are in a preparatory phase that is of a duration specified in the regulations, or(b) mayors for the areas of mayoral strategic authorities which are in a preparatory phase that is of a duration specified in the regulations.(4) For the purposes of this paragraph a mayoral strategic authority is in the “preparatory phase”—(a) after the authority has been established, but(b) before the first mayor for the authority’s area has taken office.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would make clear that the powers under Schedule 25 are not affected by a mayoral strategic authority being in the “preparatory phase” (the phase before the first mayor has taken office).
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
“Mayoral Council for England(1) Elected mayors for combined and strategic authorities shall constitute a Mayoral Council for England. (2) The Council shall meet with the Secretary of State at least four times a year.(3) The functions of the Council are—(a) to work with central government to create a framework for the further devolution of power within England,(b) to work with central government to agree the fair funding of local and strategic authorities, and(c) to choose representatives of the Mayoral Council to participate in the Council of Nations and Regions.”
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
This time on a Thursday afternoon, just before the Recess, is not the ideal time to call a Division, much as many of us on these Benches would have liked to do so. We do not resile from the view that this Bill is constitutionally deficient and democratically damaging, but the Labour Party, so long as it remains in government, will have to take responsibility for the consequences of the reorganisation of the governance of England as it develops. The Minister has made it clear that she wants it to develop flexibly, and perhaps, so long as we have a single-party government, it may continue to do so.