House of Commons
Business Before Questions
Speaker’s Statement
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Speaker
I offer my condolences to the Prime Minister on the death of his father. I am sure that the whole House will want to send our best wishes to him and his family at this sad time.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Education (Lucy Powell)
May I join in what you said, Mr Speaker? I am sure that the whole House will want to send our deepest condolences to the Prime Minister and to his wonderful mum Eileen, his brothers Nick and John, all the grandchildren and the whole family on this saddest of days.
The student loans system we inherited is broken and unfair, and some graduates feel the weight of it more strongly. Going to university remains a fantastic opportunity, but I have been very clear that this issue is at the top of my in-tray, and I have been very clear in my views about it.
Tessa Munt
I associate myself with the comments of the Secretary of State. I am sure that all of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches feel deeply sad for the Prime Minister.
Tuition fees continue to rise, while the plan 2 repayment threshold stays frozen until 2030. If it is frozen until 2031, it will align with the minimum wage, leaving students facing higher premiums for up to 40 years. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds are hit by sky-high rents and living costs and face a brutal job market. Young constituents tell me that they cannot trust the fees system when a change of Government can mean a change to the terms of their loans. Will the Secretary of State commit to uprating the thresholds, restoring maintenance grants and creating an independent watchdog so that Governments cannot keep moving the goalposts?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Lady has put that really well. I reassure her that we absolutely keep these things under review. I have said that this issue is at the top of my in-tray, and that remains the case. I am acutely aware of the cost of living pressures that many graduates in their 20s and early 30s are under, particularly those on plan 2, and that is affecting their decisions about work and life. That is why I will continue to push at this issue, and I hope to have more to say soon.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
May I, too, pass on my condolences to the Prime Minister and his family?
I declare that I am a plan 2 borrower, and I know from first-hand experience how unclear the loans were at the time. Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about how the Government are clearing up the guidance given to borrowers? How does she wish to overhaul the Student Loans Company?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for all his campaigning on this issue, which I have followed closely. He is absolutely right, and in response to the excellent report of the Treasury Committee, we have committed to much clearer guidance for students before they make decisions about going to university, so that they can be much clearer about how the student loan system will work and possibly affect them in future. That is a really important piece of work. We have also capped the maximum interest rates this year, and we are reintroducing maintenance grants.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks regarding the Prime Minister’s father.
Despite the Secretary of State previously calling the student loan system “egregious” and saying that reviewing that system was a top priority—she has just said that it is at the top of her in-tray—the Treasury’s response to the Treasury Committee rejected a series of recommendations that would have alleviated some of the burden on those on plan 2 student loans. What exactly is the Secretary of State’s plan to fix the student loan system?
Lucy Powell
As I have said, I am determined that we get these things right. Two things can be true at the same time: I feel the system is unfair and in need of reform, but we also have to put that in the context of the wider public finances and all the pressures and priorities that fall on them. However, it is slightly audacious of the Conservatives to raise this issue, given that they introduced the plan 2 system and froze the threshold four times when they were in government—they are not independent campaigners on this issue today. It now falls in my lap to deal with this issue, and I will do so, unlike the Conservative party.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Lucy Powell)
I thank Alan Milburn for his commitment to our young people. This is one of our country’s biggest challenges, and I agree with him that education is “the faltering foundation”. Our current system is leaving too many behind. Countries that combine high academic standards with quality technical education boast low NEET rates, which is why I am determined to make this country a technical education superpower.
Christine Jardine
I associate myself with your comments, Mr Speaker, and those of the Secretary of State.
Figures quoted today by the BBC suggest that as many as one in five young people in education may not be attending college courses regularly, so the situation may be even worse than outlined in the Milburn report. While I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to a fundamental encouragement of technical education, does she think we are approaching a crisis and that we need to rethink exactly what it is that will engage our young people in education, because they are not getting from it what they need to feel prepared for their future life? If so, how will she go about that?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I think she is one of the most frequent contributors to Education questions, as she was to business questions when I was Leader of the House, and I look forward to continuing to debate these issues with her. She is right that attendance, inclusion and—critically—engagement are pivotal to this issue, which is why we need to look not just at the curriculum and the new qualifications that young people can gain, but at ensuring they have the passport they need for life, and are engaged and want to go to school or college every day.
John Grady
Over the summer, I met many brilliant businesses in Glasgow East that are desperate and determined to give young people apprenticeships, opening the door to a lifetime of opportunities. However, many of them told me that they have to give young people basic training in maths to help them thrive in jobs such as plumbing, joinery and welding. They rightly think that schools in Glasgow and across Scotland should be teaching this. Does my right hon. Friend agree that much more needs to be done in Scotland to improve the teaching of maths in schools?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. Last week’s PISA—programme for international student assessment—results show the importance of those foundations in English, maths and science, which we have really motored on in England over the course of a 25 or 30-year consensus. Scotland, however, is not doing so well. My hon. Friend will know that Scotland’s education system used to be the envy of the world; that is not the case today, and I think it is about time that the Scottish Government took a leaf out of England’s book.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for her commitment to this issue, and the hon. Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) for his focus on maths. On Friday, I visited Allerton Steel, a steel fabricator in Northallerton. That business does a great job of providing high-quality apprenticeships for young people every year, regardless of the cycle, and I was lucky to meet David, Oliver and Jacob—it was wonderful to see their passion and excitement about their futures. Will the Secretary of State join me in wishing them well, but also commend businesses such as Allerton Steel and the local companies up and down the country that are ultimately the ones providing these opportunities for our young people?
Lucy Powell
I am delighted to join the right hon. Gentleman in thanking Allerton Steel for all the work it does supporting young people in and around his constituency with apprenticeships. He is absolutely right. I held a summit last week at No. 10 North—I am sure he will want to visit at some point soon—with school, college and business leaders. There is a real sense of galvanising the whole business community, who are determined to play their part in tackling this issue.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
Dorset Innovation Park is home to a number of defence firms that are looking to expand. However, too many young people right across South Dorset are unable to get the qualifications that these employers are looking for. Will the Minister work with Dorset council, Yeovil college and me to establish a satellite college at the innovation park to give more young people that direct pathway into high-skilled, high-paid jobs?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he does in his constituency on these issues. He is absolutely right that we have to get opportunities to young people near where they live, working in partnership in the way that he describes. I am happy to meet him to discuss how we can get such opportunities into his constituency.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Government continue to point the finger at schools for the number of those not in education, employment or training, when that is one area that is performing comparatively well. Meanwhile, in Labour-led Wales, which ignored the Conservative Government’s education reforms, school standards have fallen and the NEETs crisis is even worse than in England. Why are the Government blaming schools for NEETs when the bigger problem is the collapse of entry-level jobs for young people?
Lucy Powell
I say gently to the hon. Lady that we do not just have more than a million young people not in education, employment or training—most of whom were educated under the Conservatives—but 1.5 million students persistently absent from school; a stubborn disadvantage gap, which did not close on their watch; widening regional attainment gaps; and a special educational needs and disabilities crisis that we are having to deal with, which they did not. Perhaps more importantly, the Conservatives put our young people on a treadmill of resits, with failure after failure. Just this summer, less than 14% of our young people passed their resits in maths. That is the legacy that they left, and I will rectify it.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
May I send my condolences and those of everyone on the Liberal Democrat Benches to the Prime Minister on the death of his father?
Alan Milburn is clear that exposure to the workplace for teenagers is critical in helping them to secure employment when they leave education, yet we know that less than a third of year 13 students have completed work experience. The Government have said they are committed to more work placements, which is welcome. Instead of overhauling the school system, will the Secretary of State instead focus on working with the Chancellor and the Business Secretary to reverse the jobs tax and other policies that have made it increasingly difficult for businesses to offer either work experience or a traditional first job to young people?
Lucy Powell
I think we need to do all these things. Alan Milburn was clear that education was “the faltering foundation”. We are seeing too many young people leave school without the qualifications that they need to get either an apprenticeship or into work. That is why there are so many NEETs. We are seeing too many young people disengage from school much earlier on. This is all part of the NEETs crisis. Young people are not subject to national insurance contributions in the same way as older people, and neither are apprentices. We have put in place a number of things, such as support for those wanting to take up an apprenticeship, including a £4,000 bursary. We are doing a huge amount at the other end, but we need to deal with the supply issue, too.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Lucy Powell)
It is me again, Mr Speaker. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] As a former Leader of the House, I feel under pressure to know exactly where I am on the Order Paper.
I thank my hon. Friend for all her work on special educational needs and disabilities. I listened closely to her speeches in the recent Health Bill debate. I assure her that these reforms are essential and that no one Department can do them alone. That is why we are working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care.
Jen Craft
I welcome the Secretary of State’s kind words. Let me also associate myself with her remarks, and with yours, Mr Speaker, about the Prime Minister’s very sad loss.
The Secretary of State mentioned last week’s health debate, when I received a commitment to much greater accountability, via the education Bill, for the health sector in delivering the health element of the SEND system. What work has been done with her colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care in that regard?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for her doughty campaigning on these issues. She is right: as part of the SEND reforms, we must ensure that there is accountability throughout the system, in health as much as in education and other sectors. I assure my hon. Friend that we are working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care. I have spoken to the new Health Secretary about this issue a number of times, and I look forward to shaping the reforms with her in the coming weeks.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her return to the Cabinet. The two main points that parents of children with SEND in my constituency would make to her in her new role concern the time that it takes for the education, health and care plans to be decided, and the number of specialist school places that are available both in Shropshire and in Telford and Wrekin. What plans has she to improve the position, and to intervene when local authorities are not performing?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising these issues so frequently. He is right: the current system is not working for parents, and it is not working for children. It is far too adversarial, there are too many delays, and parents often find that they cannot obtain the support that they want at the end of it. It is important to ensure that we have enough places, and we have already provided an extra £3.7 billion to support those extra places, but we also need to ensure that there are strong levers of accountability with local authorities and others. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we are looking at all those issues right now.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
Schools in my constituency, including Fairmeadows Foundation primary school, applied to Reform-led Derbyshire county council for capital funding for SEND provision within their mainstream settings. They were told that their application was successful in July 2025, and again in September that year. Funding was to come from a pot believed to be about £7 million, with an extra £500,000 mentioned on 10 September this year, but so far no funding has been released. I personally raised this matter with the council leader, Alan Graves, in June. When we chased the money again last week, we were told that the service-level agreements were still being worked on. Will the Minster please join me in calling on Derbyshire county council to get on with releasing these moneys?
Lucy Powell
I am very sorry to hear that the Reform-led council in Derbyshire is not following through quickly enough on its commitment to SEND families in the council area. We will, of course, pick that up. We are working closely with all local authorities on their SEND reform plans, and ensuring that they put them into action quickly.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
Research from the Department for Education confirms that children who move schools frequently often suffer poor outcomes, particularly children with special educational needs. That is why a number of armed forces families—people on average incomes—choose independent education to minimise the disruption that results from their postings. May I ask the Secretary of State, with her new Education team, whether she will publish—perhaps jointly with the Ministry of Defence—research showing whether the introduction of VAT on school fees has led to an increase in the number of in-year moves, especially among service families?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Gentleman has rightly identified an issue. We are introducing new individual support plans, which will be national and digital so that they can move around with children. We obviously want to minimise the number of occasions on which students move to new schools and, in some instances, have their support reassessed when they get there. I do not believe that there has been a particular issue for children in armed forces families in relation to the VAT on private schools, but I am happy to look into that for the hon. Gentleman.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Education (Lucy Powell)
I thank the hon. Lady for all the work she does on the Education Committee.
Reforms to curriculum and assessment go hand in hand with our vision to ensure that education is a passport for work, life and success. Becky Francis did a fantastic job for us on the review, and we will soon publish proposals to go out to consultation that build on it. The proposals will ensure a broader and more inclusive education system, with fewer barriers to progression, stronger technical and vocational options, more emphasis on oracy and more stepping-stone qualifications.
Caroline Voaden
The Government have committed to providing an enrichment entitlement for every child, including access to nature. Evidence shows that outdoor education can be part of the solution to some of the biggest issues facing our young people, such as the mental health and obesity crisis, the rise in NEETs and a failing SEND system. However, when a fifth of children in the most deprived parts of the country never spend meaningful time outdoors, something has to change. A framework for schools is not enough; we need a step change. Will the Secretary of State back my Outdoor Education Bill so that every child can grow up outdoors with better mental wellbeing, physical health, attainment, attendance and employability?
Lucy Powell
Again, I thank the hon. Lady for all the campaigning she has done on this and for bringing to this House a really important Bill so that we can debate these issues. I think those issues go wider than the school system. This is a bigger piece about what childhood means in the 21st century, and how we can all support children to be independent, to have success and good wellbeing, and to be happy. Playing and being outdoors are of course a critical part of that.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
An important feature of the curriculum and assessment review was the recognition of and the commitment to strengthening financial literacy as a vital life skill for young people. To ensure we can deliver on that ambition, participating in the OECD’s PISA financial literacy assessment will help us to both measure our progress and identify gaps in that progress. Can the Secretary of State set out what assessment she has made of the merits of UK participation in 2029, and will she meet me to discuss it?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we have expressed an interest in taking part in the PISA financial literacy assessment in 2029. We recognise the importance of financial education for children and young people, which we will strengthen in the upcoming maths and citizenship curricula. I would be happy to meet with him to discuss how we can take that further.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for her Bill. I draw the Secretary of State’s attention to the recent change of the law by the Scottish Parliament that entitles every young person at school to five days outdoors with four nights in residential accommodation, which brings massive benefits to their resilience, love of learning and capacity to work together in teams. Given that 81% of children from the poorest backgrounds never get access to outdoor education, is it not time that we considered doing something similar?
Lucy Powell
I am absolutely with the hon. Member on the importance of residential activities, and for every young person to have access to them. I am not sure if Ghyll Head is in his constituency—
Lucy Powell
The hon. Member is nodding. I went to Ghyll Head as a child—it is owned by Manchester city council—and my children have been there. It is a fantastic facility, and my ambition is that every child has the opportunity to go somewhere as fantastic as that. I am happy to work with him on these issues.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
This summer, the Prime Minister set out his ambition for our education system:
“Whether you choose construction, coding or classics…Labour will build an education system where you’ll get the skills you need”.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on classics, I really welcome that. Will the Secretary of State set out her vision for the arts and humanities in our curriculum to ensure that more young people take up these subjects, which are so good at empowering them with skills?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend has already spoken to me a number of times about these issues, because he is a very good chair of the APPG on classics. I thank him for his question, and he is absolutely right. We have to recognise that the current offer in our education system has got narrower and narrower, and even bringing in measures such as the EBacc has not helped to preserve important subjects such as classics and computer science. In fact, they have fallen significantly since its introduction. I want to ensure that all our young people have access to these great academic subjects as well as to technical ones.
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
Over the weekend, the Secretary of State backtracked on an interview she gave to The Observer where she said she wanted to reintroduce coursework. For the record, we were very pleased to hear that, but in the same interview she made a number of other commitments, including reducing the number of exams that children take at age 16 and introducing a GCSE in football coaching. Which of those commitments does she still stand by?
Lucy Powell
Oh dear, Mr Speaker—honestly! They had a go at it last week and it did not go very well, so they are having another go this week. If the hon. Gentleman can find where I said that I wanted to bring back coursework then he can bring it to me, because I did not say that. [Interruption.] No, I did not at all.
Mr Speaker
Order. Members can come in with their own questions. We do not need anything further.
Lucy Powell
I gave a 10-minute statement to the House last week and I answered questions for 90 minutes. I think that gave a very clear account of what I want to do. The Opposition want to defend their narrowing and narrowing of the curriculum without accepting responsibility for the effects of that. I do want to ensure that great subjects such as computing involve using a computer, because they took that out of the curriculum entirely. I want to ensure that PE involves some PE. Call me a radical, Mr Speaker, but I think that goes in hand in hand. I make no apology either for wanting to see oracy very much at the heart of our curriculum in school. They send their kids to private school, where they all come out really confident in speaking. I want that for every child.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Paul Waugh)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Apprenticeships are the responsibility of the Department for Work and Pensions, but the Department for Education is supporting apprenticeships by introducing new technical and vocational pathways from 14 to 19 years, including new V-levels from 2027, new level 2 pathways and even more T-levels, from which young people can progress through apprenticeships and higher education. These new 14 to 19 qualifications will enable students to progress more easily and on to apprenticeships.
Bradley Thomas
I welcome the Minister to his place and congratulate him on his appointment. The Government are right to focus on the importance of parity between vocational education and academic education. However, when comparing the academic year 2025-26 with 2023-24, the number of people who have started apprenticeships has dropped by 9% and the number who have completed has gone down by 17%. With reference to the Minister’s point about vocational pathways, will he update the House on what steps the Government are taking to ensure that they are linked with the needs of industry, so that this in itself does not become an academic exercise?
Paul Waugh
May I return those congratulations by congratulating the hon. Member on his elevation to the shadow Front Bench, and may I congratulate him, too, on the work he has done on vocational skills, including in his jobs fare in Bromsgrove? It is worth saying that V-levels are precisely designed to tally with what employers want. That is exactly why we are reforming the system to ensure every child will have the right technical education. More broadly, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have said that the parity of esteem between vocational and academic education is exactly what everyone in this country wants.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
May I put on record my condolences to the Prime Minister on the sad loss of his father?
The Education Committee strongly agrees with the Government’s focus on expanding opportunities for apprenticeships and high-quality technical and vocational education across the country, but too often young people who want to pursue apprenticeships are left to do their own research across multiple different platforms with varying application timescales. Last year, the Education Committee recommended that to help young people understand the full range of opportunities available to them and provide parity of esteem, there should be a single point of access for information about apprenticeships alongside vocational, technical and academic courses. Will the new Minister look again at that recommendation and seek to ensure young people wishing to do apprenticeships and vocational and technical courses are just as well supported as their peers who are applying for university?
Paul Waugh
I thank my hon. Friend for all the hard work the Education Committee has done on this topic. She is right that there should be parity of esteem, and the equivalent of a UCAS system for children who are going into technical education. Baroness Smith is looking at precisely that subject, and we aim to come up with some answers soon.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
You will recall, Mr Speaker—as will the Minister, from his earlier life—that when I was the Skills Minister, we had the biggest number of apprenticeships in modern history. I did that because I believe in elevating the practical, but, too often, careers advice and guidance delivered in schools drives people down an academic route to study degrees that have neither academic rigour nor economic value. Will the Minister look again at the advice and guidance given to people, so that aptitudes, talents and taste can be met by good-quality vocational and technical education?
Paul Waugh
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his hard work on this subject as the former Skills Minister. The House is in agreement on the issue. The Prime Minister rightly says that we should be focusing on problem solving rather than point scoring. Given that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned apprenticeship starts, it would be remiss of me not to point out that they have gone up by 8.7% under this Government, whereas apprenticeship starts collapsed under the last Government since 2020.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
Further education colleges play a crucial role in apprenticeships and in supporting education. Will the Minister tell me what extra measures the Government are bringing in to ensure that further education colleges naturally provide a wide range of education and technical skills to apprentices?
Paul Waugh
My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for FE in his constituency, as are many Members across the House. He is right about FE, and many specialists who are engaged in teaching further education and vocational skills are addressing the point he raises. That is why many of them support a move to V-Levels, because they are aligned with what employers want. Employers are telling us that they want those job skills to be more in tune with academic skills, and that is what we are delivering.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
The inclusive mainstream fund is part of a £4 billion investment over three years to support early intervention for special educational needs and disabilities. Long term, the Government aim to move more money from the high-needs block directly into school budgets ringfenced for SEND, so that schools can plan their workforces and intervene earlier, ending the long waits for support experienced by too many young people in the current system.
Aphra Brandreth
Following a recent visit to Tushingham-with-Grindley primary school, the headteacher raised concerns with me that for many small, rural schools like Tushingham and Shocklach Oviatt, the new inclusion fund does not compensate for the impact of changes to the school’s block funding. Not every child with SEND needs one-to-one support, but many need teaching assistants and other staff to help them regulate, access learning and benefit from targeted support. If school budgets are being squeezed, it is often that support that ends up being reduced. How will the Minister ensure that the funding changes do not inadvertently reduce the support that children with SEND need to thrive in mainstream schools?
Georgia Gould
The reforms do not fully come in until 2030, so the extra money through the inclusive mainstream fund sits alongside investment through the current system and education, health and care plans. Once the reforms are fully in place, there will be more money going directly into schools. The inclusive mainstream fund is to build up funding in the meantime. Schools will also benefit from the Experts at Hand service, which is putting £1.8 billion into specialists.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Dudley cannot afford to lose another generation of young people to unemployment, exclusion or missed opportunity. The rate of our young people not in education, employment or training was recognised in Alan Milburn’s review. Local leaders at my February NEETs roundtable were clear: alternative provision for children with SEND is desperately needed. Dudley college has brought forward a credible plan. Will the Minister recognise the urgency and back children in Dudley by approving the plan?
Georgia Gould
I thank my hon. Friend for her leadership on that critical issue. As the Secretary of State said, we are investing £3.7 billion into new specialist places. I will meet her to discuss the specific school she raises.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
Six months ago, the previous Secretary of State revealed the Government’s plan to carry out SEND reforms. Since then, we have had a new Prime Minister and a new Secretary of State, who last week stated her intention to carry out those reforms. Yet there has been little detail on how the Government will fill the £2 billion black hole in the SEND budget, despite fiscal pressures on the Government continuing to increase, as we all know. When will the legislation come to the House, and where will the money come from? Parents, teachers and children deserve answers.
Georgia Gould
We have been absolutely clear about the investment we are making in the SEND system, with £4 billion for early intervention and £3.7 billion in capital investment—funding that did not come when the previous Government were in power. We welcome the opportunity to work cross-party and for Members to work alongside Ministers, as this is too important an issue not to bring all the ideas of the House together. I am waiting to hear what Opposition Members think about SEND reforms; I look forward to their clarifying that.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
We are determined that our schools be inclusive for all children, including those with neurodivergence. The work undertaken by our neurodivergence task-and-finish group has informed our proposed reforms to the special educational needs and disabilities system, including the national inclusion standard and the investment in continuous professional development and teacher training.
Juliet Campbell
I thank the Minister for her reply. Sixty-five per cent of teacher training providers say that new teachers are not equipped to support SEND pupils in mainstream schools, with too many teachers still leaving training without the skills and confidence to support neurodivergent children, including those with dyslexia. Will the Minister consider reforming the initial training requirements so that every trainee educator is able to demonstrate practical competency in identifying and supporting neurodivergent children before achieving their qualified teacher status?
Georgia Gould
I thank my hon. Friend for her ongoing thoughtful work on this issue, which has very much informed our thinking. We have strengthened SEND content in the initial teacher training and early career framework, with Ofsted reporting that SEND is well integrated in that initial training. However, we do want to go further, and SEND will be a core focus for the 2027 review, as well as the £200 million we are investing into teacher training on special educational needs and disabilities.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
For some neurodivergent children, mainstream school is not a place where they can succeed. One such child is Livvi, who is 14. Following autistic burnout and a period of not being in education, education otherwise than at school has been an absolute godsend for her, but her amazing mum, Carrie, is worried about the Government’s proposed changes to EOTAS provision. Carrie is coming to Parliament this evening; when I meet her, what should I say about whether people who have fought for their kids, like her, will get a say in what future EOTAS provision looks like?
Georgia Gould
I thank the hon. Member for raising this important issue, which came up time and again when we were travelling round the country talking to parents—both the need to support young people who have fallen out of education or are in EOTAS and the need to have a full conversation about this. The Government took forward a consultation about EOTAS, which I hope the hon. Member’s constituent has responded to, and we are looking carefully at all the responses to that.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
Our reforms focus on better meeting pupils’ needs through earlier and more effective interventions. Children can present very differently even if they have a similar diagnosis, and we want to ensure that schools have the tools to identify children’s individual needs. Our special educational needs and disabilities training for staff works on areas of development, and our national inclusion standard will support that approach by ensuring mainstream settings have the knowledge, training and specialist support to deliver it.
Sir Julian Smith
I thank the Minister for her answer and for all the work she is doing on this. Following on from the question from the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell), the issue of differing profiles is really important; pupils with a pathological demand avoidance profile of autism will require a totally different strategy from staff at the reception desk and teachers to get them into school and get them engaged with education. Will she keep pressing the Department on teacher training to really focus on these different profiles and the responses to them, and can she confirm that she is also working with the Department of Health and Social Care on the independent prevalence review, as all that amazing work by mental health experts across the UK should be feeding into this work?
Georgia Gould
I can confirm that I am working closely with the independent prevalence review. On PDA especially, I have heard similar things from many parents. We have a national independent panel—they are in Parliament this afternoon, and there are sessions for all parliamentarians, so I encourage Members to come along and talk to them directly. We have asked them to look at PDA because there is not a strong evidence base, which has been asked for. As well as the teacher training, which is a huge priority, these new experts—educational psychologists, occupational therapists—will provide support for teachers in classrooms.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
We must expand fostering to create the 10,000 extra places in foster care for children that we need this Parliament. We are shaking up the system to deliver this through the fostering action plan, and independent fostering agencies can play their part, bringing fresh energy and supporting new fostering hubs.
Bob Blackman
The Minister will know that there is an increasing number of vulnerable children who desperately need good-quality foster care. At the same time, there is a crisis in the recruitment of those foster carers. Will he undertake to set up a commissioning system that includes not only local authorities but independent fostering agencies, so that these vulnerable children can get a safe place where they are cared for, which they desperately need?
Josh MacAlister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this important issue to the attention of the House. We are introducing fostering hubs, including in the local authority in the area that he represents, and rolling out regional care co-operatives across the country. In the coming weeks, I will publish a new rule book for fostering that simplifies the system, consolidates a whole series of different bits of guidance and humanises foster care.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
The UK is joining Erasmus+ in 2027. Colleges and training providers will have access to funding for partnerships with organisations across Europe and beyond. I take this opportunity to wish Team UK success at WorldSkills Shanghai next week, especially Oliver Coombs, who has the chance to be crowned the best young person in the world in additive manufacturing and who trained at Bath college, in the hon. Lady’s constituency.
Wera Hobhouse
Bath college is a shining example of how collaboration across Europe is creating opportunities for students through the WorldSkills UK programme, which the Minister has just mentioned. Will he work with the British Council to build on its international skills partnership programme so that providers such as Bath college can access funding and support? I was also wondering whether international skills could be part of the agenda of the EU summit that will happen very soon?
Josh MacAlister
I thank the hon. Lady for the question and for highlighting the British Council’s role in these partnerships. A focus of the set-up of Erasmus+ will be to ensure that smaller providers can access the opportunities that comes from the programme. That is absolutely a focus of this Government. I am sure that these issues will be talked about at the summit, as they frequently are.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the recent announcement of new technical education pathways at GCSE level, which will hugely benefit pupils in Feltham and Heston and across the country. Through visits to Germany, Singapore and Australia, I have seen how we can build opportunities for increased partnerships including internationally with world-leading specialist training providers. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will look to make sure that we invest in the skilled workforce and partnerships that we need to give our students not just the best chance for a great job but the best chance for life in an increasingly competitive world?
Josh MacAlister
My hon. Friend is right to highlight that one of the benefits of Erasmus+ is that it builds on the Turing scheme as well as expanding opportunities available through the partnerships to staff and students. It is a very good example to draw to the House’s attention. Around the world we have amazing practitioners teaching in a variety of settings, and it is in everyone’s benefit for them to connect with one another and be at the cutting edge of research and teaching.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
This Government are investing £1.8 billion over three years to deliver the Experts At Hand service, which will give mainstream settings access to health and education specialists for SEND. We will also deliver new SEND and inclusion training courses and materials as part of a £200 million investment for teachers, leaders and support staff.
Jayne Kirkham
In Cornwall and my constituency, children needing specialist SEND places have missed out this September. Some have been offered partial education otherwise than at school arrangements instead or are even at home. We inherited a system that has let down a generation. Will the Minister confirm that the new Bill is on its way and that it will close the gap for children in my constituency? When will it take effect?
Georgia Gould
We are determined to ensure that every child who needs a specialist place has access to one. That is why we are investing £3.7 billion in specialist places and are proposing the new specialist provision packages system. We recently had a full consultation on the proposals, and we are carefully working through the detailed responses that we got to the consultation questions. We will bring forward the Bill as quickly as possible.
Perran Moon
Several schools in my Camborne, Redruth and Hayle constituency are reporting profound concerns about the lack of availability of educational specialists right across Cornwall, including occupational therapists, educational psychologists and speech and language therapists. As a result of our remote coastal location, recruitment and retention is particularly difficult. Will the Minister meet Cornish MPs to discuss this issue?
Georgia Gould
I can confirm that, after very strong lobbying from my hon. Friends the Members for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), I will be visiting Cornwall to talk to them directly and see the issues at first hand. I absolutely recognise the issues around recruitment and retention in rural areas, and we are very much working on that.
Chris Vince
I speak to parents, young people and teachers in my constituency all the time about the need for SEND reform. One of my best friends is a special educational needs co-ordinator, and he often tells me how broken he and his colleagues are after battling this broken SEND system for so long. Will the Minister ensure that the SEND reforms cater for all the young people in Harlow who need them, and that they will make being a SENCO an attractive proposition again?
Georgia Gould
I really appreciate that question. I have talked to SENCOs around the country, and I know how much pressure they are under and how often they feel that they have to go into battle for the children they support. They play a critical role, and they need more support. Inclusion has to be the business of the entire school, not just one individual. We are determined to support them.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I speak to many families in Broxbourne who are struggling with the SEND system. Unfortunately, until there are more SEND school places, they will continue to struggle, as children with SEND need to be in the right educational setting. What is the Department doing to create more SEND school places for families today, as they are needed now, not in the future?
Georgia Gould
Over the past two years, that £3.7 billion investment that I have mentioned has started. That money is going into local authorities today, so that they can start building schools, creating places, and taking the action that the Conservative Government failed to take.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Barely a day goes by without hearing from a new family whose child is struggling or—worse—does not have a school at all. Given the long delays in autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder diagnoses and the length of time it takes to get packages in place, what consideration has been given to screening for neurodivergence at a very early stage so that we can plan properly for those schools?
Georgia Gould
I hear the same stories from families about long waits. The new system that we are proposing is all about identifying needs as early as possible. Through the national inclusion standards, which the independent panel is working on, new tools will be developed to support schools to identify needs early, and then work will be done with the Experts at Hand service to put in place interventions to support those young people.
Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)
Children in Gorton and Denton are being left without suitable education while families wait for SEND tribunal appeals, but they are waiting for school places that do not exist. Does the Minister agree that we need an independent assessment of SEND school capacity? The Government reforms will not help if we do not first fix the capacity crisis.
Georgia Gould
I absolutely agree that we need more places in our schools. We are working as quickly as possible to get money into local authorities to deliver that capacity. That includes growing the number of inclusion bases, which can be built faster and often allow children to be educated in their community. As I travel around the country, I have seen how life-changing that has been. The money that we have put in is already creating new places, and we will continue to invest this year and next.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
Part of the kinship zones pilot is testing an allowance equivalent to the fostering allowance alongside a robust impact evaluation, but we are not waiting for that evaluation to improve England’s approach to kinship care. Our Families First reforms are unlocking the potential of kin-based care across the country through family group decision making by default, and practical support through family network support packages.
Mike Reader
Will the Minister join me in thanking kinship carers in Northampton and across all our constituencies who give children a stable and loving home? Outside the seven zones that the Minister mentioned, funding is still means-tested. Will he therefore commit to publishing interim findings before the end of the pilot in 2029 so that families have an answer on parity before the next general election?
Josh MacAlister
I will. I would also like to pass on and share my thanks for all the amazing kinship carers we have across the country. Outside kinship zones, a number of councils are showing that they can take steps to go further than others, and Plymouth city council, Sheffield city council and North Tyneside council are great examples of that.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
I have heard from parents, young people, teachers and hon. Members across the House the scale of the challenges facing the SEND system and the impact on families. We are transforming support for special educational needs across early years settings, schools and colleges so that more children and young people can get the right support locally.
Chris Hinchliff
It is difficult to overstate the trauma that the SEND crisis has inflicted on children in North East Hertfordshire, so the Government’s commitment to reform is welcome. However, given the scale of the failure that families have experienced, many are nervous. Will the Minister reassure me and my constituents that the reforms will not mean pushing children into a one-size-fits-all approach and will ensure that there is a firm legal backstop so that every child receives the support they deserve?
Georgia Gould
I can confirm that these reforms are designed to ensure that the right support is available for children in every community and that there is accountability on every part of the system to deliver for families and young people, who have been let down for too long.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
The Department is bringing forward reforms to improve the SEND system long term. With this investment in local authorities and other parts of the systems comes a strong focus on improvement. Through SEND reform plans, we will be carefully monitoring performance and offering support, but also intervening strongly where there is persistent failure.
Nesil Caliskan
Creating additional SEND spaces is critical for my constituency as we have had a 100% increase in education, health and care plans and an extra 1,000 students now need special educational needs support. Will the Minister reassure us that when the schools Bill comes through, as part of the proposals there will be additional support for mainstream teachers to get the training they need so that there is support in mainstream schools?
Georgia Gould
My hon. Friend has been a passionate campaigner on this issue. It is because of representations from her constituents and those of many others around the Chamber that we will be introducing compulsory professional development on special educational needs and disabilities for teachers, backed by £200 million.
Dr Pinkerton
A great number of children across Surrey have been left without the special educational provision they need this year and a disproportionate number—64%—of those who require specialist autism provision live in the new West Surrey unitary authority area. Given Surrey county council’s historical failure to align provision with need, and with worrying reports that the SEND system is being allowed to collapse in Surrey’s final year of operation, will the Minister directly intervene to ensure that Department for Education capital investment prioritises the specialist autism places that West Surrey desperately needs? Will she meet me and the incoming leaders of West Surrey to see how that can be done?
Georgia Gould
I will meet the hon. Member to discuss that; I have heard directly from Surrey parents and from him. We invested £16 million last year and have invested close to £19 million this year in specialist places in Surrey. We are carefully looking at Surrey’s reform plan as part of our work on local authority accountability. I will keep working with the hon. Member on these important issues.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Lucy Powell)
Today we are introducing a once-in-a-generation change to school food, making it tastier and healthier and giving over half a million more children free school meals. We have worked with schools, pupils, parents and many more to ensure that these meals are of good quality, attractive to children and deliverable for schools. With free breakfast clubs and a huge expansion of free school meals under this Government, children will be better able to concentrate and learn. I want to put on record my thanks to the Minister for the early years, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh)—this also happens to be his Dispatch Box debut.
Tom Rutland
I welcome my right hon. Friend to her place. Will she update the House on the package of cost-saving measures announced by this Labour Government to give families in my constituency of East Worthing and Shoreham more breathing space this September as they return to school?
Lucy Powell
We are giving families more breathing space by helping them with school uniform costs and by expanding Government-funded childcare, free school meals and free breakfast clubs. In East Worthing and Shoreham, 4,100 children will now be eligible for free school meals.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
On behalf of my party, may I send our condolences to the Prime Minister on the death of his father?
I want to ask the Secretary of State a very simple question. Does she think it is acceptable for young girls to be required to wear a hijab to school as part of their school uniform?
Laura Trott
I am delighted by that answer. Thank you. This is not a hypothetical situation. A school in Barnet that has recently become state funded says that it is compulsory for girls as young as seven to cover their heads as part of the uniform. Given the Secretary of State’s very welcome repudiation of this, will she intervene to stop the school’s policy?
Lucy Powell
As the right hon. Lady would expect, we have been in close touch with the school. Obviously, it is a decision for the local authority, now that the school has become voluntary aided. As I understand it, the school has now clarified that hijabs are not compulsory.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Lucy Powell
I am really proud of our commitment to free breakfast clubs, which are great not only for children, but for parents. We hear these testimonies all the time. They are incredibly popular and we will continue to roll them out.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Government claimed that their policy to cap the number of branded uniform items would cut costs for parents, yet we know that some schools are getting around the rules by making optional branded items that would keep children warm in winter. Will the Minister now reconsider the Liberal Democrat proposal to cap the cost of uniform, rather than the number of items, so that we can genuinely put pounds back into parents’ pockets?
Lucy Powell
I am very clear that this is about not just the letter of the law but the spirit of the law, and I want to see schools following the spirit of the new legislation. I have further powers, should I need to use them, to pull in a school’s uniform policy. I do not want to see jumpers and other things that children actually have to wear being branded as optional.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
Lucy Powell
I am really happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss this, because our creative arts universities, such as the one in her constituency, provide fantastic qualifications for young people to get the jobs they need.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Lucy Powell
Absolutely; where schools and local caterers can, we absolutely want them to buy local. This is an important part of sustainability. We have tried to get the balance right with these food standards so that they are deliverable by schools and affordable, they are not putting up the costs of school meals, but they are providing tasty, healthier meals that ideally are locally sourced.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Lucy Powell
I think I originally branded my hon. Friend Mr Doncaster airport, and I am pleased that he is still living up to that name today. He is absolutely right: this is why we are working very closely with mayors, local employers and others, so that local areas like his in Doncaster can ensure that young people have access to the qualifications and work experience they need for the local economy.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Lucy Powell
I am happy to write to the hon. Member about that, but rest assured that we are working with all local authorities on their SEND plans at the moment to ensure that they are robust, deliverable and affordable.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
Lucy Powell
The Minister for school estates, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), would be really happy to meet my hon. Friend, because I know how important this issue is to her constituents.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
Several of my constituents have contacted me about the broken SEND transport system. Several of them did not know what transport would be put in place for their children before the term started, as decisions were delayed. Some of them still do not know how their SEND children are going to get to school. What can the Minister do to help?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Paul Waugh)
The Government’s SEND reforms will create a more inclusive school system, with fewer children needing to travel to access the quality education that they deserve. I take onboard the hon. Member’s concerns, which we are listening to, but we want to make it absolutely clear that ensuring drivers and passenger assistants have received the training necessary to respond to all children’s needs is central to Government policy.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend raises a really important issue. Music qualifications have fallen off a cliff, which is why we are taking those steps. The procurement process has begun, so I can outline for him soon what further steps we are taking. I also want to work with musicians such as Ed Sheeran, Fatboy Slim and others who have been campaigning for a music curriculum that actually attracts young people to take it up.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Last week’s PISA results confirmed that the gap in outcomes for disadvantaged pupils remains stark throughout their education, so will the Secretary of State commit to looking seriously at proposals from the Lib Dems and others to extend the pupil premium to post-16 education?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Member raises a really important issue. It is not just about keeping young people in further education, which the measure that he outlines would assist with; it is also about engaging young people in school more thoroughly, which is why the whole range of reforms that I have begun to sketch out are so important.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
Lucy Powell
I know that the Minister has spoken to my hon. Friend. His Bill raises an important issue, and I want to see relationship education and all the issues around that extended as far and wide as possible, because it is absolutely critical in the social media age.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Sampford Arundel, Rockwell Green, Thurlbear and Bishop Henderson are just four schools in my constituency that plan their grants on the basis of having the sport premium grant. Now it has been removed, how will they fund sport, and have the Government made any assessment of how many PE teachers are losing their jobs as a result of this change?
Lucy Powell
I want to see sport and PE flourishing in our schools, and that is something I have already spoken about. I am happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss that further.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I welcome the announcements on school meals, but given that young campaigners at Bite Back last week identified that some three quarters of secondary schools do not provide meals that meet Government standards, what can the Minister do to boost enforcement?
Paul Waugh
The updated standards that we have announced today will ensure that school food is delicious, nutritious and practical for schools. I was proud to see Bite Back and a range of sector leaders welcome our standards, and I thank them all for the hard work they do to help schools achieve what we want.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)
We all know that child safeguarding is non-negotiable, so does the Secretary of State share my concern that the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children’s most recent schools briefing appears to put the safety of girls at risk, given that it has removed the express requirement that adult supervisors of pupils getting dressed should be of the same gender or sex? Does the Secretary of State agree that the NSPCC should clarify its guidance to comply with the law so that men and boys have no place in girls’ changing rooms?
Lucy Powell
The Department for Education guidance is clear on this, and it differs from the NSPCC’s, so I refer the right hon. and learned Member to the DFE guidance.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
A new report by the charity Become shows that personal advisers are in some cases supervising up to 46 young care leavers each. These are the people who can make the difference between young people setting out into adulthood well or feeling completely on their own. Will the Minister therefore commit not just to reviewing the support, but to a funded national strategy and a cap on caseloads, so that no care leaver in Southampton or anywhere in this country has to face adulthood alone?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
I welcome Become’s report, which builds on the review into the early deaths of care leavers that I commissioned a few months ago. I would like to thank Ashley John-Baptiste and Clare Chamberlain for their important work in bringing to the country’s attention the tragic number of young care leavers who die far too young. That transition to adulthood is an important moment to get right. PAs play a crucial role in that. We are looking at additional training for PAs and also at changing the regulation that sits around them, so we can set a higher expectation.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I have been contacted by students, parents and teachers in my constituency telling me that the cost of transport is a key barrier to accessing education and other opportunities. A 19-year-old told me recently that it costs her more than £9 for a return fare to the county town of Hereford, and Hereford sixth-form college has told me that 21 young people dropped out last year because of transport problems. Does the Secretary of State recognise that the cost of travel is a big barrier to accessing education, training and work? Will she work with Cabinet colleagues and the Treasury to implement free bus travel for all young people, in order to invest in them?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Member raises an important issue, and she is absolutely spot on. I have seen the difference in Greater Manchester of the former mayor’s “Our pass”, which is still there to give free travel to 16 to 19-year-olds. I have also seen the difference it made over August for all young people to have free travel then. She can rest assured that the Prime Minister is making the cost of bus travel, particularly for young people, an absolute priority, and I will continue to work with Cabinet colleagues on it.
Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)
In Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven we are lucky enough to have two brilliant universities. Both are trying everything they can to adapt to the funding pressures they are under, but it still means that the University of Sussex is making cuts of £35 million a year, and just this morning the University of Brighton announced plans to potentially sell one of its campuses. What can the Secretary of State do to reassure me and give hope to students and staff at the universities that we will get a grip of the funding crisis that we inherited from the last Government and make universities thrive?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has fantastic universities in his constituency. I am worried about the pressures facing higher education funding and am looking at these issues closely. As he will know, they are autonomous organisations, but I am doing what I can with Cabinet colleagues to make people aware of the precarious nature of the situation.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Students on the Manhood peninsula in my constituency have no access to post-16 education unless they travel into the city to go to the brilliant Chichester college, and those parents who are paying for a student’s bus fare are struggling to find, on average, £1,200 a year to get them there. Given that it is estimated that one in five students is not in regular education even though they are signed up for college, what steps can the Secretary of State take to make sure that all those living in coastal areas can access post-16 education, and that parents can afford to get them there?
Lucy Powell
I absolutely hear the hon. Lady. I know how closely related transport and its costs are with young people having access to the education and training that they need. Rest assured, this is a priority for the Government.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
A constituent’s 11-year-old autistic daughter attempted suicide last year, and she continues to experience severe anxiety and autistic burnout. The family still have no clarity about her education provision for this new term. Will the Government ensure that schools are able to offer placements to children like my constituent’s daughter only when they have the staffing expertise, resource and specialist support necessary to meet that child’s identified needs?
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
I am deeply sorry to hear about the experience of my hon. Friend’s constituent; nobody should have to go through that. We want every school to be an inclusive school, in which there teachers are trained and there are experts on hand to support children, so that no one is in that position in future.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
Will the Secretary of State for Education join me in commending my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman) on her proposal that every school in the land should fly the Union flag every day of the year, and that every school should sing the national anthem at assembly at least once a week? Is that not a policy that the Government could implement now, instead of waiting for a Reform UK Government to implement it?
Lucy Powell
I miss the exchanges that I had with the hon. Gentleman when I was Leader of the House, but now that he is in his new place, I look forward to having them again. This is obviously a matter for headteachers to decide for their schools, and I am all for headteacher autonomy. British values absolutely run right through our curriculum, like the words running through a stick of rock. We can see that British values are right at the heart of it, and I am very proud of that.
Speciality Steel UK
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
With permission, I shall make a statement on Speciality Steel UK, but before I do so, I would like to say that I know the thoughts of the whole House will be with the Prime Minister following the passing of his father Roy earlier today.
The workers at Speciality Steel UK have faced years of uncertainty. The plants have been mothballed and the jobs furloughed for several years. This outrageous situation is a monument to years of neglect by successive Conservative Governments who let this industry decline, but this Government and I have taken a different approach. We have done all we can to rebuild the sector, and we have confronted its challenges head-on. In the case of Speciality Steel, complex ownership structures and opaque financing arrangements have amplified the headwinds of the wider sector. I do not need to remind the House about this case’s links to a prominent ongoing corporate scandal involving a former Conservative Prime Minister.
As the House may recall, Speciality Steel UK entered liquidation in August last year, with the independent court-appointed official receiver managing the liquidation process. Since then, the Government have provided funding to enable the official receiver to carry out his statutory duties, including maintaining site safety, supporting employees and conducting a sales process for the business and its assets. Throughout that period, our priority has been facilitating a private sector solution. The official receiver engaged with a range of interested parties and earlier this year identified a preferred bidder. That bidder subsequently requested Government support to make its purchase of Speciality Steel UK possible. However, following extensive engagement between the bidder and its advisers, and having done all the due diligence and given the case the consideration that taxpayers would expect, the Government have decided that they cannot provide support on the proposed terms.
This decision has not been taken lightly. For over a year, we have funded the official receiver process, while working constructively on efforts to secure a private buyer. We took a long, hard look at the offer that was on the table, but the truth is that we had serious concerns about the proposed financing of it, the protections for UK taxpayers, and whether it could offer long-term stability for the local economy and community. Having concluded that we cannot support the preferred bidder’s proposal, we are faced with a choice: we can allow events to take their course through the liquidation process, and risk being left with no say in the future of the sites, or we can act. This Government choose to act.
We have made a commitment to reindustrialise Britain—to bring good growth to every postcode of our country. Backing the proud communities of Stocksbridge, Rotherham, Wednesbury and Brinsworth is absolutely part of that commitment. These workers and those across the wider business have endured a prolonged period of uncertainty. The Government cannot accept the prospect of another prolonged process that will create more worry and anxiety for workers, deter businesses and hang over the local community. Nor can we accept a situation in which decisions impacting the future of communities in South Yorkshire are effectively taken by default, rather than through a deliberate assessment of what will best support growth, opportunity and prosperity in the years ahead.
We will therefore engage with the official receiver’s sale process and develop a proposal for the public acquisition of SSUK. This will preserve strategic control and ensure that all credible future opportunities can be properly considered before irreversible decisions are taken. We are taking this step because SSUK occupies a unique place in the UK’s steel ecosystem. It offers specialist capabilities that have served advanced manufacturing supply chains, including in aerospace and defence. In other words, it is capable of supplying the growth-driving sectors of our economy—those that we have committed to supporting through our industrial strategy. SSUK’s strategic value extends well beyond its economic contribution. It lies in its specialist steelmaking capabilities, which have historically produced products like aircraft landing gear, helicopter rotors, missiles and munitions. It would not be right to let this go by default.
I want to make an important clarifying point: we will work towards public acquisition, but that is not the end of the process, or the end of the conversation about the long-term future of the business and its sites. It means that we are keeping our options open while Government, local leaders, industry experts, private investors, workers and other partners consider what is best for these strategically important locations.
I want to thank those Members of this House with SSUK sites in their constituencies for their engagement with my Department, and I welcome their continued input. That includes my right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), and my hon. Friends the Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), and for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance). I recognise the role played by the Mayor of South Yorkshire, Oliver Coppard, and his team in ensuring a joined-up vision for the future of South Yorkshire. I welcome the work that I know we will do in lockstep to deliver this future.
Working towards public acquisition will create the time and space necessary for undertaking a full assessment of the opportunities available. It will let us consider future industrial use, regeneration opportunities and the role that specialist manufacturing capabilities could play in supporting growth and our national resilience. One option that will be assessed carefully is the future of speciality steel production. However, we are not prejudging the outcome of that assessment. All options will be considered rigorously against their economic and industrial benefits, their impact on regional growth and their value for money. I should note that all future decisions and spending commitments will be subject to detailed due diligence and funded from existing Government budgets.
Our announcement today must also be seen in the wider context of the Government’s commitment to the future of the British steel industry. Steel remains fundamental to our economy, our infrastructure, our energy system, our advanced manufacturing base and our national security. It underpins critical supply chains and supports thousands of skilled jobs across the United Kingdom. That is why we nationalised British Steel earlier this year; why we intervened to secure stability and maintain production at the site while we develop long-term options; and why we secured a better deal for the steel communities of south Wales, with £500 million of Government support for a new electric arc furnace at Port Talbot.
In our steel strategy, we committed to stabilising and rebuilding the steel sector. What is more, we set out a goal of supporting productive and profitable steel producers that can meet their customers’ needs, strengthen our national security and provide high-quality, secure, long-term jobs, backed by private investment. That was not an empty promise or wishful thinking. We have acted to tackle the challenge posed by global steel overcapacity through trade measures that protect our domestic production from unfair pressure and support the viability of the nation’s steelmaking.
I want to speak directly to the workers of Speciality Steel UK, who have been stuck on furlough, unable to do the jobs of which they are so rightly proud, through no fault of their own. I know that they feel ignored and let down by previous Governments, but as Business Secretary, I will not duck these difficult decisions, and neither will this Government. I will do all that I can to secure a bright future for you, your communities and your families.
Taken together, these actions demonstrate that this Government are serious about reindustrialising Britain, and the steel sector playing its part. We want to attract private investment, strengthen domestic supply chains and ensure that industrial communities have a genuine opportunity to thrive in the decades ahead. That is why we are moving towards the public acquisition of Speciality Steel UK. As ever, I commit to keeping all Members informed as this important work progresses. I commend this statement to the House.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
On behalf of Conservative Members, I send my thoughts to the Prime Minister, following the tragic passing of his father.
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. In her statement to the House following the insolvency of Speciality Steel UK in September last year, the then Minister for Industry, the hon. Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), stated that the Government would pursue every avenue to keep the company’s sites producing, as part of the Government’s wider work to grow a resilient domestic steel industry. We can all agree that the compulsory winding-up order against Liberty Speciality Steels created a great deal of uncertainty, especially for the more than 1,000 workers employed there. I am keen to hear how the Government have kept their promise to stand by the entire workforce throughout this process, including while overseeing bids to sell former assets. Will any redundancies follow nationalisation?
However, continuous operational failures have already pushed businesses into a state of chronic uncertainty; a failure to file accounts for more than six years led to a separate prosecution by Companies House, and there was an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office into suspected fraud, fraudulent trading and money laundering. The Secretary of State said that the official receiver wanted to gain a better understanding of the company’s business and the conduct of its directors in the period leading up to the liquidation. Can he give an update on any investigations into conduct that the Government have undertaken, and on any steps taken to recover money belonging either to the business or to the British taxpayer?
Despite the rhetoric about the Government supporting the UK steel industry, all that the industry has experienced is increased pressure and apprehension. From the steel strategy, which is likely to lead to ever higher costs for taxpayers, to the introduction of the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism, which fatally weakens our national resilience, the survivability of steel producers is becoming more difficult. Indeed, a manufacturer in my constituency told me some months ago that it will likely dissolve by Christmas if the Government do not change course.
Energy prices are also a significant hurdle for steel plants. The Government’s Clean Power 2030 action plan risks making things worse; it could force rapid change without ensuring the infrastructure or investment to support it, while increasing costs for manufacturers and threatening jobs in key industrial communities. Nearly 92% of global steel production faces no comparable carbon pricing. Only the UK, the EU, Canada and New Zealand, covering just 8% of global output, apply prices in the £30 to £70 per tonne range, but we expect our industry to compete with countries that pay a fraction of that, or nothing at all.
The Secretary of State will say that the Government are helping to address the burden of high bills for manufacturers via the British industrial competitiveness scheme, but unfortunately their efforts are too little, too late. Having a strong steel industry is vital to our national security and resilience. Traditional bulk commodity steelmaking is vital to our national infrastructure, and modern advanced steel manufacturing is a vital foundation for sectors such as aerospace, defence, nuclear and automotive, all of which are critical, given rising geopolitical tensions. I understand that another issue facing Speciality Steel UK was having the capital to buy raw materials that would allow the continued production of advanced steels, such as the landing gears produced at Stocksbridge. Could the Government therefore outline what support has been given to maintain site operation through this process, and whether advanced steel manufacturing will be a priority following nationalisation?
Circling back to the Government’s commitment to pursue every avenue, can the Minister explain how much consideration has been given to private investment as a solution? How much was spent on private sector solutions before the decision to nationalise, and what was the main basis for that decision? Considering that a preferred bidder had been identified, it is surprising that the Government have moved away from this completely. Indeed, at the Business and Trade Committee on 22 June, the Department’s director for materials and industry noted that “significant investment” was required, and stressed that the majority of this should come from the private sector. Other than a new Prime Minister who is ideologically committed to nationalisation, what has changed? Will the Minister outline the terms asked for by the private bidder that the Government were not willing to agree to? If the business has unique capabilities and demand is there for its products, does that not imply that the barrier to a viable private sector buyer is either the Government’s own ideological obsession with nationalisation, or an economic climate in which it is increasingly impossible to run a successful manufacturing business in Britain?
Jonathan Reynolds
I thank the shadow Minister for his response. I particularly appreciate his words for the Prime Minister, which I know he will appreciate, as will his family.
The shadow Minister began with a long list of neglect regarding the policy, operations and ownership of this particular set of steel businesses. The obvious question is why the Conservatives did not do anything about it when they were in power—it certainly was not for want of requests to act from Labour Members. He has asked for reassurances about the workforce, and I am happy to give those to him. The cost of funding the official receiver, both to date and ongoing, is essentially the wages of the staff. They are in a position where they will be paid, which is paramount.
The shadow Minister talked about the business environment. I say politely to all Conservative colleagues that they left us with the highest industrial energy prices in the developed world. That was the legacy—it is not due to any policy changes made by Labour. What do our industrial subsidies mean? For a sector such as steel, where an electric arc furnace is obviously incredibly energy intensive, the supercharger package—not the BICS package, because the supercharger package applies in this case—will bring down average electricity prices from approximately £168 per megawatt-hour to £86 per megawatt-hour. It is not just about being competitive with peers; that is a genuinely competitive position with our rivals. We introduced those subsidies because we were aware that the business environment we inherited from the Conservative party was not satisfactory. We had to act, which is why we have done so.
Turning to wider measures, yes, we have activated a substantial trade defence policy. That is not just about maintaining domestic production; it is about being a country where the rules of the game apply. If we want people to be based here in the UK, they have to be able to take advantage of effective trade remedies when they are facing unfair competition. I know that that is an issue for the downstream users, but it is the position that I think the country has to take. What the shadow Minister has said about carbon border adjustment mechanisms is, I think, a new policy since I was last Secretary of State—the Conservatives are perhaps disowning the policies they had at the end of the last Government, because they were certainly committed to CBAMs then. Of course, CBAMs are fundamentally about trying to maintain fair competition between carbon-intensive sectors in developed countries such as ours and the rest of the world, so there is a little bit of incoherence there, to say the least.
On the issue of working capital, the opportunity presented to us by Speciality Steel UK is that previously, the business only produced when the customer effectively supplied working capital—a highly irregular position, but one reflective of the opaque and byzantine financing arrangements under the previous owners. I believe the opportunity exists to operate a successful business in this space. There is nothing ideological about this; my ideal is for the business to be run in the private sector. The shadow Minister has asked why we could not take forward the preferred bidder. I will not go into the details, but when I come to this Dispatch Box I have to be satisfied that any public support given meets the reasonable conditions we would expect, such as that taxpayer money will be protected and will not be spent without delivering the outcome for which it has been granted. If I cannot do that, I cannot grant that subsidy, which I think is the position any Secretary of State would have to take.
What is the barrier to a private sector solution? Effectively, it is risk—the fact that this was left so long without activity from the Conservative Government and the workforce have not been making steel. The customers are therefore in a position where that is a big, substantial challenge for any private sector entity to take on. If we do end up with a public ownership position, I think the state will be better able to take on that challenge, but it is the legacy of neglect that has been the barrier. That is exactly what this Government are determined to resolve.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Today is a really good day. I have been in this Chamber for more than a decade, watching my industry being allowed to wither on the vine. Secretary of State, a huge thank you to you for understanding the potential in the Rotherham, Brinsworth, and Stocksbridge sites, which work hand in hand. It is not just about the sites themselves, but the infrastructure around them. We have a whole supply chain that needs these sites back and running again. Of course, this is green steel, or recycled steel, so it fits exactly with the Government’s industrial strategy—it is the linchpin.
Secretary of State, thank you for continuing the pay so far and thank you for committing to continue it for the next six months. Can he also speak a little about the training that the staff will get? While they are grateful to be furloughed, they want to be working, and that means that they need to be fit the day that he says we can open the doors. They want to be ready to go. Can he also say a little about product accreditation? Literally every week, I have people from around the country calling in, trying to purchase steel. However, to purchase it, accreditation needs to be in place. Finally, can he speak a little about any anticipated restart costs? I know the workers are doing all they can to maintain the sites, but there are likely to be costs. Today is a good day, and I thank the Secretary of State.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Can all Members look at the Chair when speaking? Sometimes we cannot hear what is said. Also, the Member is not addressing the Secretary of State, but the Chair. It will help us all if we do it that way.
Jonathan Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend for her engagement, her support and her advocacy on behalf of her constituents. This has been and is a difficult situation for them, and it is exactly because of our commitment that we are seeking to resolve things in a favourable way. The work we can now do will have to look at the capacities, the potential for new investment that might be required, the product lines, where the customers are and so forth. The key issue—I am not sure if this has ever been put on the record in Hansard before—is homologation. That is the assets of these sites and the accreditations they have for such a speciality set of products. Those assets are incredibly valuable. Not many parts of the world can produce to the standard that we are talking about. We now have a process—I want that to be as short as possible—where we can assess that. I will remain in close contact with her. I want to be in a position where, if we can take this forward, we can pass that good news on to her constituents.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
First, may I pass on my condolences and those of my party to the Prime Minister on the sad passing of his father? I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. We Liberal Democrats recognise that national security, energy security and food security are all intertwined. Steel is critical to our renewables sector, our defence and our national infrastructure. In a previous debate on this company, we said on the record that nothing should be off the table, and we look forward to receiving further details from the Secretary of State as the process continues.
I have a few questions for the Secretary of State. First, on jobs and the employees, can he offer any further information not just on training, as another hon. Member has raised, but on the timeline by which staff will have more information about what this decision means for them? The Secretary of State highlighted that this process may end up in public acquisition. Is he in a position to say how much that would likely cost the taxpayer? Can he give us a broad estimate or range for how much those costs might be? Related to that, I note that the Secretary of State said that it would be funded through existing budgets. Can he say where that money might come from and whether it might get rediverted from other sources of funding, such as for transport, energy projects or something else?
I have two final questions. We know that the warning lights were flashing for a very long time—the Secretary of State mentioned that himself. Will there be any formal process to look at the lessons learned, both politically and administratively, to make sure that something like this never happens again? Finally, he will know that as well as using domestic steel suppliers for our British procurement, the way to really boost British industry is to have a stronger relationship with Europe, so that British steel can be used throughout supply chains and procurement right across Europe. Will the Government look at strengthening that relationship?
Jonathan Reynolds
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. I entirely endorse what she said about the centrality of steel to security and infrastructure, and, indeed, I echo her words. This is entirely pragmatic. I am seeking to resolve a series of long-running problems, which a great many of my Conservative predecessors—and there were a great many—ignored, considering them to be too difficult. That is the central lesson that I would learn: we have to be willing to confront these hard problems. We might think that we can pass them on to the next person, but that is not serving the country in the way that is required.
Let me now deal with the hon. Lady’s specific questions. I expect this process to take between four and six months, but I want it to be resolved as quickly as possible. I think it important to point out that there are costs either way: there are costs involved in running the business in public ownership, and there would also be costs to the state from the remediation and regeneration, partly because of the legacy of public ownership but also because such big steel industrial sites come with so many issues to resolve if they are remediated that some of that would fall on the Exchequer. If this were a matter of public ownership, we would have to pay off the creditors, reach an accommodation with them, acquire the assets, and then inject some working capital over a period of between one and three years. I would expect the cost of that to be about £350 million, and I would expect something comparable were the option to be regeneration and remediation.
The hon. Lady asked about existing budgets. We knew when we came to power that we needed to pay attention to the steel industry. There was a commitment in our manifesto for £2.5 billion, on top of on top of the £500 million that was granted to Tata in Port Talbot under the previous Government. We have spent some of that, although the lion's share of the sum has gone to British Steel, but the support for Tata has continued. Some of the money has gone on the official receiver process here. We have that existing budget in which to commence this work. These are obviously significant assets, and I think that this is an entirely appropriate use of them.
The hon. Lady also mentioned the relationship with Europe. She will know that when the European Union changed its own trade defence measures on steel, that had some adverse consequences for us. My call to Commissioner Šefčovič was one of my first in the job, for a number of reasons. We talked explicitly about this, and are seeking a resolution specifically on steel, which I believe would be in our interests and those of the European Union.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
I welcome the direction that the Secretary of State has set out today. Wednesbury Bright Bar is part of Speciality Steel UK. It is a specialist steel-finishing plant that produces precision-engineered bright steel bar in the heart of the UK metal-finishing industry area. It is used for automotive and advanced manufacturing across the Black Country and beyond. This is not primary steel production, and it will need a clear strategy separate from that for the primary steel production, which is the business in Rotherham, in Stocksbridge and elsewhere in the country. What specific consideration will the Secretary of State give to securing the long-term future of Wednesbury Bright Bar as part of work towards the public acquisition of Speciality Steel UK, and how will this support the skills, jobs and manufacturing supply chains across the west midlands and beyond?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to the hon. Member for her support and engagement on behalf of her constituents. There is a co-dependency between the four sites in terms of how the business operates, but any long-term consideration, whether in the private or the public sector of the business, will have to include consideration of products, customers and markets if the business is to be run profitably. That will be central to the assessment that we can now make. However, I can give the hon. Member the reassurance that every part of this business clearly has worth—which is why they have been grouped in this way, historically and in a contemporary sense—and, of course, we are seeking the best solution for the workers in all four of the plants.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
We know that Speciality Steel has been severely impacted by high electricity costs, and we know just what that means from people in Scunthorpe, the constituency next to mine, which is a very heavy user of electricity. They are paying 50% more for their electricity than is being paid in France, for instance. However, the Government insist on phasing out the blast furnaces. Once we have electric arcs in Scunthorpe, people there will have to use twice as much electricity, paying much more. Does the Secretary of State agree that we cannot reindustrialise Britain simply through public ownership, but must reduce our energy costs? Will he take steps, over the next year or two, not to worry about green energy and all that, but just to reduce our energy costs to a level roughly equivalent to that in France?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am always grateful for the support of the Father of the House, who has a long-standing interest in all industrial matters. However, I consider myself more obsessed with industrial energy prices than, frankly, any other Member of this House. I am great company when this subject comes up.
On electric arc furnaces—which are the technology in use here and will be, I hope, in Scunthorpe at some point —we already have in place a set of policies that do not just put us on a par with some of our rivals, but actually give us a competitive position. That is the supercharger scheme for the most energy-intensive electricity users. The Father of the House will know that we have also launched, as part of the industrial strategy, the British industrial competitiveness scheme which is about to come into force. In effect, it is a scheme for manufacturers, and again it significantly moves the dial on their competitiveness.
I recognise this issue, but we have done more than previous Governments, and we will continue to do more on it. I agree entirely with the Father of the House’s case, but I think we must recognise the very substantial work that has already gone on. I considered BICS to be the centrepiece of the industrial strategy when we launched it, because it moves the dial so significantly on our competitiveness not just for steel, but across a range of manufacturing sectors.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I acknowledge and thank the Secretary of State for the substantial support given to the steel industry, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) said, is in direct contrast to the Conservatives, who did very little when they were in government. However, he will know of the particular concerns at Llanwern steelworks about the new quota levels for galvanised steel. Can I ask him to acknowledge that, to listen to the concerns of the workers at Llanwern and to tell us what more he is doing?
Jonathan Reynolds
Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend, with whom I have been discussing steel matters in this House for many years. I am aware of the specific challenges at Llanwern. I believe it is a very sound business, and our trade defence measures will directly benefit it. Again, we have to strike a balance. People would sometimes like us to go further in one direction than the other, but this is all part of the support we have given the steel industry. I believe that the downstream use she mentioned will be central to the future of steel production in Wales.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
There is a central inconsistency in the Secretary of State’s argument. He talks about steel as a strategic asset, and I of course agree with that, but so are oil and gas, yet the Government do not seem to be coming forward with any proposals on that sector. He mentioned in his oral statement that the Government are going to pay this from “existing Government budgets”, but in answer to a question, he said that the money would possibly “fall on the Exchequer”, so how much is this going to cost? He also mentioned that he would prefer for the business to remain in the private sector, which is encouraging to hear, so does he have an indicative timetable for when it might go back on the market and be sold?
Jonathan Reynolds
The right hon. Member will understand that I will not comment on matters pertaining to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, but stick to the considerable number of issues in the domain of BIST. He specifically asked about cost. The cost for the official receiver is £11 million a month, which is in the main to meet the payroll cost of the more than 1,200 members of staff that the sites employ. That is what we have done to date, and it is what we will continue to do.
On returning it to the private sector, we first have to see whether there is an opportunity to save this business. That may require public acquisition, as I said in my statement. If we follow the path in that direction, we would have to inject working capital—the process can now ascertain what that sum of money would be—to make the products and the business plan attractive and enable a return to the private sector, but that is a long way down the road. If we put in public money, I would want a return for that public money. I am more than willing—keen, in fact—to see this business return to the private sector, but if we put in public money to turn it around, I would obviously want to protect that money. I think is an entirely pragmatic and reasonable consideration.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I welcome this statement, which shows a Labour Government once again stepping in to protect jobs and protect our specialist steel industry. What steps will the Government take to get this steelmaking business back up and running, and what intervention will they be making with those in the downstream sector to support them to buy British wherever possible?
Jonathan Reynolds
The process to date has in effect been working with potential private sector bidders on the viability of their plans. That task is entirely different from what we can do now, which is essentially to assess whether there is a viable future for this business under public acquisition. If there is—and, again, the strength of the products and the history of these sites are well known, as we have discussed in the House today—the opportunity would present itself to return to steel production.
My hon. Friend mentions the changes to procurement, and yes, there have been considerable changes to what we can do. In the main, I would say that when steel products are made in the UK, they do tend to be purchased in the UK. There is a significant export side to the UK business, but they are in the main purchased around that. Historically, the problem has been goods and products that we do not make in the UK and have had to import. Again, I think there are gaps in the market in that regard.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
I congratulate the Government on making the decision to take Speciality Steel UK into public ownership, but the truth is that it should have been taken earlier. The preferred bidder was never going to perform. It has never made any steel, it did not have any money, it was seeking aggressive financing and it was using an investment adviser who fundamentally failed. I am troubled that the Government are now using the same investment adviser to advise them on British Steel. I urge the Government and the Secretary of State, who are doing the right thing with steel, to come up with a combined vision for Speciality Steel UK and British Steel. Merge them, invest in them, get the working capital going and get the production going. That will make it viable, that will get the cash flow positive again and that is in the strategic national interest.
Jonathan Reynolds
I welcome the support from the hon. Gentleman for the decisive action we are taking. On his point about potentially combining British Steel and, if it were acquired in the public interest, Speciality Steel UK, I urge caution in that regard. The job required at Scunthorpe and Teesside for British Steel is in itself a significant industrial transformation. Not many transformations of this kind or scale have actually been done in Europe. What Tata Steel is doing with us in Port Talbot is a significant example of that. This is another set of issues. I think the House is aware that a different set of factors that really pertain to ownership have led us to this situation, so there are two distinct problems. We are taking action on both, but they are distinct and I would not at this stage recommend the bringing together of those two things. That is too big a task. We are better served by looking at them as distinct things to solve.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his positive announcement. Downstream businesses in Stourbridge, Brierley Hill and Netherton used to source many items from Speciality Steel UK. I spent a lot of time working with it and the Department and Ministers to update product codes ahead of the tariff that Spain introduced. I am grateful for their engagement during that time. I understand that the upscaling of production will take time, but will he commit to continuing to work with the industry as the products come back online in the UK, so that none of the businesses in my constituency or elsewhere in the country are unfairly penalised?
Jonathan Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend for her support and for her question. My ideal is that I want steelworkers making steel. I do not think that is complicated, but it has been too complicated to date. All we are seeking is a chance for those proud people to return to the jobs that they so love and which have defined their communities for so many years. It will not be easy. I am grateful for the support across the House today, but it will not be easy. We are deliberately taking on this challenge rather than ignoring it and walking away, as I believe other Governments have done. I will remain closely engaged with her on the question she raises about how best to do that.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
In his reference to the wider steel industry in his statement, the Secretary of State mentioned Scunthorpe. He knows that I have consistently supported the Government in the actions they have taken to keep the works going. I think he is a little too eager to criticise the previous Government; I gently remind him that for about 18 months they paid the wages and the bills at Scunthorpe to keep the jobs there. I appreciate that we get written statements, but when does he anticipate being able to come to the House and give an oral statement about the future of Scunthorpe?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He and I have discussed this issue many times. I remember calling him to tell him that we were about to recall Parliament at that particularly significant time for the site at Scunthorpe. I am always aware of his substantial constituency interest. We will rekindle that relationship, if that is the right terminology. He will have seen that we have just appointed a chair of British Steel. I am eager to crack on with the work that is required on a transformational plan for Scunthorpe. As soon as I have substantive information to share, I am always happy to come to the House to talk about steel. If he has any specific questions, he knows that he can contact me directly and I will always seek to give him the answers he needs.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his support for domestic steelmaking. People do not often think of Monmouthshire as a steelmaking community, but we have excellent downstream steelmaking companies and hundreds of workers going every day to Llanwern, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden). Will the Secretary of State share what the Government are doing to support downstream steel and to ensure that we are buying more Welsh steel in all UK projects and construction that are undertaken?
Jonathan Reynolds
The quality of the downstream products we create in the UK, particularly in Wales, is well known, but there are gaps in the market. I often compare the level of domestic consumption in most European countries to where we are with domestic production in the UK, and there are clearly gaps in that market. That has always been about the need to improve the business environment, so that the sector can work constructively with the Government to provide the public-private capex solutions that we have seen a lot of across Europe but have not seen many of in the UK. I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to all colleagues who make the case for what is, I believe, a business and a sector fundamentally important to the UK.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The Secretary of State mentioned the wider steel sector in his statement. I raise the issues experienced by Fowler and Gilbert and EverEdge in my constituency, both of which manufacture steel products and have been impacted by quotas and tariffs on steel imports. That is particularly the case with materials not produced in the UK, because it essentially adds a manufacturing tax to the work that they do. While their raw material costs are rising, there are no equivalent restrictions on imported finished products, particularly low-quality and low-cost imports from China. Those businesses face a situation where it is cheaper to import from overseas than to manufacture in the UK. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the concerns of those businesses, which are significant local employers in my constituency, and to find a solution that works for the whole steel sector?
Jonathan Reynolds
I acknowledge the issues that the hon. Lady raises. She knows that our trade defence measures are a necessary response to global over-production. It is a problem that every Trade, Commerce and Business Minister around the world must grapple with. The role of our trade defence measures is to provide a level playing field for domestic production. If the hon. Lady believes that there is inconsistency with the products that are needed in her constituency, we are happy to meet her to take the matter forward. There is sometimes misalignment between certain product codes and trade defence measures. However, I genuinely believe that there is a consensus across the House that we have to be a country that is willing to intervene sometimes to ensure that there is a level playing field, both for the sectors directly affected and because, frankly, no one would base their business here if they thought it could be wiped out by the unfair competition that, I am afraid, is sometimes a feature of the global economy.
Pamela Nash (Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s action to secure the Speciality Steel UK sites in England. The Secretary of State is aware that the workforce in Motherwell’s Dalzell plate mill have been repeatedly and sorely let down by Speciality Steel, which has left the site underfunded and unable to carry out contracts. The workforce have also been let down by the SNP Government, which sold the site to those cowboys in the first place and then left the playing field. Dalzell was part of British Steel; that plate mill is the jigsaw piece that completes our steel offering in the UK. It makes sense for it to be brought back into the fold as soon as possible. Will the Secretary of State confirm to the House that he will take all necessary actions to save Dalzell and get it up and running again, ensuring that growth in every postcode includes ML1?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her advocacy on behalf of her constituents. She and I have discussed the matter several times. For colleagues who are less aware of the issue, Dalzell is a separate legal entity and company from Speciality Steel and thus separate from the full plans that we are talking about. Dalzell is still owned by the Gupta Family Group, but many of the same issues are found there. My hon. Friend knows that because that part of the business is not being run by the official receiver—it is a different set of circumstances—with any interest that we had, we would have to establish the level of liability, and the flow of public money that would be required, given the former associations that it has. We do not have current plans to do that, but we will remain closely engaged with my hon. Friend. I know that her constituents want to be back at work, and I share their frustration, but the House should be aware that Dalzell is in a different position from the rest of SSUK.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
I wish to pass on my party’s condolences to the Prime Minister and his family.
While recognising the £500 million transition fund to Port Talbot, there are real concerns that Welsh steel will not receive a fair share of the £2.5 billion steel fund. Today the Secretary of State has announced that the public acquisition of Speciality Steel will be funded from that steel fund. Can the Secretary of State reassure the Welsh steel sector that Wales will get its fair share of the steel fund following today’s announcement?
Jonathan Reynolds
Yes. On both a per capita basis and on a straightforward cash basis, Wales had until fairly recently had the lion’s share—the biggest allocations —from Government because of the significance of the transformation programme at Port Talbot, which remains a fundamental part of the steel sector across the UK. Being frank, it is also one of the sector’s success stories: the transformation of Port Talbot is a major project supported by significant public money and significant private capital, and it is exactly the kind of transformation we are seeking in other parts of the UK. It is to the credit of the workforce at Port Talbot that they are at the forefront of this; notwithstanding the difficult issues involved in such a transformation, it is something to be proud of.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Does he agree that workers and communities are ultimately paying the price for the reckless conduct associated with Lex Greensill and those who championed his business model, and that this Government are now stepping in with the leadership that was previously so lacking?
Jonathan Reynolds
My hon. Friend tempts me to comment on certain issues, which I might swerve a little. He is right to say that the priority for politicians should be trying to resolve these issues and get steelworkers back to work, and anything that detracts from that or that goes in a different direction is deeply regrettable.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his responses. For businesses in Northern Ireland that rely on imported steel from large producers such as Speciality Steel, these changes create a significant risk of increasing costs, forced changes to suppliers and disruption to supply chains. Steel is a critical input for Northern Ireland, contributing to some 10% of our workforce, and the potential consequences for manufacturing, construction and engineering industries in Northern Ireland are significant. Does the Secretary of State agree that every effort must be made to ensure that Northern Ireland is not economically cut off by steel import arrangements protection for GB, and that this must not be at a cost to businesses in Northern Ireland?
Jonathan Reynolds
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that historically these plants have served a number of first-class manufacturers and engineering works in Northern Ireland, although they have not been doing so to date, as the workforce has been furloughed and the plants have not been operating. I would love to rekindle that relationship and see these issues resolved—that is the focus of the statement and the decisive action that the Government have taken.
On the wider complexities of steel imports and the movement of steel products between Northern Ireland and the island of Great Britain, that is a complex situation that reflects the Windsor agreement. There are things, particularly in the reset of the Government’s relationship with the EU, that Northern Ireland stands to gain from, and this is one of those areas. Again, that is a priority for the Government to resolve.
Robert Hamill Inquiry Report
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Bryant)
I too pass on my condolences to the Prime Minister on the death of his father. I am enormously grateful to the First Minister of Northern Ireland, Michelle O’Neill, who texted me a few moments ago to pass on her heartfelt sympathy as well. I am sure that all hon. Members will want to share in that.
With permission, I will make a statement on the Robert Hamill inquiry report, which is published today. I start by paying tribute to the extraordinary grace and honour that Robert Hamill’s family have shown in the 29 years since he was murdered. It is hard enough to grieve the death of a loved one; it is even harder to grieve a loved one who was violently assaulted and brutally murdered; it is even worse to grieve a loved one without clear and coherent answers about the circumstances of their death for years and years. Many victims of the troubles have told me of the pain that gnaws away at them because they have no answers. Today will be particularly difficult for Robert’s family, so I send them my heartfelt sympathy and, I am sure, the sympathy of the whole House.
The facts are bleak. At about 1.20 am on Sunday 27 April 1997, a 25-year-old Catholic man, Robert Hamill, a father of three, left a dance at St Patrick’s hall on Thomas Street, Portadown, and walked with others towards the junction with High Street and Market Street, where Royal Ulster Constabulary officers were in a parked RUC Land Rover. There, a group of Protestants attacked Robert and left him with such injuries to the head that he never recovered consciousness, and he died in hospital 11 days later on 8 May 1997.
The inquiry is clear:
“Robert Hamill suffered head trauma either shortly after that violence broke out or a little later when…Protestant youths kicked him while he was on the ground. The trauma included axonal injury, in particular in the brain stem. We find that those injuries directly caused his death.”
The inquiry refers to there being at least three blows to the head and states:
“Robert Hamill’s death was murder, because those who assaulted him must have at least intended to cause serious injury to him.”
The people who attacked Robert did not know him. Robert had done nothing to provoke such a vicious and violent attack. He was killed simply for being who he was. To put it bluntly, he was killed solely because he was Catholic. I cannot imagine the pain felt by his family and his companions that day, who were clearly outnumbered as they watched him lying on the pavement.
The intervening years have been plagued by delay. Following the Weston Park talks in 2001, the retired Canadian judge Justice Peter Cory examined six cases and recommended that a public inquiry be launched into Robert’s death, which was then established in November 2004, chaired by Justice Sir Edwin Jowitt. He completed his work in 2011, but the Government committed not to publish the report until ongoing criminal proceedings had been exhausted. These ended on 14 June 2024 with the conviction of former RUC officer Robert Atkinson for his role in failing to properly investigate the incident and for perverting the course of justice. Given the passage of time and Sir Edwin’s health, a new chair was appointed: Sir John Evans, a member of the panel.
I am pleased that Sir John’s report is finally published today, but I fully acknowledge the significant delay, which is through no fault of the inquiry. That delay— 15 years from completion to publication—is far too long and has no doubt caused family members additional frustration and anguish. I truly regret that.
The inquiry’s terms of reference did not include attributing responsibility for Robert’s murder, but addresses two areas of public concern regarding the conduct of the Royal Ulster Constabulary: first, whether the officers in the Land Rover were in any way responsible for Robert Hamill’s death; and, secondly, whether the subsequent investigation into his murder was inhibited by any wrongful act or omission on the part of the RUC.
The inquiry finds that although RUC Land Rover crew parked near to the outbreak of violence were distracted talking to two members of the public, this did not facilitate Robert Hamill’s death. It also finds that the officers in the Land Rover were not guilty of any wrongful act or omission in relation to the death of Robert Hamill. This last point was not the unanimous view of the inquiry panel, as the former chair Sir Edwin Jowitt expressed a dissenting view that the officers were guilty of omission by not keeping watch. The report also finds that the officers did not in any way condone or collude with the attackers.
However, on the second area of public concern, the inquiry findings are disturbing. They conclude that RUC officers were guilty of wrongful omissions and that those omissions arose both at the scene and during the initial investigation between 27 April 1997 and 7 May 1997. Those omissions included, first, a failure to carry out an initial debriefing, both at the scene and immediately upon return to the police station, with multiple officers finishing their shifts or going on to other duties without recording what had happened. This had a serious and significant impact on the murder investigation, and these omissions were negligent. Secondly, there was a failure to carry out a full debriefing of all officers who had been at the scene once it became clear that Robert Hamill’s injuries were life-threatening. This omission was negligent. Thirdly, there was a wrongful omission by two officers to supply relevant information in relation to an individual they had seen at the scene. This inhibited and obstructed the investigation and was, in the case of one officer, negligent, and in the case of the other, deliberate.
The inquiry finds that one RUC officer, Robert Atkinson, is guilty of a wrongful act for making a telephone call to the home of Allister Hanvey, who was present the night of the incident, which resulted in that individual destroying or putting beyond the reach of the police the clothes he had been wearing that night. That deliberately obstructed the investigation. In September and October 1997, Mr Atkinson subsequently conspired to cover up the tip-off telephone call at an important point in the murder investigation. The conspiracy amounted to an obstruction of the murder investigation and was deliberate. That conduct resulted in the conviction of Mr Atkinson in 2024 for conspiring to pervert the course of justice.
The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Jon Boutcher, will want to reflect on the report’s findings, and I do not want to pre-empt any comment that he may make. I note that policing and justice are now devolved responsibilities, but these events happened under the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I merely say that it is especially disturbing that Mr Atkinson carried an RUC badge for years when he had so evidently and heinously failed in his duty and acted as a criminal.
The report says that there was a “catalogue of failures” by the RUC. It is difficult not to agree. The inquiry was empowered to make recommendations. Although it makes none for the Northern Ireland Office or the Government, I will make a couple of broader points. First, today is a landmark moment, and I am proud to be the Secretary of State who can finally share the report with the House, but it is also a reminder to all of us of the long shadow of the troubles and its deep and lasting effect on the people of Northern Ireland and beyond. We must never forget that many other families still wait and yearn for answers about how their loved ones were killed.
My second point is that the peace that was ushered in by the Belfast/Good Friday agreement the year after Robert’s death was an extraordinary achievement. Power sharing is difficult, but we should never take that peace for granted. After all, Robert’s death happened against the background of deep sectarian division. Nobody wants to return to that. That is why, to seek a more harmonious way forward, we must always double down on compromise and rise above our immediate instincts.
I thank the current and former chairs of the inquiry, Sir John Evans and the late Sir Edwin Jowitt, the Reverend Baroness Kathleen Richardson and all those who played a part in its delivery, including Paul Murphy—now Lord Murphy—who commissioned the report. I will lay a copy of the report in the Libraries of both Houses, and it will be published in full online.
This will be a difficult day for Robert Hamill’s family. He would have been coming up to his 55th birthday in December—he was younger than me. He might have become a grandfather or a great uncle by now, but he was murdered just for being a Catholic. We all pay our heartfelt respects to him and his family.
I end by noting one of the final paragraphs of the report:
“The murder file is still open and to this day no one has been convicted of causing Robert Hamill’s death.”
I commend this statement to the House.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and I echo his opening remarks. I pass on my own condolences to the Prime Minister and my deepest sympathies to the Hamill family on this most challenging of days.
The killing of Robert Hamill was a tragedy, and the Opposition condemn all heinous sectarian violence. Robert Hamill was beaten to death in his own town. His death should never have happened, and his killers should be brought to justice. His family have been waiting 29 years, and Sir Edwin Jowitt did not live to see his own report published. This inquiry took too long.
It has long been argued by some that the police did nothing to prevent Mr Hamill’s murder, and yet the report found:
“In the event…we have found no wrongful act or omission which facilitated Robert Hamill’s death.”
The failings of the police were because of a lack of due diligence; there was no overarching conspiracy in the events that led up to his death. The report highlights police failures of investigation, which were entirely wrong. The case of Atkinson led to a conviction for perverting the course of justice, and we condemn those actions entirely. We believe that 12 months served is not enough for such a crime. Those in the RUC who shamed themselves dishonour the many thousands of officers who served with integrity, standing between bombs, bullets and civilians. It is clear that the inquiry found that this was a case of negligence and that there was no overall conspiracy in the RUC to prevent a proper investigation. Those who murdered Robert Hamill could still be walking the streets today; we find it deplorable that they have not been brought to justice.
May I take the opportunity to thank all those who have been involved in the report? I would like to ask the Secretary of State a number of questions. First, thousands of people served in the RUC in one of the most difficult policing environments imaginable. Does he agree that the vast majority of them carried out their duties with exemplary skill and bravery and deserve our thanks? Secondly, does he accept that the central finding of the report—that no officer in the Land Rover acted wrongfully —is a majority finding from which the inquiry’s own chairman dissented? Further, how have the Hamill family been supported throughout the process of publication?
This is one of the last of the core inquiries to report. What is the Government’s assessment of what those inquiries have collectively cost, what they have delivered and what they tell us about the inquiry model as a route to legacy truth recovery? This inquiry had cost £33 million by the time it was initially completed in 2011, and it took a further 15 years to reach the public. What lessons do the Government draw for the Omagh bombing inquiry and the inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane? The Finucane inquiry is already behind schedule.
How will the material gathered by the inquiry—more than 20,000 documents and evidence from 174 witnesses —be preserved? Will it be made available to the body now handling legacy cases and to the Public Record Office in Northern Ireland? Finally, do the Government consider the questions raised by the report to be closed by its publication or do they accept that there is unfinished business in relation to the Director of Public Prosecutions’ role, which the family had to go to judicial review to have considered? I finish by joining the Secretary of State in condemning all sectarian violence.
Chris Bryant
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whom I should welcome to his post. The first point I want to make is that something like 300 RUC officers were killed in the troubles. I pay tribute to the many thousands of RUC officers who did their jobs diligently in very difficult circumstances and with great courage and dedication to all communities in Northern Ireland. That is why a report such as this is so painful, including for the many RUC officers who formerly served, because they see the reputation of the organisation brought into disrepute by the actions of some.
When we read the chapter in the report and all the paragraphs about the investigations, and the failings in them, it is difficult not to put our head in our hands and ask how on earth this could be the case. There were manifest failings. As the hon. Member said, the actions of Robert Atkinson were absolutely despicable, and he has rightly been convicted.
When I recently visited the RUC memorial garden in Belfast, I was struck by how there were decades when maybe two or three, or five or six, RUC officers were killed; then there were decades when dozens and dozens were killed. Of course we have to take seriously when there are criticisms of processes and we need to ensure that we get those right. The fact that many of the recommendations for the RUC and the PSNI were made many years ago and have now been implemented is noted. There are not any particular questions or recommendations for the Government to adopt.
The hon. Member asked me about the inquiry cost. He is right that the figure was at something like £33 million and a few more since. I feel a bit conflicted, because on the one hand, in the short time that I have been Secretary of State for Northern Ireland I have met so many people who lost loved ones and have no idea what happened, but I have also met people who see the person they believe killed their brother, their husband or their father going to Marks & Spencer or going about their daily business without ever having been interrupted by the legal system at all. They find that phenomenally painful. I do want to get answers for as many people in Northern Ireland as possible. I also do not want to over-promise, because sometimes—there is an irony about this sentence—the truth is complex and nuanced and depends on whose point of view we take.
I also note the several points in the report where the inquiry panel points out that it would have been able to do more if more people had been able to provide witness statements, but lots of people did not do so because they felt that they were under threat or they were being cajoled into not doing so. All of that makes it very difficult to get to the truth. This is why I am committed to the troubles Bill, and to making sure that it delivers a legacy commission that is able to get to the truth for as many victims as possible.
I often think that one of the things that the Good Friday agreement did was bring an end to the fighting—not immediately, obviously; the hon. Gentleman has referred to the Omagh bombing—but it also meant that lots of people had to try to forget. They were effectively asked to forget what had happened in their own family lives, and they have borne the brunt of that pain for many decades, so the more we can do to provide answers, the better.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Finucane inquiry. He will know that it is starting its processes in earnest this week. Several Governments promised an inquiry, which is why I pay tribute to my predecessor for setting it up. I hope that it will get to the answers.
The hon. Gentleman’s final point was about the DPP. The report says that
“we have come to the firm view that the process by which the decision was reached to discontinue the prosecution of Res Con Atkinson was riddled with significant flaws. We have reached the clear view that it was not carried out with due diligence.”
In fact, subsequent to the interim report, the DPP returned to its original decision to prosecute two people, and that is what led to Mr Atkinson being convicted.
Hilary Benn (Leeds South) (Lab)
I begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend on his appointment as Secretary of State. This is the first chance I have had to do so, and I wish him every success for the future.
This is a shocking story of a young man, Robert Hamill, who was the victim of a sectarian murder, but also the victim of the deliberate decision of a police officer to ring up a suspect a few hours after the murder to warn him to dispose of his clothing, because it might incriminate him, rather than fulfil his duty to uphold the law, and who then lied about it. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is so important finally to tell the truth about what happened during the troubles, if reconciliation in Northern Ireland is to be progressed?
Chris Bryant
First, I warmly commend my right hon. Friend. If I can be as nice, sage, honourable, decent and gentlemanly as he in this role, I will have performed a decent task. He is absolutely right. There is another thing that is absolutely shocking here: there has never been an inquest. In fact, this is the first time that it has been declared that it was murder. That, of itself, is truly shocking. This is not the only case in Northern Ireland where no answers have been provided for individuals. He is absolutely right: the behaviour of Mr Atkinson would shock in a drama, but it is in fact the truth that he deliberately perverted the course of justice. I should say that the inquiry is keen to make the point that deliberate actions are much more blameworthy than casual omissions.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving me early sight of the report and the statement. I want to begin by echoing his tribute to the grace with which the family of Robert Hamill have faced a wait of nearly three decades for answers. Such a lengthy delay in justice is unacceptable, especially in the face of the heinous sectarian violence that resulted in Mr Hamill’s murder simply because he was a Catholic. The Secretary of State acknowledges that the delay in publication of this report was no fault of the inquiry, but because of the understandable decision to wait until proceedings that eventually resulted in the conviction of the former RUC officer, Mr Atkinson, had been concluded.
However, I remain bemused by its taking 13 years for Mr Atkinson to be convicted for his despicable acts regarding the tip-off of one of the suspects in the murder and the subsequent cover-up. That is particularly hard to understand, given that the facts relating to his criminal behaviour were clearly established long before the report was finalised in 2011. Is the Secretary of State able to shed any light on why it took 13 years for these proceedings to be concluded? Furthermore, what actions will the Government take to ensure that future inquiries do not fall foul of procedural pitfalls, to ensure that grieving families are given answers in a timely fashion?
Finally, the report identifies many failures of the Royal Ulster Constabulary with regard to negligence, a lack of due diligence and the failures of inexperienced, untrained officers; however, it also makes a number of recommendations relevant to the PSNI. As policing and justice is now a devolved matter, what role does the Secretary of State envisage for the Northern Ireland Office and himself personally in ensuring that those recommendations are implemented, and the PSNI embodies the values of accountability and transparency that all communities in Northern Ireland have a right to expect?
Chris Bryant
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s comments. It is vital that all those in public office exhibit candour. That is as important for police officers as it is for anybody else, as became painfully apparent throughout the process of trying to get justice for those involved in the Hillsborough disaster. That applies equally to the PSNI as it did to the RUC. The hon. Member is right that these are now primarily matters either for the PSNI directly or for the Justice Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive, and I am sure that they will want to go through the report with a fine-toothed comb.
It is not only that nobody had said until today that this was a murder; nobody had decided on what the cause of death was until today. I urge hon. Members to read the report, because it goes in some detail into precisely what happened, and it makes for very distressing reading.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
I thank the Minister for his very thoughtful statement. I was in sixth year in 1997, and the nightclub that Robert Hamill’s killers were leaving was a haunt of mine and my classmates. I think that is why this murder remains in my memory so viscerally. It was so brutal, so sectarian, and led to so many years of injustice for the family. As happens so often, a proper exploration has uncovered collusion. That has been the case certainly not for all RUC officers, but for far too many. It is painful and difficult for society, but the Minister will know that suppression does not aid the healing and reconciliation that we need.
It is also impossible to ignore the context of that murder, and the 20 other human lives wasted around the time of the Drumcree stand-off in those years. Does the Secretary of State agree that disclosure must be properly addressed in the body that he is currently legislating for, and that it is a bleak, dead-end campaign to reopen wounds as deep as Drumcree?
Chris Bryant
I think everybody wants to condemn sectarianism, but the truth is that it is awfully easy to stir it up, in every society in the world. What is striking in the report is not only some of the terms of abuse that were shouted from one side to the other; a couple of witnesses also referred to the fact that when Robert Hamill’s body was being stretchered into an ambulance, people were shouting, “I hope he dies.” We need to remember the bitterness that sectarianism can instil in people’s hearts, especially when people are gathered in large crowds. Anything that we can do to calm sectarianism is a really important part of my job, and that of all those involved in the politics of Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member makes a very fair point about disclosure. We will talk about the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill in a couple of weeks’ time, and that is one of the issues that we will address.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
This relates directly to my constituency, so I welcome the opportunity to speak to it today. Robert Hamill’s murder was a brutal and appalling crime, and my thoughts are first and foremost with his family, who have many questions, as do many families right across Northern Ireland. But the truth matters, and the truth today is clear. Paragraph 21 finds that four RUC officers
“were not aware of the assault until they got out and they did not in any way condone or collude with attackers.”
Paragraph 75 concludes that
“we have found no wrongful act or omission which facilitated Robert Hamill’s death.”
Put simply, they did not sit idly by, they did not collude, they did not facilitate murder—something that has been hurled at them for the past 30 years.
The complaint, advanced by Rosemary Nelson, has been demolished by the inquiry, which also found that she failed to “co-operate fully” with the RUC and
“did not improve the situation.”
This goes to the heart of the nationalist republican legacy activism, whereby truth and the rule of law are subjective terms to be weaponised to seek to arrive at a predetermined political outcome.
More than 300 RUC officers were murdered while protecting the entire community. Will the Secretary of State now end this decades-long smear, defend these four officers and reject any attempt to rewrite history or attach collective guilt to the RUC?
Chris Bryant
Well, that was a slightly partial version of what is in the report. If the hon. Member read the whole report, I think she would come to a rather more settled position. She is absolutely right that, on the first issue that the inquiry was asked to look at—namely, whether the behaviour of the crew in the Land Rover had in some way contributed to the death—the report is absolutely clear that there was no collusion with the attackers. However, there are quite serious criticisms of the way the investigation was pursued, or was not pursued effectively. Of course, there is the additional issue of how Reserve Constable Atkinson behaved and that whole saga. I think it is best to tell the whole of the story, rather than just part of it.
I did not answer one of the questions that was asked earlier about the support for the family. I spoke very briefly to Diane over the weekend. Of course, the Northern Ireland Office has been in contact with the family throughout the process. In the end, of course, the most important thing is ensuring that the family get the answers they need.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
If people in this House are going to utter Rosemary Nelson’s name, I would expect that they should also call for justice and truth in relation to her case, because—I say this in case people do not realise—she too was killed by loyalists not long after.
The report is clear, and I want to send our message of thanks and good wishes to the Hamill family, who have had to struggle for far too long for the report to be released. It is clear that there were massive failings corporately on behalf of the RUC and in terms of an individual who deliberately went about his business trying to cover up what happened to Robert Hamill. The impact of legacy is clear on the everyday workings of policing in Northern Ireland today. That is why we have to deal with the legacy issue. Those people in this House who do not want to see prosecutions—even the opportunity for prosecutions—for what happened in the past should read this report and listen to the Hamill family today.
We need to remember the context, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said. This happened during a murderous sectarian time that all revolved around the issue of Drumcree. Will he join me in calling for everybody to take a step back, to remember what happened not that long ago, and to try to take us away from using those old issues to stir up hate and sectarianism and potentially much, much worse?
Chris Bryant
It is often very difficult, including for a well-resourced inquiry, to get to the truth. I will read out another clause of the report:
“We are left in no doubt that the decision by so many to have no recollection was by no means always spontaneous but was the result of suggestion, cajolery and in some cases threat. This has added to our difficulties.”
The truth is that sometimes sectarianism leads not just to the murder, but to the cover-up. That is why I am very keen to ensure that we do everything we possibly can to diminish that. There is a Purcell anthem that I used to have to sing a lot when I was at school and at university. It includes the line:
“Let your moderation be known unto all men”.
Perhaps that should be our motto.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I should declare that in a previous life I was one of the defence counsel in the murder case that arose from the shocking death of Robert Hamill. So there was a murder trial and there was a due verdict of not guilty, and we should not forget that either.
May I ask the Secretary of State, after £33 million and more, what is it that we now know from this report that we did not know from the public murder trial, and that we did not know from the public appearances and reporting and trial of Robert Atkinson? We have spent over £33 million, and most of what is in this report was already in the public domain.
Perhaps what was not in the public domain was the fact that the audacious, constant propaganda that the police officers had colluded in the murder has now been wholly debunked, and the report quite properly finds that they did no wrongful act or omission facilitating that murder. That is a big price to pay to arrive at that conclusion and the conclusion that there was no collusion, contrary to the constant refrain of some for almost 30 years. I welcome the fact that that at least has been laid to rest.
Chris Bryant
First, just because nobody has been convicted of murder does not mean that a murder was not committed. Indeed, one of the most painful aspects of all of this is that, clearly, as this report finds for the first time, there was a murder. The cause of death was at least three beatings to the head that Robert Hamill received—possibly two or more being kicks to the head when he was already lying on the ground, and possibly a third from a bottle. It beggars belief that in this country we can all decide that somebody was murdered but nobody ends up facing justice for the murder. I suppose that is one of the pains that arises in many of the cases that we deal with here.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State very much for his answers. For grieving families, the absence of answers prolongs the pain and grief. There is also, of course, a wider public interest in ensuring that legacy cases, such as Robert Hamill’s, are dealt with both efficiently and fairly. But does the Secretary of State appreciate that inquiries and investigations that last for decades continue to place significant demands on police time and resources, and require large sums of public money, and that complex legacy cases can take time to investigate properly, and due process must always be respected?
Chris Bryant
Yes, of course I recognise that, and in addition there is the problem that for the families and for all the witnesses and the many other people, such as those who were there that night, there is the anguish of going through that process—through multiple legal processes, judicial reviews, considerations of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the original report by Justice Cory and then the eventual launching of the inquiry. All of that of course has an emotional cost as well as a financial cost.
I do not want to set the financial cost aside; that is of course a consideration for Government, especially at a difficult time fiscally. But in the end we want to get as many answers as possible for people. I say this as much for the families of the 300 or so RUC officers, or the 1,100 members of the security services who were killed in Northern Ireland, and the families who were killed in whatever set of circumstances in Northern Ireland. That is why I want to make sure that the legacy commission really is able to do the job that we are setting it up to do, and that is why it is important that the troubles Bill goes through its passage.
I would just say one other thing. It is one thing for us in the British Government to be candid; I think it is also important that the Irish Government be candid. That is why it is such an important part of the process that we are undergoing with the troubles Bill that when I have spoken to my opposite numbers in Dublin, Helen McEntee and Jim O’Callaghan, they have been very keen to say that they want to make sure that their necessary legislation, which enables them to participate in the process of providing answers for people and giving information, happens in lockstep with ours so that they will be implemented at the same time. If we can get the two Governments working together to provide answers, there will be many more families who will have—I hate the word “closure”, but they will at least reach a point when they are able to understand that this moment is done.
Point of Order: Rectification Procedure
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Richard Tice on a point of order in connection with the code of conduct to rectify a failure to declare.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to apologise to the House for my failure to declare an interest when participating in a Westminster Hall debate on 22 June 2026, on the topic of pro-Israel influence on UK politics and democracy. When speaking in the debate, I failed to declare the relevant interest, which was that I had been on a visit to Israel between 26 and 30 September 2025, funded by Reform Friends of Israel. Although the trip is properly recorded in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I should have declared it during the speech. That was a breach of the rules and I apologise to this good House.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. There will be no further points of order on that issue.
Bills Presented
Sovereign Grant Bill: Allocation of Time
Sovereign Grant Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill relates to the sovereign grant that Parliament has provided to support the official duties of the monarch and the work of the royal household. The Bill implements the conclusions of the recent royal trustees’ review of that sovereign grant. In doing so, it resets the grant level for the next financial year, giving effect to the commitment of successive Governments and the expectation of the royal household for a reduction in the level of funding following the completion of the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme, which keen Members will have heard about on the news this morning on the back of the discovery of some historical documents.
The Bill also makes targeted improvements to the statutory framework for this funding, introducing limited flexibilities to ensure that funding levels remain appropriate even in exceptional circumstances. This will make it easier to respond where funding would otherwise become inappropriately low or inappropriately high.
To support the monarch’s official duties, the sovereign grant funds the staff, official travel, property maintenance and essential services for the sovereign to fulfil their unique constitutional role. That role extends beyond ceremonial functions: it includes hosting heads of state, supporting diplomatic engagements, representing the United Kingdom overseas, and strengthening our relationships across the Commonwealth and the world. These activities support the UK’s interests, including trade, investment and security. At home, the grant supports the significant role of the sovereign and the wider royal household, from recognising charitable and voluntary service to bringing communities together across the United Kingdom.
Since 2012, the amount of the sovereign grant has been determined through a statutory framework established by Parliament in the Sovereign Grant Act 2011. That framework requires the annual grant amount to be calculated by reference to the previous year’s expenditure and a percentage of the profits of the Crown Estate—an independent public corporation whose net revenue profits are returned to the Exchequer. To ensure that funding levels remain appropriate, the 2011 Act requires the royal trustees—the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Keeper of the Privy Purse—to conduct regular reviews.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister is setting the scene incredibly well. He is right to underline that the British monarchy has clearly been a source of stability across the world, and to say that its unity remains irreplaceable in a world full of division. We acknowledge the ongoing need to review and adjust the sovereign grant, but does he agree that it is vital that the monarchy remains appropriately funded? When he sums up, can he assure us that the monarchy will be funded to effectively fulfil its duty to this country, the great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Torsten Bell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his tribute to the monarchy. His description of what he would like to see in the setting of the sovereign grant reflects exactly what has to take place. As I was just explaining, the three trustees are required to take into account the funding required to deliver the function that we all want our monarch to deliver.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
There is what might be an important innovation in the text of this year’s sovereign grant annual report and accounts, which the Bill refers to and which the Minister is describing. Usually, the description of the sovereign’s role includes the term “defender of the faith”, but that term does not appear in this year’s report and accounts. Instead, the monarch is referred to as the
“Supreme Governor of the Church of England”.
That is good. The report also says that he
“protects the space for Faith within the multi-faith nation.”
That is an admirable ambition, but I invite the Minister to confirm that no alteration to the monarch’s role is implied in that change. If there were to be such an alteration, would it be debated properly in Parliament, rather than introduced quietly through these sorts of official reports?
Torsten Bell
The hon. Member has shown interest in this topic over many years, in a lot of different environments. This is a question of “and”, rather than “or”. As he says, the document spells out that His Majesty is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. I encourage him to go on to the royal family’s website, where he will see the language about the King being the defender of the faith very prominently displayed. I hope that gives him the reassurance that he seeks.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
We are extremely fortunate to have a monarchy, particularly this monarchy. Since the reign of George III, the profits from the Crown Estate have accrued to the Treasury; in return, the institution of the monarchy receives a grant, which we are debating today. Part of that is an annually determined proportion of the profits. However, for things other than exceptional expenditure, such as on Buckingham Palace, the institution presumably requires some sort of stability and certainty about the receipts necessary to carry out its functions. Is it logical for the grant to be a proportion of profits, which will inevitably vary year by year, because they are a commercial matter?
Torsten Bell
I think everybody in this House will agree with the thrust of what the right hon. Gentleman successfully argues. A royal household with an important role, both as the sovereign, and in maintaining an estate of grade I listed monuments, needs certainty about its income. It is not for me to defend the previous Government, but the 2011 Act provided two bases for funding. The first is the mechanism that he mentioned, relating to a proportion of the profits of the Crown Estate. The second is a proviso that there be no fall, from year to year, in the amount of the grant. That is to provide exactly the stability that he talks about. That is why we are taking forward this primary legislation, with that dual lock. The reduction this year is purely to take into account the bringing to an end of the Buckingham Palace 10-year repair project. The legislation then provides an ongoing commitment to the royal household and the monarch that the grant will remain at next year’s level, at least. I hope that offers the right hon. Gentleman reassurance.
As I was saying, a key point of context is that Parliament agreed a temporary uplift to the grant from 2017-18 to 2026-27 to fund the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme. That was a major 10-year investment to modernise ageing infrastructure, replace critical electrical and mechanical systems, and safeguard the long-term future of one of the nation’s most historic buildings. As that programme nears completion, it is time for the level of funding to be reassessed. Earlier this year, the then royal trustees completed the latest review and considered both the royal household’s projected expenditure and the Crown Estate’s projected revenues for the period from 2027 to 2032. The trustees concluded that with the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme nearing completion, the exceptional funding requirements that justified that temporary uplift no longer exist. They therefore recommended that the sovereign grant should fall from £137.9 million in 2026-27 to £99.9 million in 2027-28. That represents a reduction of almost £38 million, or more than a quarter.
At the same time, the trustees recognised that the royal household continues to face operational pressures in delivering what we all think of as crucial work. The recommended amount of funding will enable the household to address a maintenance backlog that was exacerbated by the pandemic, and to replace ageing digital infrastructure to strengthen cyber-security. The grant provided for by this Bill ensures value for money for taxpayers, and that the royal household can continue to discharge its crucial functions effectively.
This Bill delivers a fair and proportionate funding settlement. It reduces the amount of the sovereign grant, following the completion of a major capital programme; it improves the resilience and sustainability of the statutory framework established in 2011, while maintaining parliamentary oversight; and it ensures that the sovereign grant can continue to fulfil its core purpose, which is supporting the official duties of the monarch and maintaining the occupied royal palaces on behalf of the nation. On that basis, I commend this Bill to the House.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his speech. This follows a recent debate on ways and means that his colleague the Exchequer Secretary had with my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild). I do not wish to repeat the points that were made on that occasion.
His Majesty’s official Opposition are supportive of this Bill. As the Minister laid out, the 2011 settlement has run its course; it did well for its time, but some aspects of it were due for reconsideration. As he said, the recent significant programme of upgrades to royal residences for public purposes has now reached its conclusion—I think this year is the final year of the additional funds—so it is timely for us to look for a change in structure. I thank the Minister’s colleague the Exchequer Secretary, because on the 11th of this month, he wrote in reply to questions from my colleague, answering questions about some of the points that we may get into in detailed consideration of the Bill.
One of the substantial changes of principle in this Bill is that the ongoing ratchets that were effectively put in place by the 2011 Act have essentially become a backstop of £99.9 million. In his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) about potential variability, the Minister has given us some confidence about the ability to plan; we know that there will not be an absolute reduction. However, questions remain about extraordinary circumstances in which the Treasury would be able to reduce the settlement in any one year. I think that the Liberal Democrats will be asking that question in reverse—about changes to the percentage that may occur—but those are matters that we can discuss in Committee.
His Majesty’s official Opposition recognise the tremendous work that His Majesty the King and the royal family do on behalf of our nation. We understand the power that that provides our nation with in our international relations, and the comfort that it gives to the people of this nation, and we support the Second Reading of this Bill.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
My sense of patriotism does not come from a flag, an anthem or the royal family. Instead, my patriotism comes from things like our national health service; movements such as that of the Levellers, who were committed to popular sovereignty, extended suffrage, equality and religious tolerance; and how Britain stood up to and defeated the evil of fascism, both abroad during the second world war and at home in places like Cable Street, where Jewish residents, Irish dockers, trade unionists, socialists and others united to stop the British Union of Fascists movement from marching through Jewish neighbourhoods. That is the sort of patriotism I love.
I have the utmost respect for any citizen who believes that the royal family is a fundamental part of British life. I have no issues with that opinion; people are entitled to it, but it is simply not one that I share. There were many reasons why I joined the Labour party. One was to change—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is expecting this, but it is important that he focuses his remarks on the Sovereign Grant Bill, and not wider issues to do with the monarchy, patriotism or why he joined the Labour party.
Brian Leishman
I will just put a red pen—a very dark red pen, obviously—through some of the comments that I wished to make. I will accelerate my remarks. It is clear that we are a nation of persistent inequality. I fully appreciate that the role of the royal family is way down the list of pressing issues that my Government have to deal with, but when looking at the intense suffering that millions of people are experiencing, I cannot help but feel that the sovereign grant money could and should be directed elsewhere, and not to a family worth an estimated £21 billion.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats understand the purposes of this Bill and accept some of the Government’s conclusions about how the grant needs to change, but we continue to be concerned about transparency. It is important to make it clear at the start that the sovereign grant provides no personal income to the King or Queen or any member of the royal family; the funding is tied entirely to the running of the institution. We recognise that the household’s budget has increased, but the bulk of that increase is earmarked for a maintenance backlog across the royal palaces, green infrastructure, and cyber-security in an increasingly hostile international landscape. We agree that it is right for the grant to be reset now that the Buckingham Palace programme has finished. However, taxpayers will rightly have questions about where and, importantly, who this money goes to. The Government must ensure that not a penny of this grant goes to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, who disgraced his title in office —
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I reiterate that we are going to stick to the scope of the Sovereign Grant Bill, which is very specifically only about the amount of the sovereign grant and how it is to be determined in future years. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the grant goes to the King.
Bobby Dean
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will move directly on to our amendment, which would insert a new subsection stopping the royal trustees from proposing any future increase to the percentage of Crown Estate profit used in the grant formula unless three conditions are met first: the National Audit Office must be commissioned to carry out a value-for-money assessment of the proposed change—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Apologies, and I appreciate that I am now leaping to my feet with monotonous regularity, but it would be more appropriate for the amendment to be discussed in Committee than on Second Reading.
Bobby Dean
Clearly, I have been very well briefed. I think my comments at the beginning were probably sufficient. We understand the purpose of the Sovereign Grant Bill. We have some concerns about transparency, but I will return to those later.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
As I said during the ways and means debate last week, I welcome the Government’s decision to bring forward this legislation to make it possible for the sovereign grant to be reduced in future if necessary, and to return any unspent grant more quickly. I am grateful to the Exchequer Secretary for his letter this morning, which covered some of the points that I made in that debate. Today’s Bill feels like a missed opportunity, especially as a number of issues surrounding the grant remain to be addressed by the Government.
The first issue is the link between the grant and the profits of the Crown Estate. Members will know that the Crown Estate commands a massive £16 billion portfolio, owning much of our coastline and the corresponding seabed, but it is not the private property of the monarch, nor do the revenues from the estate belong to them. In fact the Crown Estate is quite separate from the monarchy, and operates to generate revenue for the Treasury. The implication of the current arrangement is that the monarch forgoes his profits from the Crown Estate in return for a payment of a percentage via the sovereign grant, yet all the profits are public funds. That is an odd form of indexation, and raises the question of why the grant is not based on the needs of the monarchy or its costs. It would have been better if the Bill broke the link to the Crown Estate and gave power to the royal trustees to decide the appropriate figure, based on need.
That raises the second question of how the grant should be set. I believe that it should be done on an annual basis, and that it is important for the funding of the monarchy to be transparent and open for MPs to debate. All public funds should rightly be open to scrutiny and parliamentary oversight. On numerous occasions I have tried to table questions about these issues, only to be told that this is not something for Parliament to discuss. That must change, and that is why I will support amendment 1.
The Bill calls for a substantial increase in the grant, and a rise from 12% of the Crown Estate profits to 20.5%. However, the royal family is smaller than it was in 2011, when the grant was first introduced, and the King and the Prince of Wales are said to favour a slimmed-down monarchy. It would appear that the anticipated increase to £99.9 million is not based on any assessment of need, and I should appreciate it if the Minister explained exactly how we have arrived at a figure that is 322% higher than it was when it was first introduced in 2012. Even allowing for inflation and the building maintenance programme that has been mentioned, the proposed grant is well over twice the real value of its starting point. As I mentioned during the ways and means debate, there are also some anomalies when we look at the monarch’s wider financial arrangements. Why, for example, is no account taken of the profits of the Duchy of Lancaster when the level of the sovereign grant is being set?
Ideally, Madam Deputy Speaker—I can see that you are very keen to bring me to book—we should have before us a Bill to ensure that the amount of the sovereign grant is appropriate to the relative needs of the monarch, and that Members of Parliament are not restricted to just approving a new percentage figure once every five years, via an arbitrary and unnecessary link to the Crown Estate. The Bill is, in my view, a missed opportunity to modernise the monarchy. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
I thank Members on both sides of the House for their contributions to the debate. I thank, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for his engagement in the ways and means debate. I was glad to be able to write to him and to the Opposition in the intervening days to clarify a few points and, I hope, expand on some of the information that I gave during that debate.
Let me briefly touch on the headlines of the three things that the Bill is doing; I will then deal with the points that have been raised, and will wrap up in good time. First, the Bill resets the level of the sovereign grant to reflect the fact that the exceptional funding requirement associated with the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme is coming to an end. Secondly, it establishes a revised mechanism for calculating the grant in future years. Thirdly, it introduces limited powers to adjust the grant in exceptional circumstances—powers that have already been discussed in our proceedings—including circumstances in which funding would otherwise become inappropriately high. The Government believe that, taken together, these changes amount to a measured and sensible reform.
I now turn to some of the points raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) made a valuable contribution. I would have enjoyed hearing more of it, but I understand that he had to keep within scope, and I will ensure that I do so too, Madam Deputy Speaker. His final point was that he does not think it is appropriate for this sum of £99.9 million to go to the royal family. It is worth clarifying that this grant is not for the family’s personal purposes, but to enable His Majesty the King and the working members of the royal family to carry out their official duties on behalf of all of us and of the country.
Turning to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean), I look forward to debating the proposed amendment in more detail in Committee. I thank the Liberal Democrats and the official Opposition for their support and engagement on the Bill.
If I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Poole correctly, his key question is: why is the grant set relative to the profits from the Crown Estate at 20.5%, rather than the needs of the household? I reassure him that the key thing is the needs of the household, rather than the figure of 20.5%. The way the trustees arrive at the relevant figure is via a bottom-up assessment of what is required to enable the royal household to carry out its duties on our behalf. It starts not with the relevant percentage of the Crown Estate profits, but instead with the specific needs and requirements of the monarchy.
On my hon. Friend’s specific point about the increase in the sovereign grant over recent years, he is right to point out that it is set to increase by more than inflation, but the trustees interrogated a number of reasons for that when the £99.9 million grant was determined. They include, for example, an £11.7 million addition for a 10-year programme to replace the gas heating systems at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle as part of the royal household’s clean energy transition; £4.3 million to modernise ageing digital infrastructure and strengthen cyber-security, and replace some legacy IT systems, some of which are over 20 years old; and £11.5 million for other cost increases such as on utilities, travel, housekeeping, equipment and professional services.
I do take and understand my hon. Friend’s point about inflation, but I point out that the grant will in effect be frozen—in cash terms—throughout the next five-year period. That goes to the point made by the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) about the stability of the royal household’s finances. It also goes some way to explaining why the Government do not think that coming back each year would be the most appropriate and efficient way to set the grant. For those seeking to deliver value for money for the taxpayer, particularly with long-term capital expenditure, via the sovereign grant, it is much easier to do so when it is possible to plan on a long-term basis.
Jim Shannon
The royal family have buildings, which are of some age, all over the country, and by their nature there is deterioration due to their size, the heating, the roofs, the way the buildings are and the length of time they have been in existence. Does the Minister agree that, when it comes to the responsibility of the royal family to look after these buildings, further consideration must be given to those that are showing years—maybe hundreds of years—of deterioration?
Dan Tomlinson
Yes, I agree with the hon. Member on that point. These grade I listed buildings and scheduled ancient monuments are a very significant part of our national story and, for many, of our national identity. On his point about the quality of the estate, I can tell the House that independent surveys have found that 52% of the estate was at the target condition in 2020, but that had fallen to 38% by 2025.
To conclude, the question before us is a practical one: do we wish to leave in place a framework that no longer properly reflects the end of the exceptional reservicing expenditure on the palace; or do we wish to put in place a revised framework that resets the grant, improves flexibility and preserves the ability of the grant to fulfil its core purpose? The Government’s view is that the right course is the latter. These measures are targeted, proportionate and deliver value for money for taxpayers. They improve the existing framework to the sovereign grant so that it continues to operate, I believe, as Parliament intended. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).
Sovereign Grant Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
I remind Members that in Committee Members should not address the Chair as Deputy Speaker. Please use my name when addressing the Chair. Madam Chair, Chair and Madam Chairman are also acceptable.
Clause 1
Amount of Sovereign Grant for the financial year 2027-28
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Second Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 1, in clause 2, page 2, line 20, at end insert—
“(3) Section 6 of the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 is amended as follows.
(4) After subsection (4) insert—
“(5) The Royal Trustees may not make any proposals to increase the percentage specified in Step 1 (as amended by Section 2 of the Sovereign Grant Act 2026) for determining the amount of the Sovereign Grant, unless—
(a) they have commissioned the National Audit Office to undertake a value for money assessment of the proposed change, and
(b) the National Audit Office’s report has been laid before both Houses of Parliament, and
(c) a motion approving the change has been debated and approved by resolution of the House of Commons.””
This amendment would ensure that any future increase to the percentage of Crown Estate profit used to calculate the Sovereign Grant is subject to independent assessment and an affirmative vote in the House of Commons.
Clause 2 stand part.
Clauses 3 and 4 stand part.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
I will turn briefly to each of the short clauses in the Bill.
Clause 1 gives effect to the central purpose of the Bill. It sets the amount of the sovereign grant for the financial year 2027-28 at £99.9 million. In doing so, it resets the level of the grant following the completion of the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme. As that programme nears completion, the temporary funding associated with it is no longer required. Both the previous Government and this Government recognised that the level of the grant should therefore be reset and that legislation would be necessary to achieve that outcome. That is what clause 1 does: it establishes a grant of £99.9 million for 2027-28, reflecting the conclusions of the 2026 royal trustees review. The practical effect, therefore, is that funding falls from £137.9 million in this financial year to £99.9 million in 2027-28.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Chair. I desperately tried not to intervene at all, but I could not stop myself. I was on the Modernisation Committee when it had the opportunity to visit Buckingham Palace to see some of the regeneration work being done. Does the Minister feel as reassured as I do that the renovation work was done as efficiently and practically as possible, bringing in apprentices from elsewhere—I do not think any of them came from Harlow, unfortunately—to ensure it was successful?
Dan Tomlinson
My hon. Friend is right to highlight that the works on Buckingham Palace over the past 10 years have been carried out with efficiency and effectiveness. In fact, the National Audit Office took a look at the programme of work and was able to commend it for its effective use of taxpayer money, which is of course very important. Clause 1 delivers, therefore, the intended reduction in funding following the completion of that work, and implements the conclusions of the royal trustees review to establish a new baseline for future years.
Having reset the grant for 2027-28, clause 2 turns to the framework that will determine grant funding in future years. The grant has, since 2012, been linked to the performance of the Crown Estate. That underlying principle remains unchanged by the Bill. Clause 2 updates the percentage of Crown Estate profits used within that calculation, so that the framework remains appropriate after the grant has been reset through that bottom-up calculation. It sets the relevant percentage at 20.5%. Returning to conversations we had on Second Reading, I want to reassure Members that that figure is not arbitrary. It comes directly from the conclusions of the June 2026 royal trustees review, which assessed both the royal household’s expected expenditure requirements and the Crown Estate’s forecast revenues over the period 2031-32.
Clause 3 introduces targeted safeguards to ensure that the funding framework can continue to operate effectively in exceptional circumstances. This is to ensure that where royal trustees conclude that the amount produced by the statutory formula would result in the sovereign grant reserve falling below 10% of annual expenditure or exceeding 50% of annual expenditure, and where the existing framework can adequately correct that outcome, the trustees must explain that conclusion in their annual report and identify the new amount they believe would be appropriate. The Treasury must then implement that through regulations. This reform allows greater flexibility to prevent reserves becoming either too large or too small, and it means that action can be taken before reserve levels move outside of a sustainable range, rather than waiting until existing statutory mechanisms have been triggered.
The second mechanism is a limited power to increase the grant during a financial year in genuinely exceptional circumstances, and is intended as an emergency power. It can only be used when unforeseen circumstances arise during a financial year that cannot be reasonably addressed through the normal annual funding process. Clause 4 contains standard provisions relating to commencement and the short title of the Bill; I commend this and all other clauses to the Committee.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his clear exposition of the Bill’s clauses. He emphasised the importance of the 2026 royal trustees’ review. The interesting thing is that it is their forecast of their needs over the next five years on which a lot of the mechanism rests. Notwithstanding some comments made by Government Back Benchers, a lot of the intention of the Bill is about financial restrictions on expenditure, rather than there being excess expenditure in the future. I am grateful for the Minister’s letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper); in his summing up, will the Minister give a bit more comfort and clarity on some of those matters?
If I am right, the £99.9 million is the estimate of what is required this year, based on a review of what the forecast requirements may be through to 2031-32. Will the Minister explain how those financial assessments were made? What discount rate was used to work out what the estimates might be? I am not questioning it, and I do not need a precise figure; what I am looking for is some comfort from the Minister that he feels that those financial projections, that model and the work of the trustees give him adequate confidence in the baseline of £99.9 million. That leads, in turn, to why we have 20.5% variability over the next five years.
In the Minister’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway, I was also interested to hear about the use of other income. In his letter, the Minister said:
“The Household forecasts that this income will increase by around 25% over the review period, based on recent performance, detailed modelling and increased visitor capacity… If income were lower than forecast, there is no expectation that the Grant would increase above £99.9 million per year.”
Can the Minister confirm that, essentially, the other income is being treated as supplementary to what we see as the duty of the sovereign grant? I would be grateful to the Minister for reconfirming what he put in his letter.
In clause 3, I am interested in proposed new section 6(5) to the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, stating that the reserve fund will be:
“no lower than 10% and no higher than 50%”.
What is of interest there is the duty to change the amount of the sovereign grant. There is an issue about to what extent that reserve, at 10% to 50%, is going to cover reasonable expectations of expense. That gets to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway made earlier about long-term plans. If significant capital expenditures are due, then the reserve, by its very nature, will be quite variable during the period. I would like some comfort from the Minister that the range of 10% to 50%—which sounds, on face value, to be reasonable—was correct in the modelling.
There is just one slight concern about the Treasury’s thinking on this. When my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) asked about powers to adjust the grant between reviews and the circumstances in which they might be used, the answer from the Treasury was:
“These powers are intended for exceptional circumstances and are not expected to be used routinely”,
which, of course, is the definition of exceptional. However, the letter does then go on to talk about major fire, flood and so on, saying that in those circumstances,
“Any adjustment would require Parliamentary approval through secondary legislation.”
Could the Minister advise on whether or not that approval will be subject to the affirmative procedure? I think that other Members may want to raise that as well.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats support the thrust of the Bill. We understand why the royal household budget has increased and agree that it is right for the grant to be reset now that the Buckingham Palace programme has finished. However, we remain concerned about transparency and have put forward an amendment to that effect.
Our amendment would insert a new subsection that would stop the royal trustees proposing any future increase to the percentage of Crown Estate profit used in the grant formula unless three conditions are met first. The National Audit Office must be commissioned to carry out a value-for-money assessment of the proposed change; that NAO report must be laid before both Houses; and finally, the House of Commons must debate and approve the change by resolution.
This contrasts with the Bill as drafted, which sets the figures straight into primary legislation on the strength of the royal trustees’ own conclusions, with no separate independent check built in for the next time that the percentage is revisited. That matters because it is the royal trustees who produce that report—the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Keeper of the Privy Purse. In other words, the people proposing the change are marking their own homework, with no independent body or vote required to test whether it represents good value for the taxpayer.
Our amendment is not about opposing the grant or blocking today’s readjustment, which the Liberal Democrats accept is right now that the reservicing works are complete. Instead, it is about ensuring that if a percentage increase is proposed again in the future, taxpayers get an independent, NAO-assessed value-for-money check, with their elected representatives getting an actual vote on it, rather than the change simply following through the trustees’ own formula.
To conclude, the Liberal Democrats believe that greater transparency and independent scrutiny of taxpayer money must be built into the system for the future, not treated as optional, and that that is best guaranteed by external checks, not simply taking the Government’s word for it.
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the Opposition spokespeople for their questions and comments.
Turning first to the questions from the spokesperson for the official Opposition, the OBR forecasts for inflation, interest rates and so on were used as the underlying basis for the projections. To the extent that Members across the House support the OBR and its independent forecasting duties, I hope that they would support the royal household using those forecasts.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the reserve, the household previously aimed to maintain reserves of at least 5% of annual expenditure. This legislation formalises a slightly higher reserve at 10% as the floor, with 50% being the ceiling. It is our judgment that that is reasonable. Of course, 50% is a significant reserve.
The hon. Gentleman asked what happens to the reserve. Of course, it can be drawn down on in times when the royal household faces significant in-year financial costs. The first reaction of the Treasury and the royal trustees would not be to come to the House to ask for a vote to increase the expenditure in the case of additional in-year costs. Instead, it would be hoped that capital programmes could be smoothed out over time, and that the flexibility allowed by the reserve could be drawn on.
The hon. Gentleman asked specifically whether the secondary legislation in the event of changes would be subject to the affirmative or negative procedure in the House. I can confirm that if the percentage were to go up, it would be subject to the affirmative procedure, and we would therefore have the option to debate and discuss. If the percentage were to go down, my understanding is that it would be subject to the negative procedure.
I am grateful to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for raising the important issues of transparency, accountability and value for money. However, it is the Government’s view that the Liberal Democrat amendment is not necessary under the existing framework. Any future proposal to increase the percentage used to calculate the sovereign grant would already require a published report from the trustees setting out the rationale and, as I have just said, would require the approval of the Commons through the statutory instrument being subject to the affirmative procedure, so Members of the House would have the opportunity to analyse and debate any proposed change.
The National Audit Office already plays an important role in scrutinising the sovereign grant. It audits the grant annually and can undertake value-for-money examinations where it considers that such work would assist Parliament. Indeed, it exercised these powers, as we have discussed, in relation to the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme.
The Liberal Democrat amendment would also create a unique test that is not applied to other bodies funded by the public sector. It is the Government’s view that the sovereign grant is already subject to robust arrangements for accountability and scrutiny, including the managing public money principles, accounting officer oversight, National Audit Office audit and parliamentary approval for legislative changes.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Bill, not amended in the Committee, considered.
Third Reading
Dan Tomlinson
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I thank hon. Members across the House for their contributions today as the Bill has progressed. I believe that we have done it justice, interrogating various points of contention and clarification on Second Reading and in Committee. I commend this Bill to the House.
Richard Fuller
I thank the Minister for presenting the Bill, but most importantly I thank His Majesty the King for his gracious service, on behalf of all Members of this House and all people of this country and the territories and nations overseas. I hope that he will use the sovereign grant as wisely and sagaciously as his governance over us allows. I support the Bill.
Bobby Dean
I thank the Minister for his comments on the Liberal Democrat amendment that was discussed earlier, and we recognise the arguments that he made in response. I support the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Business of the House
Select Committee Chairs: Period of Leave
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
We now come to the motions relating to Select Committee Chairs, period of Leave; Select Committee participation; the Committee of Privileges report; and Standing Orders, machinery of government changes, which will be debated together. There is a small error on the printed Order Paper in the motion on Standing Orders, machinery of government changes. Under section B: Related Provisions, paragraph (2), sub-paragraph (ii), the Committee names should be swapped around. A corrected version of the motion is available from the Vote Office and the online version of the Order Paper has been corrected.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
I beg to move,
That:—
(1) A select committee chair who has arranged for a proxy vote under the provisions of Standing Order No. 39A (Voting by proxy) may take a period of leave.
(2) The period of leave must be continuous and must last for a minimum of one month and can last up to a maximum of seven months, with the possibility of extension, subject to the approval of the Chair of the Liaison Committee, if the proxy vote arrangements are extended.
(3) The formal leave period for a chair will begin only after the committee has appointed a replacement for the chair, to be known as the acting chair.
(4) There must be at least five sitting days’ notice given of the intention to agree the appointment, or the extension, of an acting chair (not including the day on which the notice is circulated, but including the day on which the appointment or extension is to be discussed) and such notice must be in writing.
(5) The acting chair must be a member of the committee and where the chair of a committee has been elected by the whole House, the committee should appoint an acting chair who comes from the same party as the chair unless the committee decides there are compelling reasons to do otherwise.
(6) In the case of the committees specified in Standing Order No. 122B(8)(f), the acting chair must come from the official Opposition party, unless no member from that party is available or willing to act in that capacity, in which case they must come from another opposition party.
(7) In the case of an appointment of an acting chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the provisions of Standing Orders Nos 122D(1)(c) and 152J(6) shall apply to that appointment.
(8) The acting chair may exercise all the powers of the chair, including any powers already delegated to the chair by the committee.
(9) The acting chair shall be a member of the Liaison Committee during the period of the chair’s leave, in place of the chair.
(10) The chair of the committee shall resume that function either at the end of the period of leave or after giving at least five sitting days’ notice of their intention to return from a specified date.
(11) The leave or return of a chair and the appointment, or the extension, of an acting chair, and their temporary membership of the Liaison Committee, shall be reported to the House.
(12) In relation to Standing Order No. 122A (Term limits for chairs of select committees):
(a) the acting chair may be a previous chair of the committee even if they have reached the term limit for chairs of select committees;
(b) time spent as an acting chair does not count towards the term limits for chairs of select committees; and
(c) any period of leave taken by the chair counts towards the term limits for chairs of select committees.
(13) In the case of a committee to which Standing Order No. 122B (Election of select committee chairs) applies, the committee may remove an acting chair at any point, provided that it has first agreed a motion of no confidence in that chair in accordance with the conditions set out in paragraphs (3) and (4) of Standing Order No. 122C (Resignation or removal of chairs of select committees) and any such resolution shall be reported to the House.
(14) If the committee has resolved it has no confidence in an acting chair, it may choose another member to be the acting chair in accordance with paragraphs (5), (6) and (7) of this order.
(15) If the committee is one which is specified in the resolution of the House of 19 March 2013 (as amended) relating to positions for which additional salaries are payable, the chair will continue to be paid the salary of a select committee chair during the period of leave and the acting chair, if they are a Member of the House of Commons, will be paid the salary of a select committee chair pro rata for the period during which they stand in for the chair.
(16) The Liaison Committee may issue guidance about the operation of this Standing Order.
(17) That this Order be a Standing Order of the House until the end of the present Parliament.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motions: “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade” “Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade” 11 “Digital, Culture, Media and Sport” “Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport” 11 “Science and Technology” “Government Office for Science” 11 “Women and Equalities” “Office for Equality and Opportunity” 11
Select Committees (Participation)—
That with effect from 30 November 2026:—
(1) Select committee members may in the circumstances set out in paragraph 2 below participate in any select committee proceedings through electronic means of communication in accordance with guidance to be determined and published by the Liaison Committee, which must take into account the need for cyber security.
(2) The circumstances in which this Standing Order applies are:
(a) when access to the estate is significantly limited or prevented entirely, or
(b) when reasonable adjustments need to be made for an individual committee member on the grounds of health and wellbeing, following the conclusion of an assessment process as set out in the Liaison Committee guidance.
(3) A Member participating through electronic means in accordance with this Standing Order shall count towards the quorum of the Committee.
(4) The provisions of this Standing Order apply to meetings held under the provisions of Standing Order No. 137A (Select committees: power to work with other committees).
(5) This Standing Order applies to all select committees appointed under Public Business Standing Orders, the Modernisation Committee, and such other select committees as the House directs.
(6) That this Order be a Standing Order of the House until the end of the present Parliament.
Privileges—
That this House agrees with the Committee of Privileges First Report of Session 2026–27, Matter referred on 4 September 2025: Actions of the Charity Commission (HC 315), and endorses its conclusions and recommendations.
Standing Orders Etc. (Machinery of Government Changes)—
That the following amendments and related provisions be made in respect of Standing Orders:
A: Select Committees Related to Government Departments
(1) That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended in the Table in paragraph (2) as follows—
(i) leave out items 1, 3, 14 and 19;
(ii) insert, in the appropriate place, the following items:
B: Related Provisions
(2) That all proceedings of the House and of its select committees in this Parliament, including for the purposes of calculating any period under Standing Order No. 122A (Term limits for chairs of select committees)—
(i) relating to the Business and Trade Committee shall be read and have effect as if they had been done in relation to the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee;
(ii) relating to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee shall be read and have effect as if they had been done in relation to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee; and
(iii) relating to the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee shall be read and have effect as if they had been done in relation to the Science and Technology Committee.
C: Liaison Committee
(3) That the Resolution of the House of 4 December 2024 (Liaison Committee: Membership), be amended, in paragraph (2)—
(i) by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”;
(ii) by leaving out “Culture, Media and Sport” and inserting “Digital, Culture, Media and Sport”;
(iii) by leaving out “Science, Innovation and Technology” and inserting “Science and Technology”.
(4) That Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee) be amended, in paragraph (6), by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”.
D. European Committees
(5) That the Table in paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 119 (European Committees) be amended in respect of European Committee C, by leaving out:
(a) “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”;
(b) “Culture, Media and Sport” and inserting “Digital, Culture, Media and Sport”; and
(c) “Science, Innovation and Technology”.
E. Scrutiny of orders and draft orders
(6) That Standing Order No. 18 (Consideration of draft legislative reform orders etc.) be amended in paragraph (1), by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”;
(7) That Standing Order No. 141 (Scrutiny of regulatory and legislative reform orders etc.) be amended in paragraph (1), by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”; and
(8) That Standing Order No. 142 (Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders) be amended in paragraph (1), by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”.
F. Planning: national policy statements
(9) That Standing Order No. 152H (Planning: national policy statements) be amended in paragraph (2)(a) as follows—
(a) by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”;
(b) by leaving out “Science, Innovation and Technology” and inserting “Science and Technology”.
Sir Alan Campbell
I have brought forward these motions today seeking approval for recommendations by the Modernisation Committee and the Committee of Privileges and for changes to the Standing Orders following the machinery of government changes. I will briefly address each motion.
I should make it clear that in speaking to the motions relating to the Modernisation Committee I am effectively wearing two hats—first, as the Leader of the House and, secondly, as Chair of the Modernisation Committee. I want to take this opportunity to thank all my colleagues on the Modernisation Committee for their hard work in developing these proposals. I also pay tribute to the Chairs and Members of the Liaison Committee and Procedure Committee, who fed into our work and have been supportive throughout.
Colleagues will know that virtual participation by Members in Select Committee meetings is currently not permitted. Committees routinely hear oral evidence from witnesses virtually, but Members themselves must be in the room. There are, of course, good reasons for the emphasis on in-person participation. However, when the Modernisation Committee held its consultation exercise in the autumn of 2024, it heard from people who argued for the benefits of virtual participation. The issue arose during our previous accessibility inquiry, so the Committee decided to consider the matter further. As a result, the Committee is recommending that virtual participation by Members in Select Committee meetings should be possible for limited and specific purposes. The very strong expectation, however, is that in-person participation will continue to be the default.
Let me be clear about the specific circumstances. They are, first, for business continuity reasons when access to the parliamentary estate is significantly restricted or prevented entirely; and, secondly, when reasonable adjustments need to be made for an individual Committee member on the grounds of health and wellbeing, following guidance produced by the Liaison Committee.
Although the circumstances set out by the Modernisation Committee in its report are very specific, the possibility of virtual participation is none the less a significant change. I want colleagues who are perhaps more sceptical about the value of virtual participation to be assured that the Modernisation Committee was conscious of that when it made the proposals and has worked with colleagues on the Liaison Committee to ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place. If agreed today, the motion will come into effect on 30 November. The delay is necessary to ensure that technological support is in place.
The second Modernisation Committee motion will introduce a scheme for acting Select Committee Chairs. There is currently no formal mechanism to enable a Select Committee Chair to take a period of extended leave from their role—for parental leave, for example. This situation arose on the Health and Social Care Committee last year, and although in that case the situation was handled locally, it raised a number of procedural and practical issues. As a result, we are proposing the introduction of a new scheme to allow a Chair to take a formal period of leave and for another member of the Committee to stand in for them and have the same powers as the Chair.
We spent some time considering who would be eligible to be an acting Chair, and we decided that the acting Chair must be a member of the Committee and that for those Chairs elected by the whole House, the Committee should appoint an acting Chair who comes from the same party as the Chair, unless there are compelling reasons to do otherwise. Once again, I am grateful to colleagues on the Liaison Committee who produced detailed guidance that sets out how this will work in practice.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
I was somewhat confused about the concept that after the period of seven months had elapsed the decision was then given to the Chair of the Liaison Committee, when the Speaker would have already deemed that that individual was entitled to leave from the House generally. I wonder whether the Leader of the House could provide clarification on why that decision was taken.
Sir Alan Campbell
The reason we need to look ahead if this change happens in a Committee is that we need to keep the issue under review. We need a clear set of rules about what will happen at the beginning, and it needs to be kept in our thoughts as we go forward. There is a similar system in place for when someone gets a proxy vote—permission needs to be given for that to continue. There are some comparisons.
The motions are temporary in nature. If the House agrees them today, they will run until the end of the current Parliament. There will be time to assess how they have worked in practice and whether the House wants to make the changes permanent. I hope that colleagues agree that both Modernisation Committee motions improve the flexibility available for Select Committees and Members, while preserving and enhancing the ability of Committees to perform their vital functions.
I turn to the motion relating to the Committee of Privileges’ report into the actions of the Charity Commission. I welcome the Committee’s consideration of this matter. As the Committee sets out, this report is, at its heart, about the provision of information to the House and whether it is appropriate to use the courts to prevent information from being provided. The report outlines that the Charity Commission had sought a judicial review seeking to prevent the Parliamentary Commissioner For Administration from laying a special report before the Commons. The case was referred to the Committee to consider whether, in seeking to prevent the flow of information to Parliament, the Charity Commission’s action constituted a contempt of this House. As the report outlines, the obstruction of provision of information to Parliament is wholly unacceptable. The Committee concludes that the Charity Commission committed a contempt of Parliament in seeking to prevent the laying of the report.
The Committee recommended that the chief executive of the Charity Commission should apologise to the House for repeatedly saying that the commission’s legal action was not intended to quash the laying of the report, when that was precisely its purpose, and that the board of the commission, which backed the legal action, should take responsibility for the contempt and should apologise to the House. I am pleased to say that since the Committee’s report was published, the Charity Commission has provided such apologies.
The Government have confidence in the leadership of the Charity Commission and are confident that the board is taking action to address the concerns raised by the Committee’s report and learn lessons for its handling of similar cases going forward. The motion invites the House to agree the report and endorse its conclusions and recommendations. I hope that the House will support the motion.
Finally, I turn to the motion relating to Standing Orders following the machinery of government changes announced in July. The work of our Select Committees is extremely important, and today’s changes demonstrate the value that we place on them. The motions before the House ensure that all existing Committees remain in place and are aligned to the Departments and bodies that they scrutinise. With respect to the changes on science and technology, given the abolition of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, we are reverting to the set-up that the Committee had prior to the establishment of that Department. I hope that Members will support these motions. I commend them to the House.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I support the motions in the name of the Leader of the House and thank him for his opening remarks.
The motion on privileges asks this House to agree with the findings in the report by the Committee of Privileges, of which I am the Chair, relating to the Charity Commission taking legal action to prevent the laying of two reports before Parliament by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Before I go further, I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who, as Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, first brought this matter to the House’s attention and moved the motion to refer it to my Committee just over a year ago, on 4 September 2025.
Our report deals with a rather technical but very important matter that concerns us all: parliamentary privilege. We must not forget that the case arose from serious complaints and allegations made against a number of charities, including the alleged concealment of child sexual abuse. The PCA reported on those complaints and made recommendations to the Charity Commission. Having concluded that the injustice had not been remedied and was not likely to be remedied, she decided to lay reports before Parliament, as was her right under section 10(3) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.
It was not the role of my Committee to reach a judgment on the substance of the cases, and so we did not do so. Our role was to consider matters of parliamentary privilege and, in this case, the obstruction of the provision of information to Members. Before touching on the details of the case, I should acknowledge at the outset that, as the Leader of the House said, the commission has already accepted and acted on one of our recommendations. On 14 July—the day that we published our report—the chair of the Charity Commission, on behalf of the board, wrote to Mr Speaker, the Chair of PACAC and me, as Chair of the Privileges Committee, with an unreserved apology. The chief executive officer, Mr Holdsworth, apologised in writing to Mr Speaker. The letter to me has been published on the Committee’s website. I welcome the fact that the commission has finally acknowledged its error, albeit at a regrettably late stage.
I hope it will not try Members’ patience if I remind them of the findings and significance of the report. Although it has seemingly technical issues at its heart, it is about the flow of information to this House and is therefore of the greatest importance to the House—to each and every one of us—and its ability to function. The Charity Commission interfered with the flow of information when it sought to prevent the PCA from laying reports before Parliament using the powers given to her in legislation.
To make matters worse, the commission refused for a very long time to accept that this was a privilege matter and persisted in its efforts to prevent publication. That was despite repeated written advice, including from Speaker’s Counsel, that its legal action was improper interference with the House’s right to be informed, and could not be considered by the courts as it would have entailed impeaching and questioning proceedings in Parliament, contrary to article IX of the Bill of Rights. That is deeply regrettable, especially given that the reports related to the commission’s failure, as the PCA saw it, to implement properly the recommendations arising from its handling of the very serious complaints to which I referred.
At the same time as agreeing to refer the matter to my Committee, this House ordered that the PCA’s reports be laid. That resolved the immediate issue: the interference with the provision of information to the House, as a result of which the courts ruled that the case was academic and the legal merits were unarguable. It remained for my Committee, however, to consider whether the behaviour of the commission was a contempt of Parliament and to come to a view on whether reports laid under section 10(3) of the 1967 Act are indeed proceedings in Parliament, as Speaker’s Counsel had advised. In conducting our inquiry on behalf of this House, we took evidence from Speaker’s Counsel, the PCA herself and three representatives of the commission: its then interim chair, Mark Simms; its CEO, David Holdsworth; and its head of litigation, Felix Rechtman.
Although we were grateful to all the witnesses for giving evidence, our report was highly critical of Mr Holdsworth, in particular, especially for repeatedly insisting, both in his oral evidence and elsewhere in correspondence, that it was never the commission’s intention that Parliament should not see the information in the reports. The Committee could not see how that claim could be squared with the commission’s pre-action letter, which specifically sought to quash the decision to provide Parliament with that information. In the light of that, we recommended that Mr Holdsworth and the board of the commission should apologise to the House. As I said, and as the Leader of the House confirmed, those apologies have now been made.
The inquiry sought to establish something that has never been explicitly considered by the courts, not even in this case, since the judge ruled that the legal merits were unarguable: namely, whether reports to be laid under section 10(3) of the 1967 Act are in fact proceedings in Parliament. That is crucial to the rights of Parliament, since article IX of the Bill of Rights confers on proceedings in Parliament protection from being
“impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.”
That is one of our most foundational constitutional principles. If such a report is a proceeding in Parliament, any attempt to obstruct its laying could be a contempt of Parliament.
The Committee found that such reports were intimately connected to the House and were therefore proceedings in Parliament, and so covered by article IX. It consequently found that any attempt to prevent the laying of a paper before one or both Houses was capable of being a contempt, and that in this particular case the commission had clearly committed such a contempt.
It is deeply regrettable that the Committee had to consider this case at all. I very much hope that the Charity Commission, and indeed other public bodies, learn the lessons so that we avoid a repeat of these unfortunate events.
I thank the other members of the Privileges Committee, the Clerks—especially the Clerk of the Journals, who is soon to be Clerk of the House—and Speaker’s Counsel for helping us to navigate what was at times an incredibly difficult subject procedurally. I hope that my speech and that of the Leader of the House have demonstrated to all of us, however, that it was also one of great importance to the proper functioning of the House of Commons. I hope that Members will agree to the motion.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to speak to the motion on substituting Select Committee members if a Chair takes leave and the motion on virtual participation. I want to put on the record my thanks to the Modernisation Committee and the Procedure Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith), for their work. I also thank the Clerks who did amazing work to help us navigate these issues.
On virtual participation, there was a clear view among Chairs that there is real benefit to being in the room when Select Committees make decisions and carry out our work, because we need to have conversations both privately and in public. However, we are very aware that, in ordinary workplaces, reasonable adjustments should be made for serious health issues or disability, so we need to be in a more modern space. There was some serious discussion—although, there was no issue with what has been decided—that a person who is very unwell or on maternity leave should have the right to take that leave and not be present, and they should not be criticised for that. This change would allow people not to attend, even if they have a proxy vote, and no approbation should be laid upon them for that. We fought hard for sick leave and maternity leave, and Members should also enjoy those rights. There should be no pressure because people can participate virtually.
The other point about virtual participation is that, under the previous Standing Orders, if we were to experience an issue such as the ash cloud or covid again, there would be no activity in this place. I can tell those who were not here during covid that, in the four or five weeks after Easter, when we were locked down, the House rapidly ensured that virtual participation could take place across the House and in Committees, but it required a change in the Standing Orders. This motion puts the matter on a proper footing. It is right to modernise, and that does not diminish the importance of sharing opinions in person.
There are also some important safeguards in the measures to ensure that anyone participating virtually is doing so in an appropriate place—for example, not from a car or a train, and not with someone else in the room. It is right that we explicitly say that, because the work of Select Committees is important and they are privileged proceedings of the House.
The motion allowing Chairs to be replaced more officially when they are on sick leave or on maternity or parental leave is really important. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), who pioneered the approach. A few others have done so over the years, but she really stepped up and took on the role of acting Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee and did some amazing work in that job without all the normal, formal procedures that the motion will put in place.
The motion sets the tone by picking up some of the best practices of proxy voting, such as having a review period so that it cannot go on forever. Because Chairs are ultimately elected on a party political basis, there needs to be some thought about that, but it does allow flexibility. If, for example, a member of the Committee regularly steps into the Chair and the rest of the Committee decides that that person might be the more appropriate person to do that, it allows for wriggle room to allow that relevant and proper person to be the Chair even if they are a member of another party. That is important, and perhaps that has been thrown up more in this Parliament than in some others because of the large majority on the Government side, meaning that most Select Committees have only two Members from the other two main parties.
The Modernisation Committee has done a sterling job of navigating both these issues to ensure that we modernise to allow us all to participate as we properly should while retaining the integrity of the House and the integrity of Select Committees.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
On behalf of the Procedure Committee, I thank the Leader of the House for bringing forward these motions. I never had any doubt that he would be a radical and reforming Leader of the House, and the motions are evidence of that radical reforming nature that he has always had in him, which I am pleased to see.
The Procedure Committee has corresponded frequently with the Modernisation Committee. On 4 March my Committee expressed—the Leader of the House’s Committee published this—its wholehearted support for the acting Select Committee Chair role, and on 25 March we supported the motions for virtual participation.
The motions reflect the nature of us being a modern and welcoming workplace where MPs’ participation is supported, regardless of our health status—or, perhaps, parental leave—as such things, which can happen to any one of us, should not bar us from participating and representing our constituents’ views in this place. The measures come from a line of reforms, including proxy voting, which ensure that we are that radical and reforming Parliament that will be welcoming to anyone, regardless of their family set-up.
My view is that the priority will always be for members to attend Committees in person. As a Committee Chair, I can speak to how much easier it is to chair a meeting when members are in the room rather than all on screens. Does the Leader of the House foresee us having a thorough and timely review of these schemes in time to assess whether they could be made permanent and whether reforms may need to be made to them at that stage? I welcome the motions and hope that the House will choose to support them.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Leader of the House for his speech. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) that he is radical, forward-thinking and progressive, and we thank him for that.
The Leader of the House will know that I served on the Modernisation Committee for a very short period of time. The strangest part of that experience was coming face to face with my predecessor as the Member for Harlow when he gave evidence to the Committee. His evidence to the Committee was really important, and that is one reason why I feel it is so important that I stand up and ensure that his voice is heard here.
I welcome the Leader of the House’s words on the changes to be made to Select Committees. We all recognise the important role of Select Committees in the running of this place. I think of my short time on the Education Committee—my time on Select Committees always seems to be short—and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who is in her place, for the work she did in securing a Government apology for the victims of the false adoption scandal. Select Committees can make a huge difference to what happens in this place and beyond.
However, I recognise the need for balance. It is important that we make Select Committees accessible—as the Member of Parliament for Harlow, I take accessibility seriously on behalf of my predecessor—but I also recognise the importance of in-person scrutiny. I have sat in a number of virtual meetings, including virtual council meetings during covid, and I do not think that they are necessarily as effective, particularly when huge numbers of people join them online. I echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) about the importance of having strict rules on virtual participation. We do not want to have our dog or cat appear on the screen during Select Committee meetings. It can happen to any of us, but it is not necessarily what we want when scrutinising somebody from an outside body who very much needs that scrutiny. I also echo my hon. Friend’s comments about maternity rights and sick pay. It is really important that we support everybody in the House to have those.
Finally, I think that the Leader of the House has got the balance absolutely right in this case, and I very much support what he has said.
Sir Alan Campbell
May I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to the debate? I will briefly respond to them. I am eternally grateful to the Chair of the Privileges Committee, the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), and very much agree with his remarks, including about the timeliness of any response from the Charity Commission and the significance of that issue. I will point out the importance—if I need to do so—of his Committee and its findings in that instance, because it had the desired effect, and I am grateful for that. I hope that lessons have been learned not just by the Charity Commission but by anyone who may feel tempted to go down that misguided route. “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade” “Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade” 11 “Digital, Culture, Media and Sport” “Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport” 11 “Science and Technology” “Government Office for Science” 11 “Women and Equalities” “Office for Equality and Opportunity” 11
Let me turn to the comments of the Chair of the Liaison Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier). I am grateful to her Committee and to her for her work on that Committee as well as more widely. I absolutely agree with her about the importance of protecting Members’ rights. The measures proposed today are about enhancing those rights. As she said, it is about modernising and maintaining integrity. I am pleased if the House thinks that we have got that balance right.
I thank the Chair of the Procedure Committee—my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith)—and her Committee. Our Committees work closely together and she shares my radical instinct on these matters—I just point that out in case this goes horribly wrong, but I am sure that it will not.
My hon. Friend was right to emphasise that member participation should be in person and that the motions are time-limited. She asked whether there will be a review. I have a feeling, but it is no more than that. I obviously hope that these changes will be successful and that when the time comes the House will want to carry them forward. In that case, it would be right for us to review them before that.
Finally, I turn to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), who I thought was not going to mention Harlow, but he managed to get there in the end. He may have spent only a short time on Committees, and indeed only a relatively short time in the House compared to some of us, but he has been extraordinarily quick in picking up many of the best elements of working in this place. Central to that—he knows my view—is the importance of Select Committee work. I hope that hon. Members will support the motions. I commend them to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Select Committees: Virtual Participation by Members
Ordered,
That with effect from 30 November 2026:—
(1) Select committee members may in the circumstances set out in paragraph 2 below participate in any select committee proceedings through electronic means of communication in accordance with guidance to be determined and published by the Liaison Committee, which must take into account the need for cyber security.
(2) The circumstances in which this Standing Order applies are:
(a) when access to the estate is significantly limited or prevented entirely, or
(b) when reasonable adjustments need to be made for an individual committee member on the grounds of health and wellbeing, following the conclusion of an assessment process as set out in the Liaison Committee guidance.
(3) A Member participating through electronic means in accordance with this Standing Order shall count towards the quorum of the Committee.
(4) The provisions of this Standing Order apply to meetings held under the provisions of Standing Order No. 137A (Select committees: power to work with other committees).
(5) This Standing Order applies to all select committees appointed under Public Business Standing Orders, the Modernisation Committee, and such other select committees as the House directs.
(6) That this Order be a Standing Order of the House until the end of the present Parliament.—(Sir Alan Campbell.)
Privileges Committee Report: Charity Commission Actions
Ordered,
That this House agrees with the Committee of Privileges First Report of Session 2026-27, Matter referred on 4 September 2025: Actions of the Charity Commission (HC 315), and endorses its conclusions and recommendations.—(Sir Alan Campbell.)
Select Committees: Machinery of Government Changes
Ordered,
That the following amendments and related provisions be made in respect of Standing Orders:
A: Select Committees Related to Government Departments
(1) That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended in the Table in paragraph (2) as follows—
(i) leave out items 1, 3, 14 and 19;
(ii) insert, in the appropriate place, the following items:
B: Related Provisions
(2) That all proceedings of the House and of its select committees in this Parliament, including for the purposes of calculating any period under Standing Order No. 122A (Term limits for chairs of select committees)—
(i) relating to the Business and Trade Committee shall be read and have effect as if they had been done in relation to the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee;
(ii) relating to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee shall be read and have effect as if they had been done in relation to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee; and
(iii) relating to the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee shall be read and have effect as if they had been done in relation to the Science and Technology Committee.
C: Liaison Committee
(3) That the Resolution of the House of 4 December 2024 (Liaison Committee: Membership), be amended, in paragraph (2)—
(i) by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”;
(ii) by leaving out “Culture, Media and Sport” and inserting “Digital, Culture, Media and Sport”;
(iii) by leaving out “Science, Innovation and Technology” and inserting “Science and Technology”.
(4) That Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee) be amended, in paragraph (6), by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”.
D. European Committees
(5) That the Table in paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 119 (European Committees) be amended in respect of European Committee C, by leaving out:
(a) “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”;
(b) “Culture, Media and Sport” and inserting “Digital, Culture, Media and Sport”; and
(c) “Science, Innovation and Technology”.
E. Scrutiny of orders and draft orders
(6) That Standing Order No. 18 (Consideration of draft legislative reform orders etc.) be amended in paragraph (1), by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”;
(7) That Standing Order No. 141 (Scrutiny of regulatory and legislative reform orders etc.) be amended in paragraph (1), by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”; and
(8) That Standing Order No. 142 (Localism Act 2011, etc.: scrutiny of certain orders and draft orders) be amended in paragraph (1), by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”.
F. Planning: national policy statements
(9) That Standing Order No. 152H (Planning: national policy statements) be amended in paragraph (2)(a) as follows—
(a) by leaving out “Business and Trade” and inserting “Business, Innovation, Science and Trade”;
(b) by leaving out “Science, Innovation and Technology” and inserting “Science and Technology”.—(Sir Alan Campbell.)
Israel and Palestine
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Israel and Palestine.
As this is my first debate as Minister of State for the middle east, I want to begin by paying tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), who spoke from the Dispatch Box on this important issue many times with great conviction and clarity. I also acknowledge the broad terms of the debate today. With your leave, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will focus on very specific issues, but I am sure that hon. and right hon. Members will want to cover a number of topics. I acknowledge the strong views of Members from across this House, and indeed various views on issues relating to Israel and Palestine are reflected in my constituency of Cardiff South and Penarth, where, I am proud to say, we have people from many different backgrounds and heritages. I am proud to represent constituents of Palestinian and Israeli backgrounds, and of a diversity of faiths and none. I draw attention to my past work on these issues in my time as an MP in this place and as a Minister, and to my declarations.
As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in the House last week, we need to start from clear principles: this is a country that stands up for the rule of law, freedom, self-determination, and in this case, the cause of peace, and of a secure future for all Israelis and Palestinians. It is with those principles that we approach this important issue.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the Minister, who is much liked in this House. He always puts forward a balanced point of view. I have to say that at the weekend, after the decision taken by the Labour party last week, my Jewish friends and constituents, and other contacts from Israel, have been on to me in large numbers, expressing deep concern about what the Labour Government have put forward. Ever mindful that this is a time of unprecedented threats from Hamas and other terrorist entities, they say that the Government and Labour have introduced a “one-sided” trade ban. If that is the case, how can the Minister and the Government reassure my constituents about our deeply important security and intelligence sharing with Israel? There is a danger of a major diplomatic clash with Israel and the United States of America. These drastic steps will affect the lives of British people and, in particular, Jewish families.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman raises significant points about the important security, intelligence and defence relationship that we have with Israel. I will be clear at the outset that the measures that we have taken very much relate to our dispute about the actions of this Israeli Government, not of Israel, and certainly not of the Israeli people. With regard to his Jewish constituents, I absolutely recognise the significant concerns and fears about the threats that Jewish communities in this country and across the world face, particularly from rising antisemitism and violence. Of course, we have marked some very sombre events in recent weeks—I have heard that reflected from my Jewish constituents—and I can absolutely assure him that the Government engage closely with representatives of the Jewish communities in this country. He will also recognise that a range of views have been expressed about the Government’s announcements last week. I want to be clear that the British people, including those with ties to the region, want the suffering and violence in the region to end; a path to peace; and a two-state solution restored, in which a safe and secure Israel exists along a sovereign and viable Palestine. That is within the context of recognising the very real threats that Israel faces, including from Iran and its proxies.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Minister will have to be very careful about what we say and do because of the effect on Jews in this country. In that regard, what assessment has he made of the Campaign against Antisemitism’s findings on Jew hate in our national health service? Does he agree that everybody needs to be assured that when they are at their most vulnerable, they will be dealt with equitably, without reference to their colour, creed, race or anything else? Yet we find that patients are being abused simply because they are Jewish, and that Jews working in the NHS are being disadvantaged.
Stephen Doughty
The concerns that the right hon. Gentleman raises are very serious, and he can be absolutely assured that the Government want to root out antisemitism in all its forms in this country, and indeed in every walk of life, whether in the health service or in education; I have heard very concerning examples of antisemitic incidents in schools and universities. That is why this Government are investing not only in the security of Jewish communities in this country, but in specific measures in public services. I take very seriously any concerns that he raises; of course, he has distinguished medical experience himself.
It is also important to recognise that next month will mark three years since the atrocity of 7 October, which was, as the Foreign Secretary said,
“a murderous act by a murderous terrorist organisation designed to massacre and instil fear across a whole population.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 879.]
It was designed not only to cause death and destruction in Israel, but to instil fear across the world. This was the worst attack on Jewish people since the Holocaust, and I want to be clear again that there is no justification for the actions of Hamas, or their rejection of the peaceful co-existence of Israelis and Palestinians. They can play no part in that future, and they must disarm.
We avidly and continuously support the 20-point plan, and the efforts to bring about peace and a secure future for the people in Gaza and across the whole of Palestine. I also want to make it clear, as the Foreign Secretary did, that we reject those who make any attempt to de-legitimise Israel, or to support the so-called BDS— boycott, divestment and sanctions—movement. Our disagreements are with the Government of Israel and their actions, not with Israel, and certainly not with the Israeli people.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentions the commitment to peace long term, but unfortunately it has never seemed further away than it does today. Peace will involve building bridges between communities in Palestine and Israel, and supporting civil society, which has been under attack, in Gaza and in Israel, unfortunately, by the Government. My hon. Friend’s predecessor and the last Prime Minister committed to the international peace fund, which many of us were advocating for. Can my hon. Friend provide an update on the Government’s position on the peace fund, and their support, I hope, for its continuation and growth? What role does he think it can play in building these bridges?
Stephen Doughty
I wholeheartedly support the type of work that my hon. Friend describes; indeed, he has been involved in various initiatives over the years, in a range of conflict contexts. He will be happy to know that I have just answered some parliamentary questions on the international peace fund; that will hopefully provide him with the reassurances that he seeks.
The appalling reality in Gaza and the west bank is placing the two-state solution that we all want to see under immense strain, as are the actions of this Israeli Government. As the Foreign Secretary has set out, Gazans have endured unimaginable trauma and suffering for three years. There is increasing evidence that war crimes appear to have been committed, and we support legal processes to determine whether that is so. At the same time, we are witnessing unprecedented violence on the west bank, including settler terrorism and ethnic cleansing perpetrated by settler terrorists. We condemn settler violence and settlement expansion, which are contrary to international law and a grave threat to the two-state solution.
The question has been asked: why now? Why was it necessary for the Government to act? I will set out clearly the reasons for doing so. We need to recognise that last year was a record year for new settlements. In August, we saw a long-standing red line crossed when the E1 tenders were issued for more than 1,200 homes. The Foreign Secretary pointed out that at the time of Oslo, around 270,000 settlers lived in Occupied Palestinian Territories. Today it is some 750,000, and more settlements have been approved in the four years of this Israeli Government than in the previous 20 years. We have seen 65 Palestinian communities completely expelled since October 2023 and a total of over 4,000 Palestinians evicted from their homes due to settler violence and state actions. This Government refuse to stand by and watch further suffering and the destruction of the two-state solution.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I commend my hon. Friend, and the Foreign Secretary last week, for the tone in which they have set out this recent decision on the settlements. I, too, have Jewish constituents who are very scared, but it is right, as the Minister said, to call a friend out when their behaviour goes too far. We know that there are big issues about the legal definition of genocide in Palestine. I wonder whether the Minister, or the Department, has had any conversations with the Israeli Government or the ambassador to the UK about the Foreign Secretary’s statement last week, and whether the Minister could update the House.
Stephen Doughty
In advance of the statement, when the Foreign Secretary came into office and I took on this ministerial role, we were of course in contact with the Israeli Government. The Foreign Secretary spoke to Foreign Minister Sa’ar, I spoke with the Israeli chargé here, and we have had continual contact with the Government of Israel about our concerns and what we believe needs to change. My hon. Friend will have seen the reaction and the commentary in recent days, which was deeply regrettable and deeply unfortunate, but of course we maintain close and important links with Israel on a range of other measures. This is very much focused on the actions that we see on the ground—the actions of, for example, settler terrorists and those who are backing them in expanding those settlements, and the withholding of aid to Gaza. This is not a quarrel with Israel, or the Israeli people.
We should always be proud that it was a Labour Government who took the historic decision to recognise the state of Palestine. It is also important to recognise our engagement on furthering the agenda of reform and inclusion in the state of Palestine; we work very closely with the Palestinian authorities, hampered as they are by the continued withholding of tax revenues and a range of other measures taken by the Israeli Government. As I said, we have been resolute that Hamas cannot be part of government going forward and must disarm. As many people have said, we have worked with the Palestinian authorities closely on the reform of prisoner payments, and welfare payments must be needs-based.
We are very clear that there needs to be reform and an inclusive process in Palestine. We want a viable, secure, prosperous and well governed Palestine going forward, and we have always been there as a partner to enable that. As for that state being threatened geographically, or in the functioning of its institutions, if we say that we believe in a two-state solution, we must believe in two states, geographically and in terms of ability to function. We have seen that goal come under even greater pressure in recent times.
We have been very clear in our engagement with both the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Government. I spoke to the Palestinian Foreign Minister recently, and have also engaged with those involved in the transitional processes that will hopefully lead to a settlement and a new Administration in Gaza. I met with the head of the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza when I was in Egypt recently, and have discussed, even in these difficult times, the ways we can look to a positive and productive future.
I must be clear, as the Foreign Secretary was, that the official view of this Government is now that Israel’s continued occupation of Palestine is unlawful. That concurs with the central finding of the June 2024 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. We have come to that conclusion for a range of reasons. The Foreign Secretary and others have mentioned that Israel’s entrenchment of its control, its intention to extend permanent sovereignty, and its expansionist agenda and support for and facilitation of illegal settlements are key in this. That is our clear position. It is very important that I set out our values, what we aim at and the legal position, and that leads us on to the actions that we must take.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I know of constituents who have moved from Israel to Leeds because of the actions of the Israeli Government, and who applaud what we have done in banning Israeli settlement goods and services. Many of us stand squarely behind international law and human rights, and commend the Minister and the Foreign Secretary for their actions.
Stephen Doughty
I thank my hon. Friend for his support. I know that he has extensive experience on these issues, and he is right that many, diverse voices across this country have welcomed our actions.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)
The Minister has been very generous in giving way. In his discussions with the Government of Israel, has he ever raised the issue of Israel never defining what its borders actually are? That seems to me to be a fundamental problem in any discussions on this issue going forward.
Stephen Doughty
Ultimately, we have always been very clear, as the right hon. Member will know, that these matters must be determined in future negotiations. Fundamentally, when we talk about the actions that we are taking, we are clear about 1967 and the green line. When it comes to the actions that I will talk about, we make very clear distinctions between illegal settlements and green-line Israel.
The Foreign Secretary announced new sanctions regimes, and powers through which we will ban trade in goods from illegal Israeli settlements. We will also take action on services; we will create new designation powers to go after individuals and companies that support, facilitate or profit from illegal settlement activity. We will ban advertising or the promotion of land and property in illegal settlements, and we will strengthen our existing global human rights sanctions regime to go after those who defy international humanitarian law, be it in Palestine or around the world. I can think of a range of other contexts for this, as sanctions Minister, and a range of other matters that Members raise in this House, including in relation to Sudan, Yemen and Myanmar. It is important that the Government have the power to act against those who defy international humanitarian law, deny access to humanitarian aid or frustrate the actions of humanitarian organisations. We are using our existing global human rights regime to sanction several extremist settlers who have supported or incited acts of violence against Palestinian communities.
Jim Shannon
The Minister is being incredibly generous. He has been very clear that Hamas cannot play a part in whatever future settlement there may be, and I welcome that, as I know my Jewish friends and my constituents would too, but can the Minister outline how he envisages that future, in which Hamas can play no part, to look? I would be very keen to hear his ideas.
Stephen Doughty
Key to that will be ensuring that Hamas put down their arms, and I think important lessons can be learned from the hon. Member’s part of the world. Imperfect as many matters are there, we have important lessons that we can share, in relation to not just Gaza but other contexts too. I have been discussing that with a range of partners over recent times.
We have a process in place. We have the 20-point plan and the 15 points; it is deeply regrettable that we have not made further progress in recent weeks and months. We will work closely with the United States and other partners to further that agenda and find a way forward, but it is absolutely clear that we need to have unity, a functioning state between Gaza and the West Bank, and a state of Palestine that can function, and to ensure that all forms of violence and extremism are rooted out.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
On a functioning state, one of the issues raised with me by constituents who have come to my surgery—people from the synagogue and people who volunteer in Palestine—is that the Israeli Government have withheld $5 billion in revenue from the Palestinian people. It was curtailed in 2019 but then stopped in 2023. That money should be going towards hospitals, schools and a functioning state, as the Minister says. Has he had meetings with the Israeli Government about the return of those revenues, maybe through a third party that they could trust, to make sure that the money goes to the right places?
Stephen Doughty
We have raised those issues on a regular basis, and I have discussed with Palestinian Ministers the impact that it is having on their ability to function. My hon. Friend raises a very important point.
I will make a little progress, because I know that a lot of Members want to speak. I know that a number of Members will want to raise the issue of arms sales and export licensing. I want to be clear to the House that we have already suspended or refused more than 80 export licences in relation to Gaza, and our suspension remains fully in place. I also remind hon. Members—there is a lot of misinformation about this issue—that not all export licences are for military purposes or indeed provided to the Israel Defence Forces; they include exports of crucial medicines, body armour, defensive capabilities and material that is not used in Israel but is used in important components for allies.
I want to emphasise very clearly, as the Foreign Secretary said, that because of our view that the occupation is itself unlawful we will also now refuse all licence applications for arms and other exports that materially contribute to the occupation. In effect, that provides a double lock against all relevant exports, on the basis of which we will determine our export licensing. That means that the ban on exports will remain for relevant items as long as the occupation persists—that is very clear.
I want to clarify, because it is important, what these measures will not do. Our sanctions regime will not target important and valued trade with green-line Israel. We oppose the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions campaign, including attempts to exclude Israel from, for example, sports or cultural activities. This is not a ban on travel or religious visits or, indeed, religious expression—that is very important. We will put in place the appropriate religious exemptions, and I thank all those who have raised important and sensitive matters with us on that. It is important that we listen to those communities and also that we do not share misinformation around what this regime does or does not do. We will work to ensure that the measures we set out do not have unintended consequences.
On the timing, the expanded global human rights regime will come within weeks. We expect the legislation for the wider new sanctions in relation to settlements to take around six to nine months, but as the Foreign Secretary said, if we can do it sooner, we will. I want to explain to the House that because sanctions are impactful and powerful, but also technical, we have to take time to carefully design them to ensure that they have the impact we want, that they are lawful and proportionate, that they do not have unintended consequences and, crucially, that they are enforceable.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
Can I raise the “NAZA” film that was recently shown at the Venice film festival? It talks about the targeting systems that the IDF used in Gaza, and where it had specifically waited for Hamas fighters to return home so it could target them in a place they knew, but with huge civilian casualties. One whistleblower suggested that 500 civilians were killed in a strike on a single Hamas target. To give a UK example, something similar happened against three former British servicemen at the World Central Kitchen. Could the Minister reflect on that documentary and how we will get accountability for those former British servicemen who were killed with this awful targeting system?
Stephen Doughty
I have not seen the documentary that my hon. Friend mentions, but the fact is there have been horrendous humanitarian deaths, including the ones he mentioned and, of course, appalling numbers of civilian deaths in Gaza. The Foreign Secretary and I were clear that the decision about World Central Kitchen was shameful. We have been in contact with the families and have obviously urged the relevant authorities to reconsider that decision. In the end, all these matters will be reviewed and understood by courts and other competent authorities, but there is significant evidence of atrocities being committed, and I have been very clear on that specific case.
I am clear that we are already taking action on those involved in settler violence, using the powers we have. That includes the five extremist settlers that we sanctioned last Tuesday, and we have also, alongside partners including Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway, sanctioned extremist Israeli Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir in their personal capacities in response to their repeated incitement of violence against Palestinian communities.
It is also important to say—this perhaps did not receive as much attention last week, but it is very important—that we absolutely recognise the threats that Israel faces, and not only Israel but other countries in the region, from Iran. That is why we imposed a number of sanctions on Iran last week, and we also sanctioned Lebanese Hezbollah. In the light of the actions we see in Yemen and around the Bab al-Mandab, we also absolutely condemn the actions of the Houthis—the atrocities they are responsible for—and we are working closely with partners, including the Government of Yemen and others. But it is absolutely crucial to recognise that the Houthis have previously struck against Israel.
I want to reiterate—I am conscious that we are in the high holy days—that no community must face discrimination, violence, hate or the threat of violence. Antisemitism disgusts me, as I am sure it does all of us in this House, and the Foreign Secretary is very clear that the actions we took are against the Israeli Government, not Israel, not its people. In any case, holding British Jews responsible for the actions ever of the Israeli Government is antisemitism, plain and simple. I have heard directly from Jewish communities in my own constituency the threats and risks they face—I know we have all heard similar. We are living in a time when we have had the horrific attacks in Heaton Park and, indeed, what we saw in Golders Green. That is why we are investing £250 million for community security. We are taking action on antisemitism in schools and communities. In October, the Foreign Secretary will host representatives of the J7 to discuss how we can work across borders to tackle antisemitism. I praise the work of my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce) on post-Holocaust issues and, more broadly, the work of my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) on freedom of religion and belief.
I will conclude, because I know many Members want to speak, by saying that we know the actions we announced last week would prompt strong reactions, but that did not mean they were any less necessary. It is deeply regrettable that the Israeli Government have announced measures, such as wanting to close our consulate in Jerusalem, but we stand by our actions. If we are guided by values, by the law and by the facts on the ground, we need to see action and leadership. That is the right thing to do to defend the two-state solution, which is in the interests of Israelis and Palestinians, but also in our national interest, and we have been joined by others, including France and Canada.
Peace and security depend on our resolve to create the conditions in which Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in their own states, confident in their futures. We might be far from that hope being realised at present, but it is one that we will work absolutely assiduously to deliver, and we have to speak and act with clarity to achieve that. I look forward to the contributions of Members across the House and am glad to have been able to open the debate.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
I start by expressing our condolences following the death of a member of our armed forces in Ukraine on Saturday. I thank them for their service and say to their family that we hold them very much in our hearts.
As we approach the anniversary of Hamas’s barbaric 7 October terrorist attacks next month, we also approach three years of war. Two hundred and fifty-one people were kidnapped that day, over 1,200 murdered and hundreds raped. It was not until this January that the remains of the final hostage were brought home—may their memory be a blessing.
After three years of immense suffering, recent months have, on paper, hinted at real progress towards peace: a UN Security Council resolution, a road map and transitional committee, and the first Palestinian legislative election since 2006 scheduled for November. Yet on the ground, neither the Israeli nor Palestinian people feel any safer. Hamas remains armed despite promises to the contrary, and Iran remains a destructive force, willing to sacrifice the futures of whole nations through its proxies in Palestine, Yemen, Lebanon and Iraq, creating instability to ensure the survival of its own despotic regime.
As the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), set out last week, there is much we agree on across this House, and even where differences of approach exist, we share a deep concern that current events are taking Israelis and Palestinians towards a darker future. We are acutely aware of the immense suffering in Gaza and the fragility of attempts at peacebuilding. We agree that some Israeli Ministers have espoused unacceptable, dangerous and hateful rhetoric, even targeting our own country in recent weeks, and that groups of settlers in the west bank are engaging in illegal acts and violence, often encouraged by this same rhetoric. We also know that most in Israel reject this and seek a peaceful future, and we must keep them in our minds and not mistake the loudest voices as the most representative.
Before I turn to the Government’s decisions, let me say something as a friend of Israel, as someone who has worked with Israel to defeat shared enemies such as Daesh. We have learned from failures in Iraq and Afghanistan that how you prosecute the operation to defeat terrorists determines whether you build and secure peace for your people in the long term. You do not defeat an insurgency by creating conditions in which the next generation is recruited. My fear is that three years on, Hamas is still armed, still governing and still recruiting. Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari, then spokesperson for the IDF, said, “Hamas is an idea,” and that those who believe that it can be eliminated by force alone are mistaken, and he is right. You cannot bomb an ideology out of existence; you must allow an alternative and create the space for political transition. That is not a moral nicety; it is the operational lesson of every counter-insurgency campaign our country has ever fought, including those we have lost. The defeat of Hamas is important to our security here in the UK, and these lessons cannot be dismissed if we are to create a safer future for us and if the region is to find peace.
We all want a better future for the Israeli and Palestinian people, but to do so, we must have constructive channels of communication open with our partners in the region. As Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron was able to secure additional aid to Gaza and to open new crossings by using our relationship to benefit those most in need. It is imperative that the Government maintain those relations to reflect the strategic importance of this relationship and to allow us to continue to influence events as friends. I believe the world is a better place when Britain is at the table, and more clarity is needed on the Government’s position. The Board of Peace’s efforts have largely been rejected, at least on sequencing. Hamas will not disarm first, Israel will not withdraw first, but the Government have said nothing about the British view of what the sequencing should be, and that silence benefits no one.
With Israeli elections next month and Palestinian elections in November, there is a small glimmer of hope that they will bring more moderate voices to the fore. That is why we remain concerned that the sanctions announced by the Government so close to the Israeli election may empower the very voices most opposed to peace. Before the Foreign Secretary’s announcement, Israeli news was awash with headlines that Netanyahu allegedly failed to pass on a warning from the President of the United Arab Emirates to Israeli intelligence 10 days before the Hamas attack. Britain’s sanctions wiped that off the news cycle; it is no longer being discussed. Given that Israel, a true democracy, is about to go to the polls, did the timing not warrant more reflection?
I have spent years arguing that this country imposes sanctions without plans ever to lift them in order to punish, rather than to deter or change behaviour. Let me ask Ministers what I would ask of any sanctions regime: what must change for these measures to be lifted, and will that be published and made clear so that they can achieve the effect they wish to see?
Turning to the Palestinian elections, there is a real possibility that Hamas could win a share of power. If Hamas win the Palestinian elections, will the Government give diplomatic accreditation to one of their representatives as ambassador? We must all speak honestly and accept that the odds are stacked against any Palestinian moderate while Tehran funds, arms and outbids all of them. A Hamas election victory could mark the first time the British Government accredit an ambassador appointed by a proscribed terrorist group. Will the Minister confirm in winding up that under no circumstances will the Government accept a Palestinian ambassador drawn from Hamas? I also ask for a written ministerial statement before 6 November setting out the accreditation criteria.
The Iranian state continues to support Hamas to use violence to advance its political aims. It is therefore vital that the Palestinian Authority security forces can maintain the peace needed for an election to take place, so it is deeply regrettable that, following the Foreign Secretary’s statement last week, the UK training advisory mission to Palestinian security forces has been terminated when it is most needed. What efforts have the Government made to replace our contribution, be it with Jordanian or EU or other authorities and forces?
Likewise, the closure of our consulate in Jerusalem severs our main diplomatic channel to Palestinians in Jerusalem and the west bank when the situation is getting worse and the west bank should occupy more of our debate in this place. The Jordanians are doing an important job to protect the stability that there is, but Christian communities, among the oldest in the world, are being harassed, attacked and driven from their homes. How are the Government now going to assess the situation there and speak up for those being persecuted?
The Minister responded just now to a question from his Back Benches about the strike on the World Central Kitchen. James Henderson, John Chapman and James Kirby, three British veterans, were killed by Israeli fire while delivering food in Gaza. Their families are still waiting for the unedited drone footage to be handed to the coroner and for a resumption date for the inquest. Can the Minister give more clarity on what the Government are doing to secure that footage and that date, and on when we will get answers about how, in January 2024, an Israeli airstrike hit a residential compound in a designated safe zone in Gaza where British surgeons working for Medical Aid for Palestinians were living? Thankfully, none were harmed.
This conflict sits within a wider regional destabilisation that threatens us all. It is indisputable that the Iranian regime is by far the biggest sponsor of global terrorism, and Iran must never achieve its goal of nuclear armament, because a nuclear-armed ayatollah is concerning enough, but who among us can truly say that we trust that that regime would not share such a weapon with the Houthis or with Hezbollah? We would be one step from nuclear-enabled terrorism.
Just last week, the Houthis briefly captured the pivotal Perim island in the Bab el-Mandeb strait. Although Yemeni Government forces repelled the attack, that must serve as a warning. Taken with the Houthi strike against the Saudi east-west oil pipeline, there is a real and escalating risk that Bab el-Mandeb will, like the strait of Hormuz, come to be closed. If the situation at both does not calm, the coming winter will be marked by rising inflation, economic hardship, medicine and food shortages, an energy crisis and worse. Given that, we must counter the Houthi threat and assist Saudi Arabia and other partners in maintaining maritime freedom.
The previous Prime Minister did at least work earnestly to establish an international coalition aimed at protecting the flow of trade. The Prime Minister now needs to convene this group, otherwise he will walk into a winter of discontent. The British people need him to take action. What contingency plans have been drawn up if the Houthi campaign continues and the Bab el-Mandeb strait and Saudi pipeline infrastructure are degraded? Given this context, the choice to delay the decision on the Jackdaw gas field in the North sea is mistaken.
We must not put our heads in the sand, because the reality is that next year we may find ourselves in a three-theatre conflict: Ukraine; the strait of Hormuz; and—which would be the greatest shock to the global economy and the cost of living in my lifetime—Taiwan. We must be prepared.
Britain did not choose this conflict, and we cannot choose to be unaffected by it, but Government action is needed to protect our economy, our supply chains and our people, because Iran and its proxies continue to target us directly, feeding and funding a national emergency of antisemitism in our country, and working to undermine our freedoms and security. Just last week, another two individuals were arrested on suspicion of assisting Iranian intelligence; that takes the total to 15 in the last two years.
The Government must also take action to shut down blatant propaganda operations on our streets: Al Masirah, the Houthis’ main television station; LuaLua TV, which has an Ofcom broadcasting licence; and the Islamic Centre of England in Maida Vale, whose director has to be appointed by the ayatollah himself. There are various cut-outs across our country currently sponsoring visas and giving terrorists not a back door but a front door into our country, and we must end this game of whack-a-mole and unplug the machine. That means we must designate Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security.
It is in our interests to see a lasting peace in Israel and Palestine, and indeed across the whole region. We have an historical obligation not to look the other way, and the suffering of 7 October, Gaza and the west bank pain us all. The consequences of that day continue to reverberate and grow ever more pressing for us. We hope for the best and there are small glimmers of hope, but action is needed to protect us here in the UK by assuring and shoring up our interests in the region. So let us prepare for the worst and ensure that, if it comes, we have the means, the will and the vision to weather the storm.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I will confine my remarks to the subject of Israel and Palestine, and I declare my interest as co-chair of the all-party group on Britain-Palestine.
I very much welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement of 8 September, and particularly the Government having now made it clear that their official position is that Israel’s occupation of Palestine is unlawful—it is illegal. That is an important change, and it at long last brings the United Kingdom into line with the International Court of Justice 2024 advisory opinion, but, as the Minister said, the court’s conclusion was rooted in Israel’s entrenchment of its control, its clear intention to extend permanent sovereignty, and its expansionist settlement agenda. It is also welcome that the Foreign Secretary acknowledged the increasing evidence identified by bodies, including the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry, that war crimes appear to have been committed in Gaza, and we support the appropriate legal processes to establish responsibility for those crimes.
On genocide, I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to full, robust and fair judicial processes, with final determinations made by competent courts, but the UK does not need to wait for a final determination before acting. The UN commission of inquiry stated in September 2025 that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and that state parties to the genocide convention had been on notice of a serious risk of genocide since at least January 2024. That serious risk itself triggers a duty to prevent genocide. The UK must therefore recognise that risk and act now: ending political, financial and military support that contributes to it; sanctioning those most implicated; committing to execute International Criminal Court arrest warrants; and supporting South Africa’s case at the ICJ.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to refuse arms licences where exports materially contribute to the unlawful occupation, but the Foreign Secretary did not clearly confirm when I asked during last week’s statement whether existing licences will be cancelled where they meet that test. Will the Minister confirm that the new double lock will apply to existing licences, and set out the criteria by which the Government will determine whether an export contributes to the occupation? Colleagues will wish to know whether British arms exports currently available for the IDF in the west bank will no longer be licensed.
I welcome the proposed sanctions on goods and services linked to illegal settlements I very much welcome that in the context of the previous ridiculous position of properties being marketed in this city for sale in the west bank. When that was raised, the wholly inappropriate response was to send in the Advertising Standards Authority, so I welcome the movement on that by Front Benchers. Will the Government confirm that these measures will cover all settlements, including existing settlements, that the ban on goods will apply to exports as well as imports, and that there will be no “re-export to settlements” clauses in contracts, as modelled on the guidance issued in respect of Russia?
Finally, I sincerely hope that this reset will be furthered and sustained, as only by doing so can the commitment to a two-state solution be truly achieved.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I welcome the Minister to his place. I look forward to working with him and I pay tribute to the work of his predecessor, who was called to the Chamber to discuss this issue many times. I also pay tribute to the consulate general in East Jerusalem, which I visited with a Select Committee, that did some truly fantastic work. I regret that it has been closed and I hope that it will be reopened swiftly.
The Liberal Democrats welcomed the Foreign Secretary’s statement last week designed to protect the two-state solution and the territorial integrity of the Palestinian state, that finally brought forward a ban on trade in goods and services with the illegal Israeli settlements. This was long overdue and the Liberal Democrats have called for it for years. Many of my constituents in Esher and Walton have also called for it, as did members of my Jewish community, some of whom have been campaigning for it. The Government must now ensure this ban is comprehensive and rigorously enforced, leaving no room for doubt as to the legal consequences for businesses involved in supporting or sustaining illegal settlements, and it must be enforced urgently.
The Government must outline how they will monitor and implement this ban, and commit to ensuring that the burden of proof is placed on Israeli authorities to provide verifiable certification that imported goods originated within the internationally recognised pre-1967 “green-line” borders, denying UK entry to any uncertified items originating from those illegal settlements. The Government should draw on the legal provisions set out in schedule 1 to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 to ensure that the ban on services is comprehensive, and they should introduce secondary legislation to amend SAMLA, placing a legal duty of due diligence on UK banks and financial institutions to verify that none of their direct operations, supply chains or customers is financing the purchase, construction or other service provision for illegal settlements.
We would like the Government to outline that any violation of these bans would result in enforcement measures under the UK-Israel trade and partnership agreement. We call on the Government to impose a comprehensive ban on all arms exports to Israel, including the sale of F-35 components, and to expand sanctions on Ministers in the Israeli Government’s security cabinet who are encouraging settlement expansion, including Prime Minister Netanyahu himself.
A two-state solution represents the only political settlement that can deliver peace, dignity and security for Israelis and Palestinians alike. But Hamas, as a brutal terror organisation that threatens the survival of the state of Israel, can have no role in the future of Palestine. The UK, together with international partners, must develop a plan to progress urgently the disarming and disbanding of this terror group.
Preserving the territory of Palestine must be a foundation stone for the building of the Palestinian state, but another must be the strengthening of the governance capabilities of the Palestinian Authority. There are vital reforms that must take place within the Palestinian Authority to ensure that they can act as an effective state-building force. These must include strengthening the rule of law and protections for freedom of expression, cracking down on corruption and following through on ending the operation of the martyrs fund. The Government must support and hold the PA to account for the implementation of these reforms.
It is critical that the upcoming Palestinian elections are free, fair and open to advance further democratic reform across Palestine, so will Ministers work with President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority to help deliver these, including ensuring access for international election monitors. We must also recognise that current Israeli restrictions are contributing to severe economic insecurity in the west bank. The Government must put pressure on the Israeli Cabinet to ensure that the Palestinian Authority have the revenues to which they are entitled and access to banking systems to support the economy.
The Israeli legislative elections in October are an opportunity to deliver a new vision for the country that reverses illegal settlement growth, prioritises diplomacy over territorial expansion and champions engagement with moderate partners in Palestine to deliver a better future for both communities. If the cycle of violence continues, it will only strengthen the voices of extremists on both sides who reject co-existence between Israelis and Palestinians. Meanwhile, the UK Government must use all the leverage they can, working with international partners and with the Israeli Government to stop the loss of civilian life in Gaza even after the ceasefire.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
The UK Government need to work with all their partners, but the reality is that unless America takes action, Israel is not going to back off from the atrocities it is carrying out. We need to push all the levers available to us to make sure that America is on side. The United Nations Security Council resolutions were almost all vetoed by America on its own. Unless America gets behind this peace plan, there will be no peace in Palestine or Israel.
Monica Harding
The hon. Member is absolutely right that America has a critical role to play in this conflict.
To give some numbers, as of 6 August, at least 300 children have reportedly been killed in Gaza in the 300 days since the ceasefire was announced—an average of one child a day. Gazans continue to remain in the grip of a man-made humanitarian catastrophe in the strip. The UK Government must do more to alleviate the humanitarian crises there and the one growing in the west bank. Over 2 million people in Gaza are living on around 30% of the territory, sheltering in unsafe conditions among destroyed buildings, rubble and waste. Some 70% of Gaza remains under IDF control. The UK must now apply genuine pressure to Netanyahu’s Government to ensure that food, aid, medical supplies and other essentials can reach Gazans now, without impediment and under the auspices of the UN, and that children and all civilians are protected.
I have called on UK Ministers to pressure Netanyahu’s Government to lift their arbitrary restrictions on non-governmental organisations supplying humanitarian aid to the strip. Last week, I noted in this Chamber that more than 1.4 million people in Gaza are acutely food insecure, yet Israel’s current interpretation of dual-use restrictions means that Palestinians are routinely and systematically denied essential items, including those needed for rehabilitation by the tens of thousands of people who have suffered life-changing injuries during this conflict.
The Foreign Secretary agreed that blocking those goods was appalling and seemed to suggest that it was a strategy. What does the Minister think is the strategy of the Israeli Government? Will he put pressure on them to undo those dual-good restrictions to allow the Palestinians to be self-sufficient, and to ensure that aid is sustainable and that they are no longer expected to live hand to mouth?
From October, the World Food Programme will cut the number of people it can feed in Gaza from 1.1 million to 600,000—not because the need has reduced, but because the money has run out. Those are people who will go without food, in a territory where 100,000 women and children are already expected to need treatment for malnutrition in the coming year. The UK is the ninth-largest donor to World Food Programme operations in Palestine, behind the USA, Germany and France. Our annual contribution fell from $18 million in 2024 to $9.3 million last year, and to just $4 million this year. That is a reduction of 78%. The Government cannot truly speak of their commitment to the Palestinian people while presiding over cuts like those. Will the Minister explain how those two things are reconcilable?
The brutal cuts to our aid budget have meant that our response to all humanitarian crises is limited. I have asked many Ministers in this House when we should expect at the very least a road map for restoring the 0.7% aid budget—a commitment that we in this House have enshrined in law. Again, can the Minister set out that timeline? Can he confirm that his party—the party of the Department for International Development and making poverty history—is committed to seeing our aid budget returned in full?
Jeremy Corbyn
The hon. Member is making a very strong point about the lack of food security for the Palestinian people in Gaza. Does she recognise that Israel now occupies around 70% of Gaza, so the population is restricted to 30% of the area? Some years ago, there was a huge move to make Gaza once again a major food-growing area, which traditionally it always had been. Does she think that should be part of the development process again?
Monica Harding
I 100% agree. I made the point last week that the dual-use restrictions mean that people can bring an egg into Gaza, but not a chicken; and a potato, but not a potato tuber. That means Gazans are living hand to mouth and are absolutely reliant on the Israeli state for their wellbeing and health.
The Government must engage with international partners and the Israeli authorities to ensure that journalists and human rights investigators are allowed into the strip. That is essential for accountability for war crimes on both sides of the conflict. We believe that robustly challenging the illegal actions of this extremist Israeli Government is compatible both with staunch support for the rights of the states of Israel and Palestine to exist and with resolute support for the rights of British Jews to live free from the scourge of anti-Jewish hatred. Antisemitism has no place in our society. We stand in solidarity with the Jewish community and all those affected, and we reaffirm our commitment to tackling hatred in all its forms. Those who spread antisemitic hatred or incite violence against Jews—whether online, at marches or elsewhere—must be stopped. It is never acceptable.
Lastly, this is a debate on Israel and Palestine, but any serious discussion of the situation must also consider the situation in Lebanon. In Lebanon, more than 350,000 people remain displaced, and more than 1,200 civilians have been killed in the latest phase of fighting, including children and health workers. Israel has reportedly seized and occupied 230 square miles of Lebanese territory, creating a yellow line restricted zone similar to that in Gaza. The Israeli Government must cease their military operations in southern Lebanon and withdraw from the country.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
On the point about the people displaced in Lebanon, does the hon. Member agree that if there is to be a comprehensive peace settlement between Israel and Palestine, all 700,000-odd people who were forcibly expelled from the west bank, from Gaza and from elsewhere during the Nakba must be allowed to return? At the moment they are all in refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt.
Monica Harding
I agree. We must stand with the refugees emanating from this crisis in their plight, including with the countries that are supporting them, such as Jordan. We must ensure that our commitment to those countries is secure, including our financial commitment.
Israel’s continuing occupation violates Lebanon’s sovereignty and is exacerbating the humanitarian crisis, which we have just spoken of. This House must recognise and reaffirm that Hezbollah is a brutal terror organisation from which the Israeli Government have the right to defend themselves and their people. It must be disarmed, but that must be achieved by working with leaders in Beirut and through international organisations. Will the Minister set out what role the UK is playing in pushing for a proper ceasefire in Lebanon and for the disarmament of Hezbollah? Will he confirm that Israel must withdraw from all sovereign Lebanese territory?
Progress has been made in this last week that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches have long called for, but we must be certain that statements are followed up with robust action and that we stand up as the UK, as we always must, for international law, for international humanitarian law and for peace.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I begin by acknowledging and welcoming the hugely important step announced by the Foreign Secretary and reaffirmed by the Minister today. The ban on imports of settlement goods and the powers to target those who support, facilitate or profit from settlement activity, and the conclusion in line with the ICJ’s substantial ruling that Israel’s continued occupation of Palestine is unlawful, is a hugely welcome step taken by this Government. Equally important is the fact that the Government have made clear the complete reset in our relationship. That is very important, but we must be clear that any reset must mean more than just a change in language; it must mean serious consequences for those who flagrantly breach international law.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I agree with my hon. Friend that it is very good that we heard from the Government last week that they recognise that Israel’s occupation is unlawful. Does he agree that, given that it is unlawful, it is absolutely vital that it is the Palestinian people, but also the international community in the widest sense, who get to set what happens in the future in the territories of Palestine, rather than it being solely Israel’s responsibility, which is the view of Israel?
Imran Hussain
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and it is the point that I am making. I will come on to the international rules-based order shortly, and that will perhaps answer his very important question.
Many of us in this House have been calling for these measures for years. Let us be honest: many of us have stood here in debate after debate, speaking about these very issues, only to be told by Ministers time and again that they are reviewing what action to take or looking at the ICJ advisory opinion. While we were having those debates in this House and deliberating, the Palestinians did not have the luxury of waiting. Frankly, it has taken a change of Government to get us to this place. Let us be clear: on genocide in Gaza, war crimes across Palestine and the ethnic cleansing of whole Palestinian communities, the previous Government should have acted. They failed to stand against injustice, failed to stand for human rights, and failed to stand for the international rules-based order.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a passionate speech. I am sure that like me, he will have had many constituents lobbying him on this issue over the past few years; in my constituency, the Hanwell Friends of Sabastiya, which is a village on the west bank, have often come up to speak to me. Does he agree that community organisations and friendship groups like that have had an important role to play in influencing this Government to take the robust steps that they have now taken?
Imran Hussain
My hon. Friend raises a much broader point. Let us pay tribute to not just the fantastic community groups in all our constituencies, but the millions of people who rightly marched on our streets when our Government got it so wrong. I pay tribute to each and every one of them for their peaceful protest. They were right, and those making the decisions in this place were wrong.
I will concentrate my remarks not on the direction of the recent announcements, but on the pace at which this Government should now travel. As always, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) made a powerful contribution. He is absolutely right; while I, like him, welcome the Government’s announcement of a double lock on arms licences, this House still needs clarity today. I very much hope that the Minister will clarify whether that double lock applies to existing licences.
My sincere request of this Government is that we must go further. We must now end all remaining arms sales to Israel and, in particular, close the F-35 loophole. We must ensure that no equipment of UK origin directly or indirectly supports genocide in Gaza, or war crimes anywhere in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The scale of death and suffering caused by the right-wing Netanyahu Government’s genocide in Gaza demands urgent and further immediate action. With more than 70,000 Palestinians killed in recent years, including over 21,000 children, the scale of this horror should shame the entire international community. The blockade, the denial of aid, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and the forced confinement of Palestinians while Israel illegally occupies most of their land have created the most serious humanitarian crisis. This is a product of the machinery of genocide and war crimes that Israel continues to operate. Children continue to be denied food, water and medicines, and families continue to be pushed into impossible conditions.
If we are serious about international law, we must go further. We must press for the full and immediate lifting of the blockade, unimpeded humanitarian access and the protection of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency’s mandate, staff, premises and operations. We should also be clear that although aid funding is, of course, welcome—the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), was right that there is a different debate to be had about our contribution to international aid and how, disappointingly, it has dropped down the agenda—it cannot be a substitute for the political action needed to stop the war crimes and the conditions of genocide that make that aid necessary in the first place.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
The hon. Member has repeatedly mentioned the word “genocide”, yet the Government repeatedly say that only a competent court can formally determine whether genocide has occurred in Gaza. Does he agree that that is not the issue, and that genocide prevention law exists precisely because waiting for a final judgment may mean that it comes too late? Does the hon. Member also agree that we have an obligation to act, not once a court has found that genocide has taken place, but as soon as there is a serious risk that genocide may be occurring?
Imran Hussain
Of course I agree with the hon. Member. The genocide is unfolding right before our eyes. I would gently say to him that the Foreign Secretary’s language in this House has to be within certain scope. However, he did list off genocides, which to me suggested that he accepts that there is a genocide. Enough scholars, legal minds and other people across the globe have confirmed that this is a genocide unfolding right before our eyes.
I will be very brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the announcement regarding the west bank; the Foreign Secretary was right to call out the settler terrorists in the west bank. That matters, because Palestinian communities know exactly what that violence is designed to do: frighten them, isolate them and drive them from their home. The powers announced recently are the right powers; now, they must be used. Sanctions on all settler terrorists, as well as the whole settlement enterprise—those who finance it, profit from it, build it, advertise it and politically sustain it—must come as soon as possible.
I will make some final submissions regarding the ICJ and ICC. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s comment that we will stand with the ICC and ICJ. Frankly, it is disgraceful that judges in those courts have come under pressure and faced sanctions. An international rules-based order counts for nothing if we abandon the institutions that uphold it the moment their rulings become inconvenient. We cannot cite the ICJ’s advisory opinion one week and say nothing when its judges are threatened the next week. We must continue to stand with the international rules-based order.
In closing, the recent announcements are an important first step, but they are only the start. The war crimes, genocide and ethnic cleansing must end, and the international community must commit to ending them. Those responsible for genocide, war crimes and ethnic cleansing must be held to account, and we in this House have a moral, ethical and legal duty not to stop until that happens.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
Many across the House, like me, welcome the Foreign Secretary’s announcement of a ban on products from illegal settlements in the occupied territories. Back in the early ’80s, I was a kibbutznik based at Kibbutz Re’im in the Negev, where I was conducting agricultural research. In those now far-off days, I would go with my Israeli friends to meet their Palestinian friends in Gaza—to meet, to trade, and to drink strong black Arabic coffee. Re’im was one of the kibbutzim attacked on 7 October 2023, so I can say that I understand something of the area and the tensions, and I can also say that peace is possible.
I would like to talk about a topic raised by one of my constituents at a constituency surgery in Melksham and Devizes last Saturday: the closure of the unit tracking potential law breaches, as announced in The Guardian on 24 April. The closure of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s international humanitarian law cell is doubly worrying at this time, especially when it means that funding for the conflict and security monitoring project run by the Centre for Information Resilience will come to an end.
Alicia Kearns
To add to the hon. Gentleman’s point, he may not be aware that the Government have also closed the atrocity prevention centre that was set up in the Cabinet Office. I spent two years fighting for its introduction. Its whole point was to identify the signs of ethnic cleansing very early on, so that the Government could send experts in to improve the Foreign Office’s response. Does he not agree that that closure is concerning, given that we see more conflict around the world, not less?
Brian Mathew
I heartily agree with the hon. Lady. The centre’s work for the FCDO included the world’s largest open-source monitoring of incidents across Israel, Palestine and Lebanon. It is the only programme in the UK that collects, verifies and analyses human rights and conflict incidents in Israel and the occupied territories. The closure of the monitoring programme will mean that the Foreign Office will lose access to a database of 26,000 and counting incidents in the middle east, stretching back to 7 October 2023. The database also helps FCDO teams decide whether arms export control licences to Israel should remain suspended, and it is used by officials discussing whether international humanitarian law—for example, rules on proportionality—is being breached. The head of the Metropolitan police’s war crimes team in the counter-terrorism unit underlined the importance of CIR’s work in helping the Metropolitan police to consider war crimes allegations, including the unlawful shooting of minors in Gaza.
I hope the Minister can clarify whether these cuts have been reversed. For the Government to be operating blind at this time would be extremely concerning. Furthermore, this issue casts light on the importance of the FCDO’s work and the self-defeating nature of the Government’s cuts to our aid programme, which those in my party, and I suspect many Members across the Chamber, condemn.
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
This weekend was Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year. Jewish families wished one another “Shana Tova”. They dipped apples in honey, in the hope that the new year ahead will be sweet. As Rosh Hashanah closed, families started a 10-day journey through to Yom Kippur, the Jewish day of atonement. It is a day when we seek forgiveness for our failings and vow to do better. Today is the first of those 10 days. It is a period of profound seriousness, and a chance to reflect on the past and to ensure that the future is brighter.
Last year, on the high holy day of Yom Kippur, Jihad al-Shamie went to Heaton Park synagogue armed with a knife to murder Jews. As he stabbed one worshipper, he shouted, “This is what they get for killing our children.” It is no wonder that this is a sensitive time and a sensitive debate for the Jewish community, because as Mr al-Shamie’s actions show, there are those who would cloak their antisemitism in concerns about the actions of Israel—those whose murderous intent and racist ignorance is dressed up as a moral crusade. I choose to reflect on the past year, and I hope to use that to help build towards a brighter year ahead, because surely that is what each and every one of us in this House is here to do—to chart a way forward. Our job is not to amplify grievance, or to give in to hopelessness, but to do the hard yards of understanding, and the perhaps even harder yards of playing our role in getting us to a better place.
Dame Meg Hillier
I thank my hon. Friend for the tone of his comments, and for reminding us of the seriousness of this, and of what took place in Manchester last year. He seems to be suggesting that dialogue between the peoples of our countries is important. Does he not think that twinning with Israeli cities is an important thing to do? It means that the people of Israel, the people of London and the people of Palestine can talk to each other. We should not just be led by what Governments do.
Matthew Patrick
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Twinning offers an important opportunity to hear that dialogue and to make sure that we are not shutting out the people who are directly impacted. I certainly support that. At next year’s Yom Kippur, I dearly hope that we have an opportunity to look back on a year of progress. I hope that the threat of E1 settlements has ended, and with it, the violent expansion of settlements across the west bank that terrorise Palestinians. I hope that extremism no longer has any influence on the Government of Israel. I hope that the everyday leadership of Israelis and Palestinians, and of Jewish and Muslim communities, inspires people towards peace and towards love.
I hope that the Palestinian Authority, often considered the best hope of leading the Palestinian people, end once and for all the abhorrent practice of paying terrorists each and every month based on the level of destruction and death they wreak upon the Jewish people. I hope that the Palestinian people and Palestinian children are not taught using textbooks that say I am to be hated because I am Jewish. I hope that those children are not brought up to believe that hating Jews is as necessary a life skill as learning maths or science. I hope that Hamas, an evil who have inflicted untold damage on the people of Israel and the people of Gaza, are no more. I hope that in their place is a leadership who see aid as an opportunity to feed their people and to build out infrastructure that might make the everyday life of Gazans better.
I hope, as I have called for in this Chamber many times in the past, that Israel has increased the flow of aid into Gaza so that people have no worry about from where they might find their next meal or dose of medicine. I hope that those in Gaza who have stolen more than £1 billion of public money to build an underground terrorist tunnel network and ply it with weapons become marginalised voices, recognised for the malign influence that they are. I hope that the current Iranian regime, which exports terrorism right across the globe, including here in Britain, and without whom this conflict could never be sustained, is over. I hope that in its place are a Government who treat all the people of Iran—man or woman, gay or straight, Jew or Muslim—as equal people deserving of love and respect.
I am an optimist. I cannot give up on the idea of a two-state solution, but—it is difficult to say this—I understand why some people have. I have spoken to lifelong peace activists in Israel who decided that the depravity of 7 October, and the celebrations that followed it, showed them that they would be fools to believe they could share peace with people who want them dead. I also understand that someone growing up in Gaza knowing war, hunger, destruction and death similarly might not see an alternative path. They may not see their neighbours as partners towards peace. However, my optimism does not dismiss these views, or simply wish that they would go away; my optimism is a belief that we can change course. It has been done before.
In this House, we are rightly proud of what we achieved in Northern Ireland through the Good Friday agreement. That was anything but easy. Prejudices ran deep. Terrible injustices were inflicted upon people, and hurt reached into every corner and every community of Northern Ireland. More of the same was not an option, but that required change and courage. It placed a demand on those who wanted peace—an uncomfortable demand to see and pursue an alternative that hardly seemed possible. We can learn from them.
It starts with us here, with understanding, with compassion, with humanity and dignity in everything we do. It requires us to listen, sometimes to views that we do not always like, and sometimes to people who are not “on our side”. It starts with ending a culture, here in the UK and around the world, in which we take sides on this issue as if it were a football match. That is not a path to peace. If we fail to start from the idea that even in the most intractable and bloody conflicts, children and non-combatants should be kept safe, we will never find that path. If we want to play our role, in this place, in building a two-state solution, we must not see this as a debate needing more heat, but as one needing more light. Where there is anger—understandable, justifiable anger—we must work to ensure that the words we speak do not entrench that anger and, in so doing, block any future chance of progress. The UK and our allies owe that to the people of Israel and Palestine, those who are doing the hard work of trying to find peace in the most difficult of circumstances. We owe them our solidarity. The alternative is that we risk looking back, in a year, at another missed opportunity.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a hugely powerful and, I think, intelligent speech. He may well come on to this, but will he join me in asking the Government to redouble their efforts to secure the international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace, which would give those communities a chance to build peace up from the bottom when the political leadership is failing from the top?
Matthew Patrick
I know that my hon. Friend speaks with great experience, and I am sure that those on the Front Bench have heard what he has said. Any opportunity to fund the people who, day in day out, are making the future of peace still possible is one that we must take. As I was saying, we owe them our solidarity, because the alternative is to look back, in a year, at more missed opportunities with more anger and more hate, and with peace ever further away. I do not want that on my conscience, so I commit myself to learning those lessons.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Last week represented an important change in Britain’s approach to Israel and Palestine, and I welcome it. For the first time, this Government acknowledged the reality staring us in the face: that the occupation is unlawful, that illegal settlements are destroying any prospect of Palestinian statehood, and that in parts of the west bank Palestinians are being ethnically cleansed by what the Foreign Secretary himself called settler terrorists. Those are not my words; they are now the words of His Majesty’s Government. That makes the question before us today all the more urgent. If we finally recognise what is happening, why are we still refusing to confront those who are responsible for making it happen?
This is not simply the work of a few rogue extremists. Under this Israeli Government, more settlements have been approved in four years than in the previous 20. Some 800,000 settlers now live across the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The Foreign Secretary himself told the House that settlers had attacked Palestinian communities under Israeli military protection, and that Israeli Government Ministers had supported ethnic cleansing. We need to stop pretending that the settlements are somehow separate from the Israeli state, because the settlements are a monster of its own making. By tinkering around the edges with sanctions on settlers and leaving the Government at the heart of their enterprise untouched, this Labour Government are trying to tiptoe around the raindrops and not get wet; but, like the last Government, they will be soaked in complicity, and the sanctions do nothing to punish the real architects of this apartheid.
Settlers are murdering Palestinians with IDF protection. The Israeli Government are giving them the land to invade in the first place. If we are serious about ending illegal settlements, where is the ban on trade with the nation of Israel itself? Government policy now contains an extraordinary contradiction. We will sanction the people who finance settlement construction; we will penalise companies that build settlements, and ban the products coming from within them; yet when the Israeli state allocates the land, approves the plans and sends armed forces to protect settler terrorists, the consequences suddenly stop.
As I said only last week in a question to the Foreign Secretary, this is a litmus test of our most basic principles. If those who help to establish illegal settlements should be sanctioned, why not the officials who authorise them? Why not the institutions that finance them, and the state contractors that build them? Why should our wider trading relationship remain untouched when settlement expansion is official Israeli Government policy?
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
The July 2024 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice declared that Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories was unlawful under international law and that Israel must end the occupation as quickly as possible, stop all settlement activity, and evacuate all settlers. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is time to honour that advisory opinion, and does he also agree that we should make a distinction between the actions of the Israeli Government and the state of Israel itself?
Ayoub Khan
I agree wholeheartedly with the first part of the hon. Member’s intervention—of course we should uphold international law—but I am a little confused by the latter part. It is the Israeli state that drives policy, and one cannot distinguish between the Israeli state and the Israeli Government. I entirely agree that we must not conflate them with the Israeli people, because that would be wrong. I suspect that all Members in this House want to see the scourge of antisemitism tackled, as well as anti-Muslim hate. There was a massive increase in anti-Muslim hate following 7 October, across the city of Birmingham and across the country, and we must do whatever we can in this House—unified by one principle, the principle of humanity—to ensure that where we see wrong we address it, and do so without fear or favour.
As I have said before, one of the prime reasons why we have independent Members of Parliament, why protesters came on to the streets, and why students at universities are protesting is the fact that they are not antisemitic. Of course, I accept that there have been occasions when there has been antisemitism, and we must all condemn it, but in the main, all those people were championing one aspect: the freedom of the Palestinians, who have been under oppression for so many decades.
I return to my original point. We must all work together to prevent the rise of antisemitism in this country, as well as anti-Muslim hate, and we must all try to address that conflation. We have witnessed, for example, the suppression of doctors’ freedom of speech by their regulators when all they have done is question some of the actions that have been taken. Israel cannot claim to be a victim—not the people of Israel, but the state—when it prevents journalists from entering. We should say, “If you are open and transparent, allow journalists to come in, and allow them to document what is taking place.” However, I suspect that Israel will be unwilling to do that, precisely because of the genocide that we are witnessing.
In Gaza, more than 73,000 Palestinians are officially recorded as dead—murdered. Homes have been reduced to rubble, aid has been obstructed, and entire bloodlines have been wiped out. I have no hesitation in calling out what everyone is seeing with their own eyes: a genocide, livestreamed for the world to see. Netanyahu’s Government have demonstrated an extraordinary contempt, time and again. Extraordinary reporting raises profoundly disturbing questions about what Netanyahu knew before that attack. According to Haaretz, the President of the United Arab Emirates warned him a week and a half earlier that Hamas were planning a major operation, and he did not pass that warning to his security chiefs. How absurd is the proposition that a Prime Minister informed of an imminent threat would not advise his chief security officer? Either he did not believe the information or
“he wanted to see what they could plan so that then he could come down hard”.
Those are not my words; they are the words of none other than Hillary Clinton.
We were told for years that the destruction would stop when hostages were released—Netanyahu said the war could end if Hamas surrendered and returned them—yet Haim Rubinstein, a spokesperson for the Israeli Hostages and Missing Families Forum, said as far back as 2025 that Israel rejected an early proposal to release civilian hostages if the IDF did not enter Gaza. This is the regime that we continue to do business with and are choosing to stand by—a far-right Government who have refused peace at every turn and in its place opt for bloodshed and gaslighting. Yet for far too long, western Governments have taught Netanyahu one lesson and one lesson only: condemnations will come, statements will be issued and red lines will be crossed, but meaningful consequences will not follow.
Last week’s announcement can be remembered in one of two ways: it can be the moment Britain finally changed course, or it can become another intolerable status quo, with tougher words, narrowly drawn sanctions, business as usual elsewhere and yet another year in which the prospect of Palestinian statehood crumbles under the weight of Israel’s never-ending bloodshed. Acknowledging the problem cannot be the end of British policy. If we truly believe Palestinians have the right to self-determination, this must be only the start, because as the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) said, time is not on our side, and we cannot and must not wait until there is no Palestine left to recognise.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I welcome the contribution by the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) this evening and that of the Foreign Secretary last week.
Having supported the cause of the Palestinian people since the early 1990s and having a keen interest in Jewish culture and religion, I was particularly eager to visit the countries for myself to better understand the situation. I did so in May this year with Members from across the Chamber, and I am very grateful to Yachad for organising the visit. I declare an interest in that regard.
Like most Members, I have read and thought a lot about the events of 7 October—the attack on the kibbutzim and the music festival, the murder and kidnapping of so many people, and the treatment of those held hostage. Those were dreadful events, each and every one of them, but to visit a kibbutz and to hear how the attack unfolded there—armed paragliders descending on the kibbutz in the early hours of a Saturday morning, and the murder and kidnapping of its members—was frankly shocking. It also took the IDF more than 24 hours to get to those people, and even longer to safely escort them to safety, and that was heartrending.
The actions of Hamas on that date and beyond were monstrous. The woman who showed us around the kibbutz lost her home and her son, a father of three, on that day, but when we asked her what she does now, she told us that she does what she has always done: she goes into schools to talk about peace. Many Israelis we spoke to expressed similar hopes; they have great hope that the elections next month will make a difference and that a public inquiry into the events of 7 October should be held, as the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) suggested.
Israelis are right to be saddened, angered and outraged by those events, but their Government’s response against the people of Gaza has been disproportionate and is a stain on the conscience of the world. However, the problems did not begin in 2023. Indeed, my late father was stationed in the middle east during the second world war. He loved the region, but was depressed by what he saw then and by what unfolded in subsequent decades.
I am proud that this Government have recognised the state of Palestine, and I am even more proud that we are now committed to banning the sale of goods and services from settlements. I am also proud that we have taken such a strong leadership role internationally to get to this point. The international effort is crucial if there is to be progress.
However, let us be under no illusion. When we talk about settlements, we are not talking about small villages with rudimentary services and a rural lifestyle. Many are large industrial towns with successful industries and excellent public services, most are strategically placed to prevent a Palestinian state from ever being contiguous, and all of them are illegal. E1 is potentially vast, and it is just the latest addition to that policy, which is not new. In Hebron, the second largest city in the west bank, a settlement was created in the middle of the city in 1968, and as a result the city centre is a ghost town.
We see on our televisions and online the extreme actions of the settlers, and I will come back to that, but we should not underestimate for a moment the sheer grind that Palestinians in the west bank experience each and every day as they try to go about their lives—checkpoints, roads that are off limits to Palestinian cars and commercial activity, or just off limits to Palestinians full stop. The village of Khirbet Zanuta in the south Hebron hills was home to some 250 Palestinians who were forced off their land by settlers after a campaign of harassment and intimidation.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is giving a very thoughtful, detailed and balanced speech, and I am grateful for that. A report by the West Bank Protection Consortium documents forced nudity, invasive searches, sexual harassment and threats of sexual violence against Palestinian women, men and children. It found that sexual violence against women and girls was a factor in families deciding to leave their homes. Does she agree that, where sexual violence is used to intimidate and forcibly displace Palestinians, we must make it clear to the Israeli Government that those responsible must be held to account?
Patricia Ferguson
Indeed, I agree with my hon. Friend. We heard of examples of that when we visited this year, and it is of course deliberate. It consists of incidents such as she describes, but also of people peering in windows and polluting watercourses used usually by the women of a village. That kind of behaviour is just not acceptable.
The villagers of Khirbet Zanuta won a Supreme Court ruling that they could return to their village, and many of them did, but they were forced out again. This time, the settlers bulldozed the village, including its school, which had been built in part with UK taxpayers’ money. At Umm al-Khair, we saw how settler outposts had expanded directly alongside the village and heard about the death of Awdah Hathaleen in July 2025. Awdah was shot dead by Yinon Levi, a settler already sanctioned by the UK Government. Despite video evidence —and I mean really strong video evidence—no charges have ever been brought and no prosecution has taken place.
We visited the American co-ordination centre in Kiryat Gat, and I have to say that was quite an unreal experience. There are military personnel from about 20 countries working on aid delivery, monitoring the ceasefire and planning the reconstruction of Gaza. We discussed with an Israeli army officer the distribution of aid in Gaza, and our concerns about the designation of many items as potentially of dual use and as a consequence banned from Gaza. This included items such as tent poles, therapeutic toys for children and cochlear implants for children. We also met the Norwegian Refugee Council. Its assessment of the volume and effectiveness of humanitarian aid could not have been more at odds with what we heard at Kiryat Gat.
Whatever the facts of the matter are, it is clear that the humanitarian situation is still dire and that life for Palestinians in Gaza is a question of survival rather than living. With little in the way of healthcare and education, it would be helpful if the Minister closing the debate could indicate whether we will expand our support for Palestinian students wishing to study in the UK, and for injured and sick Palestinians struggling to access healthcare. It is a sad fact—actually, it is not sad; it is horrifying—that Gaza has per capita the highest number of child amputees in the world, many of whom have not had access to proper treatment, rehabilitation or appropriate prosthetics. We must do more to help.
The way ahead will not be easy, but the only way forward is for a safe and secure Israel to be able to live with a safe and secure Palestine as its neighbour. Hopefully, that aim will be helped by the election of a new Government in just over a month, and the continuing efforts of the Government and their international partners. I was struck by something my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) said in his speech. I was reminded of a comment made at the time of the Good Friday agreement, which is—I will close on this—that you don’t make peace by talking to your friends.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
I was unable to attend the House last week when the Foreign Secretary made his statement on Israel and Palestine, so I wanted to take this opportunity to put on record my support for what he proposed.
On the day of the announcement, I tuned into Radio 4’s “Six o’clock News”. Included in the headlines was a sentence from what the Foreign Secretary had said. Also broadcast were some of the comments made by the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), when he, too, supported what the Foreign Secretary said. He added how much he admired the Jewish people and their faith, but deeply regretted what is happening on the west bank. It is in that context that I make clear that I share my right hon. Friend’s views of the Jewish people. He said he was a Conservative Friend of Israel. I, too, put myself in that category. My criticisms are of the Israeli Government.
After the appalling events of 7 October, it was inevitable that there would be a response from the Israelis, and rightly so, but tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed, many of them children. Surely, it would have been possible to target the leaders of Hamas without the loss of those innocent Palestinian lives? I can understand the determination of Israel to take an extremely robust approach to defending itself, when there are those in the region who want to wipe the country from the face of the map. Its actions in that respect are justified, but I ask the Israeli Government why that involves repeated violations of international law. If the international community seriously believes in a two-state solution, we need to call out Israeli policy for what it is: action to prevent that ever happening.
Jeremy Corbyn
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is generous with his time. Is he aware that both the Prime Minister and the alternative Prime Minister in Israel have both said, in terms, that they do not accept the idea of the entity of a Palestinian state?
Martin Vickers
I was aware that Ministers in Israel had indicated that. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
As I say, if the international community is serious in its support of a two-state solution, it needs to call out the fact that Israel is deliberately implementing policies to thwart that. I can understand and fully support Israel as the home of the Jewish people. They should therefore recognise the desire for the Palestinian people to have their own homeland.
When I was elected in 2010, my focus was entirely on my constituency. I was determined to earn myself a second term. During the five years of the coalition Government, if memory serves me correctly, I undertook just two foreign trips. I was mindful of the fact that the Israel-Palestine issue might well come to the fore and that I might have to make a decision on it, so I travelled to Israel. My first visit was actually to Gaza. Interestingly enough, when we got to the border we had a call from the consulate in Jerusalem advising us not to cross the border, but having got that far, we were determined and insisted on crossing over. I witnessed the tragedy of what the residents there had to face—it is much worse now, of course—and the events I witnessed had a considerable impact on how I viewed this seemingly never-ending dispute. In October 2014, I was one of 39 Conservative Members who supported a motion to recognise Palestine. Sadly, only three of those Conservatives remain, one of whom, the Father of the House, I mentioned earlier. I appreciate that to some extent it is only symbolic, but nevertheless it is extremely important.
Returning to last week’s announcement, how effective it will be remains to be seen. One thing is certain: public opinion is broadly supportive. The views expressed in my inbox, and by those who visit my surgery to raise the issue, are most certainly critical of Israel—I should be more specific and say the Israeli Government. One particular constituent I have in mind is so passionate about the issue—she comes to see me on repeat occasions—that she will be absolutely delighted. Though I say to the House, as I said to my constituent, who regularly travels to London to take part in the many demonstrations, and contrary to the views expressed by a Member earlier, I do not think that the continued demonstrations are actually beneficial to the Palestinian cause.
Israel is an ally, a democracy and a nation that, as I said at the outset, has every right to exist and to defend itself. I fully support that, but its Government need to recognise that they are losing further support. If they continue with their illegal acts, that will only continue.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I, too, put on the record my thanks to the Minister’s predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), for all the work he has done to get us to this place, and to the Minister and his team for all the work they are doing at the moment, particularly last week.
I welcome today’s general debate on Israel and Palestine. It is a timely debate that rightly deserves the attention of the House. There will, no doubt, be a small minority online who will ask why events thousands of miles away should take up time in the British Parliament, so let me address that from the outset.
First, Britain does not exist on a planet of its own, detached from the rest of the world. What happens beyond our shores has consequences here at home. We also have a particular historic and moral responsibility when it comes to Israel and Palestine, given the Balfour declaration, the British mandate and our country’s historical role in the region. But even putting that history aside, whether we like it or not, conflicts elsewhere affect the lives of people right here in Britain. A war in Ukraine, a war involving Iran or instability across the middle east can mean higher prices at the petrol pump, higher energy bills, greater inflationary pressures and, ultimately, higher borrowing costs for families. More fundamentally, growing instability around the world threatens the peace, security and freedoms upon which all our lives depend. Britain therefore has both an interest and a responsibility in seeking peace, upholding international law and preventing further conflict.
Secondly, we cannot discuss this conflict without confronting the extraordinary loss of human life. According to figures published by the United Nations, more than 73,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since 7 October 2023. More than 21,700 of those killed have been children—21,700 children.
Ayoub Khan
The hon. Member may be aware that the United Nations inquiry revealed that the IDF was intentionally targeting children as a way to end the future generation. That inquiry should prompt this Government to take even further steps towards sanctions.
Naz Shah
Certainly, the Secretary of State highlighted in his remarks last Tuesday that the Government will seek advice from the ICJ and are continuously supporting those inquiries, but the hon. Member makes an important point.
Sadly, we live in a world where we can go about our daily lives and not always feel the seriousness of the pain in Gaza, or comprehend the magnitude of the killing. Putting those thousands of deaths to one side for a moment, as mothers and fathers, in this Chamber and beyond, can we not feel the pain being felt by the people of Gaza? I recently saw a video of a father who believed his child was dead, only to be reunited with his son more than two years later, having thought that he had been killed and buried beneath the rubble of Gaza’s destruction. He holds his son, pulls him close and cries uncontrollably, completely overwhelmed with emotion.
Can we imagine being that father? If we had lost our child, can we imagine the happiness, relief and overwhelming emotion of that moment of being reunited? That is one story that at least has some happiness at the end, and it makes us tear up because we imagine, “What if this was my child? What if this was your child?” But I ask: how do those mothers who will never see their beloved children again feel; those fathers who will never again hold their children tightly to their chests; those children growing up in Gaza with no mother, no father, no guardian and no shelter?
What is it like to live in a conflict zone where someone who is a journalist, like Hamza al-Dahdouh, can be killed in an Israeli airstrike, or, like Shireen Abu Akleh, can be shot dead while doing their job? Years later there is still no accountability to bring about justice for their families.
It is a conflict zone where someone can be a British, Australian, Canadian or Palestinian aid worker for the World Central Kitchen, trying to provide basic food and humanitarian assistance to people living among the rubble, and be killed by the IDF. The seven World Central Kitchen workers were travelling in a clearly marked convoy and co-ordinating their movements with the Israeli military. Three of those killed were British. They were returning from delivering food and humanitarian assistance to people in Gaza when their vehicles were struck. Their deaths show the extraordinary danger faced by aid workers trying to feed civilians in a warzone. Israel acknowledged serious failures in the strike and dismissed two officers, yet the families of the World Central Kitchen workers have called for independent accountability—that call is falling on deaf ears.
That is the treatment of journalists, aid workers and others whose very purpose is to help and bear witness. So where is the justice, the accountability and the protection of life for everyone in Gaza? God forbid you stand up and consistently speak out against the oppression, killing and destruction of the Palestinian people, and call for sanctions in line with international law and the position of successive British Governments for decades—the response is that Israel sanctions people like me.
Tahir Ali
If speaking up against war crimes, ethnic cleansing and genocide means being banned from entering that country, my hon. Friend should wear it as a badge of honour. She should be proud of that. However, should the rules be applied equally to Israeli diplomats in this House? When China banned our elected Members, the Speaker banned the Chinese ambassador from coming to this place. I would like that to be repeated in equal measure to the Israeli ambassador.
Naz Shah
My hon. Friend makes his point strongly, and I was coming on to reference China.
If the intention of sanctioning me was to silence me, it will not work. Israel cannot call itself the only democracy in the middle east and then sanction British parliamentarians for speaking out. China previously sanctioned Members of this Parliament for speaking out over human rights abuses in Xinjiang, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali) pointed out. Those sanctions did not silence British parliamentarians, and nor will these.
The justice and equality that I, and many others in this Chamber, fight for does not consider someone’s nationality, faith, ethnic background or who someone is. If more than 73,000 Palestinians are killed in Gaza; if Palestinian land in the occupied west bank is taken through illegal settlements; if Palestinians are being forcibly displaced and subjected to what many international experts and human rights organisations have described as ethnic cleansing; and if the viability of an independent state of Palestine, alongside a state of Israel, is being systematically undermined, eroding every opportunity for a two-state solution and lasting peace in the middle east, then I have a moral duty to speak up. And if innocent Jewish people are murdered, as they were by Hamas in the horrific attacks of 7 October, when around 1,200 people were killed, then I have the same moral duty to speak up and call that out.
Outside of this conflict, I have stood shoulder to shoulder with the minority Christian community in Jaranwala in Pakistan against their persecution. The justice that I believe in means that I have a moral duty to stand with them too.
Additionally, in response to the Government’s measures to prohibit trade with illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied west bank, the Israeli Government announced that they would close the British consulate general in East Jerusalem. The measures were taken alongside France and Canada, with other international partners also supporting action to protect the two-state solution. Yet Israel chose to direct its retaliation principally against the United Kingdom. That is not the conduct that we should expect from an ally. It looks like an ally lashing out because Britain has chosen to uphold international law.
There is also a fundamental question about Israel’s legal authority to take that action. It is not the British embassy in Israel; it is the British consulate general, which represents the United Kingdom in Jerusalem, the west bank and Gaza, and conducts our relations with Palestine. We must see those three areas as one entity, because that is what they are.
East Jerusalem is occupied territory. The International Court of Justice has confirmed that Israel holds the status of an occupying power there, and that Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is not internationally recognised. Israel may exercise the practical power to force the consulate’s closure, but practical control is not the same as lawful sovereignty. By what legal right, then, do the Israeli Government seek to close a British diplomatic mission in occupied East Jerusalem?
I also want to bring to the House’s attention today’s report by B’Tselem, an Israeli human rights group. It is the most comprehensive report to date on the west bank, gathering evidence from over three decades of Israel’s human rights violations and 2,000 testimonies since October 2023. The report is called “The Elimination Project”. It shows the correlation between the widespread destruction of homes and infrastructure, the network of roadblocks and checkpoints, the attacks by armed settler militias, the expulsion of communities and the unprecedented expansion of settlements, outposts and farms. B’Tselem says that these are not separate phenomena; rather, they are part of an Israeli project to eliminate the Palestinian collective, in order to establish permanent Jewish Israeli control over the entire area.
The Israeli elimination project, according to B’Tselem,
“did not begin with the current government,”
but since late 2022 a new phase has been entered, with faster and much broader deployment. Given that report today, I ask the Minister whether the Government will expedite the measures announced last week—the ban on trade with the occupied west bank and illegally occupied areas. This is really important.
The Foreign Secretary made it clear to this House last week that Britain is not powerless when international law is being torn apart. Once again, I commend the Prime Minister and the Government for demonstrating the power of international diplomacy, and for leading action, alongside France, Canada and other international partners, against illegal Israeli settlements and those who profit from them.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)
It is a pleasure to follow the speech from the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), who has made a huge contribution to supporting the Palestinian people over many years in this House.
This debate is obviously very welcome. I acknowledge that the Government’s statement last week on resetting policy is a very important and highly significant change in Government policy. While I welcome some aspects of it, I feel that it does not go far enough, and it is taking far too long to bring what was announced into operation. It is also very unclear what kind of ultimate sanctions there would be against Israel in the event of it evading the sanctions concerning Israeli settlements, and what military co-operation there will be with Israel in the future. These things must be clarified. I hope that when the Minister replies, we will learn a little more about the details of the policy, and in particular why the Government have given themselves so many months to bring it into operation.
Succeeding generations will ask very serious questions of all of us politicians. Our children are taught in school the horrors of the Holocaust against the Jewish people, and of so many other genocides around the world. They are taught the way in which racism leads into that horrible scenario. They will ask why we were unable to do anything to prevent the massive loss of life in Gaza at the hands of the Israeli forces.
As the hon. Member for Bradford West pointed out, 73,000 people have been killed in Gaza. Those millions of tonnes of rubble hide many more bodies. The Israel Defence Forces will cart some of the rubble away, so that it can become hardcore for buildings in Israel, but there will be bodies in that rubble. There will be human remains there and DNA evidence. We are seeing the most massive killing of innocent civilian life in Gaza, and we have not been able to stop it; it still carries on. There are many statistics that one could quote, but a simple one is this: it is estimated that there are 63 million tonnes of rubble in Gaza. There are 2 million people in Gaza. That is more than 30 tonnes of rubble per person. Almost every building has been damaged or destroyed.
The destruction has moved on to the west bank, where settlers are destroying land, chopping down olive trees, polluting wells, driving people out of their homes, burning villages and driving people away. That is the sort of activity that the frontiersmen from Europe—the white people who invaded native American land in the wild west—undertook against Indian villagers. That is the equivalent of the horror that is going on there.
Sometimes we seem to pretend that we can continue normal relations with Israel, but these are not random illegal acts, committed by people acting alone; these acts are condoned by the Government of Israel. The settlers are protected and armed by Israeli police and the IDF. It gets worse and worse. As many colleagues have pointed out, the idea of a contiguous Palestinian state disappears if E1 is settled in the way that the E1 plan proposes.
That is not the end of it. Israeli forces are now occupying a very large part of southern Lebanon, and it looks to me as though they have every intention of remaining there. Israel is also taking part in the wholly illegal bombardment of Iran, alongside President Trump. Is it not time that we were a bit stronger and more assertive against these wholly illegal acts? The Government have made it very clear that they recognise international law and international legal instruments, and that they expect every other country to do the same. Good—that also applies to Israel.
When the Foreign Secretary made his statement, very interestingly he acknowledged the role that public opinion in Britain has had in bringing about this change in policy. I have been on a very large number of marches about Palestine, and there are probably about a million people in Britain who have made their voices very clearly heard, either by attending a demonstration or sending letters, emails, petitions—all sorts of things. The marches are made up of large numbers of people, some of whom have never been involved in anything political at all before. They are a very wide range of people; they are Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist and humanist. It is very clear that we will not allow any of the marches to descend into any kind of racist hate speech. They are marches of support and solidarity with people who are victims of the most atrocious bombardment. I thank all those people who have come along and made their voices very well heard.
It is important that the Government go a bit further on accepting the process of international law. I attended the ICJ hearing for the South African application. It was a deeply moving experience to sit there in the Peace Palace in the Hague—a beautiful, stunning building—listening to the South African application. My mind went back to the apartheid years—all the demonstrations to try to bring about an end to apartheid, and the bravery and all the suffering of the South African people in trying to throw off the yoke of apartheid. I thought, “How brave of South Africa to present that case.” What was their reward? Extra tariffs and tax by President Trump.
Later, I was in South Africa with my good friend Dr Mustafa Barghouti, addressing a meeting in Cape Town about Palestine. At the meeting was an elderly man who had been part of the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa. He had been very badly beaten by the South African army and police force while he was campaigning to end apartheid in his country. He got up and said that the treatment of the people of Palestine is far worse than anything that happened to the black community in South Africa. There was not carpet-bombing of cities and villages there, of the sort that the Israeli forces are carrying out.
If we respect international law, then arrest warrants issued by the ICC for a number of individuals in the Israeli Government must be enforced, should those individuals show up in this country. As my hon. Friends the Members for Blackburn (Mr Hussain) and for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) pointed out, if the ICJ considers that acts of genocide could be committed—that is its opinion, and it is a very important opinion—then anyone who provides arms to Israel and provides support for acts of genocide becomes complicit in genocide. I hope that the Government understand the dangers of all that. I hope that we will be very assertive about what the settlers and settlements are doing, and that we will impose real sanctions against Israel.
We must recognise that although the Israeli body politic, including all the major parties, essentially supports the strategy pursued by Netanyahu—perhaps in mildly different forms, but fundamentally they are of the same mind—there are people in Israel who absolutely oppose what their Government are doing and absolutely detest the way in which the Palestinian people are being treated. Are we to be silent bystanders while these ghastly acts of genocide go on—as people are denied food and decent medical facilities?
As other Members have pointed out, Britain’s role in all this is not one of a recent arriviste on the scene. We have been involved since the 19th century in the issue of settlements, and in preventing the Palestinian people from asserting their statehood. We were obviously involved in the Balfour declaration and the secret Sykes-Picot agreement. For historical reasons, moral reasons and reasons of courage, we should be far clearer about our role in all this. We must bring peace and justice to all the peoples of the region and oppose racism in absolutely any form in society, in this country or anywhere else.
I am conscious that other colleagues wish to speak, so the last thing I will say is this. I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill calling for a public inquiry into Britain’s policy in Gaza, like the Franks report into previous conflicts and Sir John Chilcot’s inquiry into Britain’s policy on Iraq, because we need to know what was going on in the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence, and what was happening at RAF Akrotiri and in other places. When it became clear that the Bill would not make any progress in the House, Professor Neve Gordon, Dr Shahd Hammouri and I put together a tribunal. We held a Gaza inquiry over two days in Church House Westminster, and we heard from 29 expert witnesses. It was a deeply moving occasion. We listened to young people from Gaza explain what their life had been like. We listened to medical practitioners talk about the horror of doing everything they had been taught that they could not do: they had inflicted pain on people to try to prevent further pain, and had amputated the limbs of children without anaesthetic, antiseptic or even water. After all their heroic work, they would think that, only a few kilometres away from where they were operating in ghastly conditions under a piece of canvas, there was food, water, electricity, medicine and antiseptic—everything that was needed—but it was deliberately denied to the Palestinian people by the IDF.
Aid workers have been killed. As was said earlier, the limited aid that gets in is deliberately designed to prevent a sustainable way of life in Gaza. Some foodstuffs can be imported, but potato tubers and seeds, which could be used to develop agriculture for the future, cannot. Our Gaza inquiry pointed out the depravity of what was going on. I thank everyone who took part in it, but I want a proper public inquiry, so that we know what those surveillance flights were doing. The former Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, said that there are things going on at RAF Akrotiri that he was not able to talk about. It is time that somebody talked about what is going on there, because we need to know the truth. The truth will help set us free. I believe that the truth will help bring about what is essential: peace and justice for the people of Palestine.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. After the next speaker, I will have to impose a speaking limit to get in the remaining 10 people in the next hour. Please bear that in mind, if you have to correct your speeches.
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an honour to speak in the debate. There have been endless debates on this subject since I became a Member of Parliament. What can be done in Israel-Palestine so that all its inhabitants may live in peace and tranquillity, with none to make them afraid? Those are the lines of the sacred prayer for peace that we say in our synagogues every shabbat. We have prayed in vain for what seems like an eternity, and here in Parliament we have endlessly debated this.
Since the dreadful attacks of 7 October, the seizing of hostages and the mass destruction in Gaza, there have been countless debates and questions to Ministers. Last year, the Government recognised the state of Palestine, fulfilling a manifesto commitment. That was controversial at the time as there were still hostages, but I supported it, for the formal recognition of a Palestinian state separate from a secure Israel is the two-state solution that we all know must come and it represented the repudiation of Hamas and its sinister refrain, “From the river to the sea”.
Now we have a fresh package of sanctions, internationally co-ordinated. The need to act at a time when we see increasing settler violence and so little progress in Gaza seemed urgent. That, I am sure, is the view of our new Foreign Secretary, for whom I have the greatest respect. However, I worry about the timing of the announcement, for the Knesset is dissolved and there is an election in Israel. I fear that the attitude of the Netanyahu Government will simply harden and the electorate may swing behind Netanyahu in reaction. That is the very last thing we want. What I would like to see is surely what many hon. Members would like to see: a new Government in Israel with a completely new approach.
This weekend, we celebrated the Jewish new year, Rosh Hashanah, for 5787. I wish all hon. Members a happy and peaceful new year. Next Monday is Yom Kippur, a holy day of repentance. Let us politicians pray for progress and pray for peace.
Several hon. Members rose—
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Last week’s statement from the Foreign Secretary marked a significant moment in British policy on Israel and Palestine. I congratulate Ministers on those changes. For years, the Liberal Democrats have argued that simply declaring the west bank settlements illegal while otherwise continuing business as usual was not enough. The Government appear to have conceded that words need to be matched with actions. The Government agree that things have gone on for long enough and have recognised the occupation as unlawful. They have recognised that a ban on imports is necessary and that further sanctions on extremist settlers are required. Those are positive steps, but the reality in the region remains bleak.
Benjamin Netanyahu and his Cabinet have rejected proposals for peace and declared that a Palestinian state will not be recognised while he remains Prime Minister. At the same time, Hamas remains a terrorist organisation that has shown no convincing sign that it will disarm or dismantle itself. Hamas is a transnational actor and a transnational threat, as indeed we saw just last week with the arrest of seven suspected Hamas members in Germany as part of a terror plot.
On the ground in Israel and Palestine, the prospects for a two-state solution are being systematically undermined. The Foreign Affairs Committee saw that when we visited the Jordan valley last year. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran), saw as I did how escalating settler violence meant villages were subjected to intimidation. Now, with the announcement of the E1 settlement, there are blatant attempts to make a viable contiguous Palestinian state impossible.
There has been some debate tonight about the timing of the Government’s announcement, with a suggestion that somehow they might be meddling in the affairs of Israel as it approaches its election. I have to disagree with the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley). If the Government are convinced that more sanctions are required, they have a responsibility to introduce them as soon as they make that determination and not await the internal democratic electoral affairs of the Israeli state. Indeed, to have delayed would have been interference in the domestic affairs of Israel.
I welcome the fact that the Government have finally acted. I welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have acknowledged that the previous Administration did not go far enough. I also welcome the decision to ban settlement goods connected to settlement expansion, but I call for the Government to go further and adopt a ban on all services and trade with those settlements, just as the Dutch Government have done. If the settlements are unlawful, the financial and commercial structures that sustain them should enjoy no benefit from trade with the UK.
Sanctions are a similar story. The Government have recently sanctioned extremist figures such as National Security Minister Ben Gvir and Finance Minister Smotrich, who have repeatedly demonstrated their disdain not just for a Palestinian state but for the Palestinian people themselves. These sanctions should be extended to all members of the Cabinet who are complicit in illegal settlement expansion, forced displacement and the ongoing erosion of a Palestinian state, and that includes Netanyahu himself. Accountability cannot rest just with the most extremist members of the security cabinet if others are enabling the same agenda.
The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has said that Israel’s forced displacement of more than 33,000 Palestinians in the west bank could amount to crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. It is the largest and longest displacement crisis since 1967. Meanwhile in Gaza, the scale of death and destruction has shocked the conscience of the world. This Government say that there is increasing evidence that war crimes may have been committed and that they support the ICJ in reaching its determination in relation to genocide. I understand that the Government desire to defer to a competent court, but I note that it took nine years between the atrocities being carried out against the Yazidi people in 2014 and the recognition by the British Government in 2023 that Daesh had committed a genocide.
Hamas remain a terrorist organisation and there can be no future peace while armed groups backed by Iran retain the capacity to threaten Israeli civilians and sabotage any political settlement. Their disarmament and disbandment must be part of any lasting solution.
Tahir Ali
On the issue of disarmament, should we not also be calling for Israel’s disarmament, given the atrocities that have been committed? Previous Governments have intervened in the middle east to take action on human rights abuses and protect international trade routes. Is it not about time that military action was taken against Israel as well?
Richard Foord
The peace plan requires the IDF to pull back from Gaza just as Hamas disarm, so I see the onus on the IDF to pull back, just as Hamas must disarm. As far as this state is concerned, Hamas are a terrorist organisation, and I do not draw any equivalence between the state of Israel, internationally recognised, and Hamas as a proscribed terrorist organisation.
Yes, last week’s shift in British Government policy represents a welcome change in direction. It is a break from years of denial, hesitation and inaction, but the British Government have further to go. They have further to go before Britain is fully matching its commitment to international law, accountability and the two-state solution that remains the path to a just and lasting peace for Israelis and Palestinians.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
My remarks today will focus on the murder of healthcare workers in Palestine and on the tremendous work of Jewish-led organisations that campaign against the illegal occupation.
There is one moment that will always stick with me from my last two and a half years as an MP. On 24 June 2025, I was making my way to the Chamber for oral questions when I received a phone call from my colleague, Dr Rebecca Inglis of Healthcare Workers Watch. She told me that a GP like myself who worked in Gaza had just been shot in the head by an Israeli soldier. More than 2,000 healthcare workers and 595 humanitarian aid workers have been murdered at the hands of the Israeli army, and 95 Palestinian healthcare workers remain detained by the Israeli authorities and subjected to the most inhumane conditions and reported torture.
Despite even the ceasefire, this goes on. In fact, a UN commission found that the Israeli state had committed the crime of genocide through deliberate targeting of the Gazan healthcare system. The practice is not restricted to Gaza; it took place in Syria and Sudan as well. It has a new name—healthocide—and this British Government must fight against it. Over 90% of the Gaza strip’s healthcare infrastructure has been either destroyed or damaged. Cables have been cut to stop people in Gaza getting proper healthcare. I have heard directly from British doctors in the area who have witnessed the deliberate destruction of medical equipment in front of their eyes.
This healthocide extends to the west bank. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley) and I were denied access when we tried to look at the healthcare facilities in the west bank approximately a year ago. The Israelis have withheld billions of dollars of tax revenue from the Palestinian Authority, which means that healthcare workers are not being paid. Some have not been paid for the last six months, so workers are cutting their hours and clinics have had to close. I found out today from Medical Aid for Palestinians that healthcare workers have to wear bullet-proof vests when they go outside because they are being targeted by Israeli forces.
Medical staff are regularly harassed, ambulances’ movements are restricted, and checkpoint delays are costing lives when every minute matters in medical emergencies. Things are getting worse. The WHO said that in June of this year there were eight attacks on healthcare workers, and in July there were 37 attacks. Also in July, a four-month-old Palestinian boy died after Israeli forces at a military checkpoint west of Ramallah prevented his transfer to a hospital.
I agree with our Prime Minister: our party’s rhetoric and our Government’s actions have been totally inadequate in response to these atrocities, but we are now beginning to right that wrong. We have a Foreign Secretary who has restored dignity and credibility in this Chamber, and we have a Government who are finally acknowledging that war crimes have been committed and that the occupation is illegal, and they have backed it up with meaningful action—a Government who will stand up and not stand by. It is long overdue, and we must go further, but it is such a welcome change.
I want to end my speech on a positive note. Amid all the horror of the last few years, there have been people who have refused to give up on the possibility of peace. I pay tribute to two brilliant Jewish-led organisations, Standing Together and Na’amod. Standing Together brings Jewish and Palestinian citizens of Israel together around a simple belief: that the future of one people cannot be built on the destruction of another. Here in Britain, Na’amod have shown extraordinary moral courage. They are a movement of British Jews campaigning against the occupation for the freedom and dignity of Palestinians. I was proud to be hosting them here in Parliament two hours ago.
I am glad that our Government will no longer be bystanders, but we must be bolder and move faster. We must use every lever possible to help to bring this illegal occupation to an end, because history will judge us on whether we did enough when it really mattered.
Lara Bird (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I want to start by congratulating the latest iteration of the Labour Government for finally growing a backbone and doing what anybody with a moral conscience would and should have done years ago. While I genuinely welcome the statement and the sanctions that were announced last week—I really do—it is crucial that we remember that this is not the end goal, and that we do not lose sight of just how long Israel has been conducting violence and terror against the Palestinian people, and how long the UK Government have known in detail and failed to do anything about it.
It was 25 years ago that Israel constructed a wall in the occupied west bank, barricading Palestinians in, separating families, denying them access to their land and enforcing a regime of illegal annexation and apartheid —treating an entire population like they were animals. The UK Government knew that and did nothing. It was 22 years ago that the ICJ confirmed that the construction of that wall was an unlawful use of force and violated international law. At the time, the UK Government accepted that and still did nothing. It was 20 years ago that the UK Government accepted that Israel was systematically abusing human rights in Palestine. There was a Labour Government at the time, and yet no action was taken because there was no political will to do so.
For decades, successive UK Governments have known in detail the level of harm that Palestinians have suffered at the hands of the Israeli Government—arbitrary detention, torture, burning farms and farmland, killing children, destroying entire villages. Members of Parliament from across this House have gone to the west bank and seen it with their own eyes, and yet no action has been taken. There have been debates and statements of condemnation, and yet thousands of Palestinians have been killed, thousands of homes have been destroyed and thousands of children will grow up without their parents because the UK Government had no political incentive to act.
I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) for raising the murder of Awdah Hathaleen, who was murdered a year ago by an Israeli settler in the village of Umm al-Kheir. Awdah was a friend of mine. I knew him well, and I grieve his murder every single day. Awdah was known to this House, because in 2024 he visited Westminster and spoke to parliamentarians. He visited Government officials in the FCDO and detailed the horror of living under illegal occupation in the west bank. He asked the UK Government to act and, at the time, they did not. Just think: how many Palestinian lives could have been spared if the UK Government 25 years ago had acted on the information and the facts that were in front of them. How many Israeli lives could have been spared?
I might be new to this House, but I have watched every single debate in this place on Palestine and Israel, not just for the last three years since the genocide but for years before that. I will not make any friends when I say this, but I am so disappointed at how few Members across the House have raised their head above the parapet to condemn the UK Government’s continued support of Israel, and at how so many Members are doing so now just because it is politically convenient for them to do so.
I genuinely welcome the statement given by the Government last week and genuinely hope that this causes a change, and that it saves Palestinian lives. But I cannot forgive, and so many others will never forget just how long it has taken the UK Government to finally do the right thing.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I have had the privilege of visiting the west bank on two occasions on visits organised by Caabu—the Council for Arab-British Understanding—and by Yachad. I put on the record my interests in respect of both those visits.
On the second occasion, I also visited some of the kibbutz communities in the south of Israel, which suffered horrific losses in the atrocities committed by Hamas on 7 October 2023. They were extraordinary conversations with people who had lost their loved ones, who had suffered the most horrific violence in their communities, who had been and continued to be long-term peace campaigners and who were still committed to working for peace. They included Maoz Inon, who has written so movingly with his Palestinian friend, Aziz Abu Sarah, about their hopes for peace in his book, “The Future is Peace”. I commend that book to the House. That visit was extraordinarily humbling.
In the west bank, we visited communities that had been the subject of settler terrorism. In Turmus Ayya, we met Palestinians whose homes had been burned and who faced constant harassment, intimidation and threats from settlers. In the village of Zanuta near Hebron, we spoke with members of a 250-strong community who had been threatened that if they did not leave, they would be killed. A month after they left, the settlers came and destroyed the whole village, including a council building funded by the EU and the UK Government. We stood in the ruins of two schools, again funded by the EU and the UK Government, that had been razed to the ground by settlers, and we saw the decades-long desolation in Hebron where Palestinians have been banned from their homes.
We also saw settlement after settlement after settlement —new homes and communities—built on land from which Palestinians had been displaced. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that this activity is, as the Foreign Secretary said last week, ethnic cleansing and strategically designed to undermine the possibility of a two-state solution. The E1 settlement takes this even further, aiming to divide the west bank north from south and sever it from East Jerusalem. As a former town planner, I can say that it is simply the use of the planning system as a tool of oppression—an attempt to make a two-state solution impossible.
I welcome the Government’s decision to recognise the state of Palestine—there cannot be a two-state solution without two states—but it is a source of frustration and deep regret that it has taken so long to see action to stop funding from the UK through trade supporting and sustaining illegal settlements. Clarity on human rights and international law is in everyone’s interests and words must be backed up by meaningful action. I welcome the ban on trade in goods and services from illegal settlements, and I welcome the Government’s confirmation that they agree with the International Court of Justice that Israel’s occupation of the west bank and Gaza is unlawful. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s moral clarity on the utter horror of the situation in Gaza, where the scale of death and destruction is unimaginable and people are living in utterly desperate circumstances. The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) has rightly described it as a “moral catastrophe”.
As the Government have announced meaningful action, may I press the Minister on the urgency of the humanitarian situation in Gaza? The Israeli Government must allow essential items, such as prosthetic limbs, crutches and wheelchairs, into Gaza, as well as permitting more medical specialists to enter Gaza to meet the needs of its population. The Israeli Government must stop the killing. Will the Minister confirm which of the measures announced in recent days require legislation and confirm that the Government will take all measures possible to ensure that legislation is delivered as quickly as possible?
The situation in Israel and Palestine is so far away from a peaceful two-state solution and progress towards it will require sustained effort over a long period of time. Will my hon. Friend the Minister assure this House that he will leave no stone unturned in maintaining the clarity of the Government’s position and ensuring that the position is always supported by meaningful action that furthers the cause of peace and the imperatives of justice and accountability?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Before moving on, I want to announce the results of the Select Committee elections held earlier today.
In the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee election, 463 votes were cast, of which three were invalid. There were 406 valid votes in the fifth round, excluding those ballot papers whose preference had been exhausted. The quota to be reached, therefore, was 204 votes. The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare) was elected with 242 votes.
In the Justice Committee election, 462 votes were cast, seven of which were invalid. There was a single round of counting, with 455 valid votes. The quota to be reached, therefore, was 228. |The hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) was elected chair with 250 votes.
In the Women and Equalities Committee election, 463 votes were cast, of which three were invalid. There were 421 valid votes. In the second round the quota to be reached was therefore 211. The hon. Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) was elected with 213 votes.
All three Chairs will take up their posts immediately. I congratulate them on their election and thank all who stood, and I thank the staff of the House who worked on these elections. The results of the counts were under the alternative vote system and will be made available as soon as possible in the Vote Office and on the internet.
We now return to the business before the House.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I will use my contribution to do two things: first, to reiterate that international law and human rights are absolutely critical, and secondly, to reflect on the responsibilities that they impose on the UK and on our wider responsibilities as parliamentarians and citizens.
International law and human rights frameworks are vital guiding principles. The terrorist atrocities of 7 October were a clear and obscene violation of those principles. Every single person responsible for those horrors must be held to account, and every life taken or damaged must never be forgotten. Equally, the collective punishment of the people of Gaza is also a clear and obscene violation of international law and breaches basic human rights. We see mass atrocities, displacement, deliberate starvation, the indiscriminate bombing of hospitals, withholding access to water and medical supplies, and the targeting of journalists and aid convoys. We must call what has been happening in Gaza what it is: genocide.
In the occupied west bank, we have seen the violent expansion of illegal settlements, ethnic cleansing, the execution of children, detention without trial, people forced to live under apartheid and settler terrorism. All of that has been happening for decades, but it is worse since 7 October, with Prime Minister Netanyahu emboldened by the current US President. Political leaders have largely fallen short when it comes to holding the Israeli Government to account for their human rights crimes and their flagrant disregard for international law, but policial leaders come and go.
Meanwhile the international courts get on with their work upholding the standards and the UN resolutions that the world has collectively agreed. We need political leadership and we need it to be guided by international law and human rights frameworks, so it was hugely welcome to hear the Secretary of State last week recognise the 2024 ICJ conclusion that the occupation of Palestine is illegal, reiterate the illegality of expansionist settlements and take the vital first step of banning trade with and advertising of those illegal settlements. Their illegality is absolutely clear under international law.
The UK has done the right thing in recognising the role of international law and human rights standards, and it is starting to act accordingly, but genuine respect for international law and human rights means we cannot pick and choose. Suspending the licences of some arms used by the IDF in Gaza and the licensing of other arms and exports that materially contribute to the occupation makes a difference, but the double lock that the Government have announced does not include components for the F-35 combat aircraft that, according to Campaign Against The Arms Trade, is the most substantive part of the UK’s arms trade with Israel. It cannot be beyond the wit of officialdom to find a way of tracing these parts, so that they are not used. The UK remains complicit in Israel’s genocidal war crimes until it ends its role in supporting Israeli forces. I urge the UK Government to be consistent in their commitment to the legal and human rights frameworks that underpin their recent decisions. I welcome the steps they have taken, but it is too little, too late and there is much more to be done.
Secondly, I want to reflect on the wider responsibilities that we all have, especially as parliamentarians, in the context of rising hate crime and growing divisions in our communities. We each have a responsibility to show leadership, to stand against antisemitism, to stand against Islamophobia, not to conflate criticism of the Israeli Government with antisemitism and to call it out when we see others doing that, not to hold the Jewish people responsible for the actions of the Israeli authorities or the ideologies that drive them, and not to hold Palestinians responsible for the actions of Hamas.
We have a responsibility to recognise the many ways in which those who advocate for Palestine are defamed, often as antisemitic, as a way of shutting down or silencing their advocacy, and to recognise the damage that that does by distracting from critical work identifying and confronting antisemitism, which is so crucial at a time when attacks on Jewish communities and Jewish spaces in this country and around the world are increasing.
We have a responsibility to recognise anti-Palestinian racism and the multiple ways it manifests itself in our politics and society: a responsibility to stop putting people in boxes, to stop defining them as either allies or enemies with nothing in between, and a responsibility to resist the whipping up of hatred and the way in which nuance, understanding and compassion are being bludgeoned to extinction in public discourse.
All of us need to show leadership in our dialogue, in our constituencies, communities and our own parties, and to demonstrate in our words and our deeds that there is no competition or contradiction between supporting and defending Palestinian human rights, and supporting and defending thriving Jewish communities here in our country.
I am making these points in this debate because the response to what is happening in Palestine and Israel is being used by some political actors here in the UK to whip up antisemitism; by some to advance anti-migrant and anti-Muslim agendas; by some to justify chilling restrictions on civil liberties and our right to free speech and to peacefully protest; and by some to stoke division between minoritised communities. Leadership requires being alive to those realities and risks and recognising how they might prevent the emergence of shared visions of justice, democracy, human rights and religious and political pluralism. That underscores the importance of defending and upholding the international legal and human rights frameworks that we already have fully and wholeheartedly.
Twenty-five years ago, I took up a job co-ordinating the UK arm of the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel. I was an atheist working for a Christian organisation with Jewish, Muslim and Christian communities in the lands of Israel and Palestine to build peace. The spirit of working across boundaries is the only thing that will get us to peace and justice.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
As a result of the interlude, Back Benchers are now on a five-minute speaking limit.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Government’s decision last week to ban trade with illegal Israeli settlements, strengthen sanctions and state clearly that Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful was very welcome. The humanitarian situation in Gaza remains appalling. There have been more than 1,303 fatalities and 4,336 injuries in Gaza since the ceasefire began in October 2025, with children being the most affected. Two thirds of the population still face critical, emergency levels of hunger, according to the World Food Programme, and the water situation is catastrophic, with Gazans dependent on water trucks normally reserved for the immediate aftermath of a crisis. Although more aid is now getting in, for a long time that was not the case, with Israel restricting lifesaving supplies, leading to a man-made famine being declared in August 2025 by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification famine review committee.
Additionally, for the past three years Gaza has been the deadliest place on earth to be a humanitarian, making up more than half of the humanitarian deaths around the world. It is in that context that my constituent James Henderson—Jim—was providing vital security support for World Central Kitchen in Gaza in 2024. A former Royal Marine, his family say that he was passionate about doing good and showing up for people in dire need thousands of miles from home. On 1 April 2024, Jim, along with six colleagues, was travelling in a clearly marked World Central Kitchen convoy on a road identified as accessible for humanitarian aid, transporting food to the north of the Gaza strip, close to the famine. The convoy was subject to an IDF drone attack and all seven humanitarian workers were killed.
I welcome the steps that the Government have taken to secure accountability since the attack, including pressing the Israeli ambassador for an investigation, and I know that the former Prime Minister, Middle East Minister and Foreign Secretary met with the Henderson family. I was very disappointed to hear on 19 August that Israel will not be launching a criminal investigation into the attack. The joint statement by the Governments of the UK, Australia and Canada condemning the situation as shameful was exactly the right thing to do, and I strongly believe that further action must be taken.
Rather than demonstrating remorse, the commanding officer, Colonel Mendel, has reportedly sought to justify the strikes and said that he does not regret the order that he made. The IDF has maintained that it believed that Hamas had taken control of the WCK convoy after it allegedly deviated from an approved route. However, World Central Kitchen has strongly disputed that account, stating that the IDF was fully aware of the convoy’s movements, activities and purpose. An independent investigation into the WCK killings remains essential to establish the full facts of what occurred and deliver justice for the victims and their families. Confidence in the integrity of any investigation depends on it being independent and transparent.
The family and I would like the Minister’s confirmation on one point. There have been persistent rumours that there were RAF planes flying that day and that they passed intelligence on the convoy to the IDF. Will the Minister reconfirm that that was not the case?
What happened to Jim and the other brave humanitarian workers should never have happened. Aid workers play a critical role in saving lives in conflict zones and must be able to carry out their work safely and without fear of being targeted. I was pleased to hear the Minister for the Middle East agree earlier that those responsible for the deaths must be held to account. The international community must send a clear message that attacks on humanitarian personnel by the IDF cannot go without justice.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
During his statement to the House last week, the Foreign Secretary said that
“we will never have stability in the middle east without a two-state solution.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 884.]
That line touched me, as when I was invited to go on a visit to Israel and Palestine more than a decade ago, the very same words were used to explain why that visit was so important, and why understanding the relationship between the two places and the fears and threats they both faced was so important. On my visit, way back then, I saw the withholding of water from Rawabi; settlers encroaching on the hillsides of the west bank; the way that families whose children had played together were gradually pulled in different directions as the time for national service approached; and the difference between the day-to-day lives of the people of Ramallah and the people of Tel Aviv, and the tension between the two populations. Like every schoolchild in that country, I visited Yad Vashem and learned about the horrors that came before the Holocaust—the dehumanising of Jewish people in Europe, and how antisemitism can manifest itself in the most unusual ways. What I saw will never leave me, but it did leave me convinced that a two-state solution is the only way.
Fast forward to 2023 and the horror of the atrocities inflicted on the people of Israel by Hamas. Every person who took part in the murder, torture and kidnapping of people on kibbutzim or at the music festival, or simply going about their lives, must be held to account. But although the pain of the Israeli people and the Jewish diaspora cannot be overestimated, it does not justify what followed in the following two years: the killing of 70,000 people, including 20,000 children, and the destruction of everything that is Gaza. What has happened since the official ceasefire, with the continued attacks, the violence and intimidation in the west bank and the attempt to take more land, cannot be ignored. We must not turn a blind eye as Prime Minister Netanyahu attempts to destroy Gaza.
That is why I was pleased that the UK recognised the state of Palestine, and why I am relieved that the Foreign Secretary has taken further measures to show that the UK is prepared to stand up for what most of my residents believe. However, I know that this causes nervousness in some parts of our community, and I recognise that people are worried that this suggests the UK is no longer a friend of Israel. To that, I say that when a friend is attacking their neighbour, stealing their land and hurting their children, a friend holds them to account. But we must make sure that our Jewish communities in this country and the Jewish people in Israel who do not support this are not blamed for what the Government in Israel are doing.
I know that some residents want us to go even further, and I hear their calls. For now, I believe the Government are close to getting the balance right, but we are in a fluid situation, and I hope for reassurance that if the Government in Israel continue with their actions and do not hear our calls for change, or those of countries such as Canada and France, we will keep everything on the table. Importantly, I also hope that as we head towards winter, the children in Gaza will be protected from famine and from the cold. We must not go quiet on the humanitarian front.
There is, however, one area that I struggle to reconcile, which I raise on behalf of my constituents who have been caught up with it—I am surprised I am the only person to have mentioned it in this debate—and that is proscription. I am not sure what my parliamentary privilege allows me to say, so I am going to choose my words extremely carefully, but I cannot be the only hon. Member who struggles to see masked people intimidating our towns and abusing our rescue crews being treated as activists, when elderly or silently seated people holding placards that name a group find themselves not only arrested, but treated as terrorists. I should stress that I absolutely condemn the breaking and entering of property, criminal damage and all other offences, but they are already crimes. I also know that protesters who insist on naming a proscribed group probably know the consequences, and that among those decent people hide cowards, racists and people who are just there for the thrill.
As we move forward in our position, though, I wonder whether we should ask if this is still proportionate, particularly as some companies are starting to take action against people who are wearing badges for Palestine. They do not worry about the badge for Ukraine that I am wearing. I do not make apologies for those who break the law, but I do ask the Government to reflect—and I am using my words carefully here. Given that they have now recognised the state of Palestine and have taken action in support of Palestine, maybe it is time to review the proscription of the group wearing those exact same words, but in a different order.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), I believe that historical context is essential when it comes to this debate, because Britain has been an important participant in creating the situation that Palestine and Israel are in. Our country’s role as the former colonial power in Palestine—issuing and implementing the Balfour declaration of 1917 and presiding over the dispossession and disenfranchisement of the Palestinian people—is an awful stain that has got deeper with the failure to stand up for the inalienable rights of Palestinians in the decades after the Balfour declaration.
Britain was an architect in establishing Israel, but over time the relationship has changed. Britain and Israel have become a partnership largely defined by imperialism, colonialism and capitalism, and the oppression, apartheid and poverty that those traits have created. Co-operation between the British and Israeli Governments goes beyond the “normal” relations that most nations have. It was a year ago that the then Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, welcomed the Israeli President, Isaac Herzog, to No. 10 Downing Street. The House should remember that President Herzog is the man who said that an entire nation was responsible for the October attacks perpetrated by Hamas, and that the collective punishment of Palestinians was right.
President Herzog came to protest against British positions, including the potential—at the time—recognition of a Palestinian state and Britain supporting humanitarian efforts. The result of the meeting was not a resounding condemnation of Herzog’s abhorrent views, but instead the Government stressing that Israel is a long-standing ally and the importance of our ongoing partnership with Israel. The appeasement of the president of a state that carries out a genocide is a much more recent stain on our nation.
The time for the UK to show international and moral leadership, as we did last week, was long overdue. Like many others in this place, I welcomed the change in outlook from our new Prime Minister and our Government with the Foreign Secretary’s statement. It was a real change and a massive step towards Israel being held to account for its blatant, flagrant and repeated violations of international law, but it must be just the start. Our Government must act much more quickly, because Palestinians cannot wait six to nine months. They are still subject to human rights abuses because of Israeli state-sanctioned settler violence. The UK should not be financially facilitating that a day longer.
I say to the Minister that the UK Government must target the infrastructure that funds, sustains and supports Israel’s unlawful occupation and impose measures on key entities, including Israeli Government Ministries that are implicated in establishing, maintaining and providing material support to illegal settlements and settlement infrastructure. The UK Government must end any political, diplomatic, financial and military support that contributes to Israel’s serious and systematic violations of international law. The Government should suspend the UK-Israel trade and partnership agreement and impose targeted sanctions, including travel bans and asset freezes, against Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel Katz, Orit Strook and all Israeli officials directly implicated in ethnic cleansing and the forcible transfer of Palestinians in the west bank.
There is no doubt in my mind that we have witnessed a genocide take place, so the UK must now act swiftly in response by ending all political, diplomatic, financial and military support that contributes to Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza. The UK must sanction the Israeli officials most implicated in the commission of genocide and commit to executing ICC arrest warrants. Finally, the UK must support South Africa’s genocide case against Israel in the ICJ, just as the UK has done in support of The Gambia v. Myanmar case.
To finish, I wish to reiterate that our Government have done the right thing in shifting our position, but we must go further and quicker if we are to repay the historical debt that we owe the Palestinian people.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
Because you have called me last, Madam Deputy Speaker, I owe my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) a pint, so thanks very much! You were not to know, of course.
Last week, the Foreign Secretary firmly committed the UK Government to supporting the call for accountability for what has happened in Gaza and the west bank. It is on that matter that I wish to reflect, because last month an Israeli prosecutor announced that he would not pursue criminal proceedings for the murder of my constituent John Chapman, an aid worker from Poole who was killed by the IDF in April 2024 while working with World Central Kitchen, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham). The officer responsible for the strikes claimed that the workers were identified as targets after a brief encounter with armed guards presumed to be from Hamas. That has been found to be a baseless accusation. The IDF, operating a policy of “guilt by association”, then attacked the aid convoy. The IDF conceded that the murder of the aid workers had been the result of an
“erroneous assessment that Hamas military operatives were present in the vehicles”,
but concluded that that did not give rise to a reasonable suspicion that a criminal offence had been committed.
The IDF is getting away with the murder of John and his six colleagues, including two other British citizens. It is an absolute disgrace. The Minister said in his opening remarks that it would be for the courts to decide on this, but I think that the IDF has got an effective “get out of jail free” card. The world that we leave to our children is not set in stone; it is one that our Government and their allies help to shape. It is shaped by every action and every failure to act set the boundaries of acceptability—what is tolerated and what is condemned. These choices mould norms, establish red lines, and decide whether the world becomes safer or more dangerous. The Foreign Secretary’s step last week was one such choice—it takes us closer to upholding human rights and democracy—but the killing of John and his colleagues cannot go without accountability, and I would welcome information from the Government about the steps that they will take to secure justice for him and his family. That is the very least that they deserve, because if international law is to be meaningful, justice must prevail and someone must be held responsible.
The Government must set out a pathway to a comprehensive arms embargo with the state of Israel, because it is clear that these weapons are being used to commit war crimes. They are turned on aid workers such as my constituent, including British citizens, and they are used recklessly without any accountability. Challenging this is how we become a world leader for peace, and I urge the Government to go further, faster, to achieve that.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
We have had a good debate, and I want to single out a number of contributions to it. I apologise to those who have not made the list, but I am slightly time-constrained. The hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) called on the Government to go further and include F-35s in the sanctions programme. The hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) gave us his personal experience as a kibbutznik; he has seen peaceful co-existence, and that should give us some hope. The hon. Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) made an extremely powerful and well-informed speech. He created balance in our debate, and I applaud his moral courage in doing so. The hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) rightly reminded us of the unspeakable actions of Hamas on 7 October, and expressed what I believe is a view held widely across the House on settlers and settler violence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) again brought personal experience to our debate, including of visiting Gaza. The hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) spoke of the extraordinary danger faced by journalists and aid workers trying to do their work in Gaza. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) ranged widely in his speech, and I was pleased to hear him refer to the unacceptability and absence of religious hate speech on the many marches he has attended.
The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley)—quite rightly, in my view—put his contribution in the context of the elections in Israel. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) brought a healthy dose of reality and realism to our proceedings. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), while welcoming the Government’s recent moves, called on them to go further and faster, as did many Members from across the House. Finally, the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) chose her words incredibly carefully when she described the Government’s approach as being “close to getting the balance right”.
Naturally, this conflict holds interest for many people, both inside this House and outside. We cannot forget the harm that both British Jews and Muslims have suffered because of this conflict, and no conflict in another part of the world should be allowed to feed hatred at home. The Conservative party believes that settlements are not helpful to the aim of long-term peace. We urge Israel not to take steps that could make a two-state solution more difficult, and to use its legal system to clamp down on settler violence.
I believe that, across the House, there is general consensus that there should be a two-state solution that guarantees security and stability for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people. However, His Majesty’s Opposition believe that, in banning goods from Israeli settlements, the Government are enacting a policy that they know will not work. Just 13 weeks ago, two Ministers—the right hon. Members for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), and for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant)—wrote to the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee rejecting this very policy, because the economies of Palestine and Israel are too interconnected. The fear is that innocent Palestinians and Israelis will suffer as a result. We must avoid performative actions, and instead use what influence we have. That is why the banning of goods, which led to the closure of the British consulate, is so unhelpful.
Foreign policy cannot be detached from security policy and decisions. Israel is one of our most important intelligence partners, and co-operation has helped protect British citizens from terrorist attack and hostile activity over many years. Indeed, we continue to share security concerns about Iranian activity and regional instability, making intelligence co-operation strategically important. While we welcome the Israeli intelligence services giving us assurances that that information sharing will continue, the fact that this was put into question in the first place is troubling.
To finish, I have a number of questions for the Minister. It was revealed last week that the Prime Minister had not yet spoken to Prime Minister Netanyahu since taking office. If we are not even talking to the Israelis at the most senior level, how are we supposed to influence Israeli policy in the west bank? The Government cannot simultaneously say that they want to influence Israel and then weaken the channels through which they can do so. Can the Minister explain how a ban on trade with settlements would be implemented in practice, and whether the Government have assessed claims that such a move could amount to a de facto boycott of Israel? There is no way to stop the British flow of goods into settlements without banning trade with Israel more broadly. Is that under consideration? Finally, 25% of pharmaceuticals used in the UK are reportedly made in Israel. Has the Foreign Secretary braced himself for potential retaliation, and what message does he give the British people who are worried about delays to essential medications?
If we go by the track record of the House, this will, quite rightly, not be the last time we debate Israel and Palestine. My only hope is that when we next do, we take a similar tone to the one we took tonight.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Members who made a speech should make the effort to return to the Chamber to hear the shadow Minister and the Minister speak, so no doubt they will be rushing in. I believe it is the Minister’s debut at the Dispatch Box —I wish her well.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Uma Kumaran)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I thank right hon. and hon. Members from across the House for their heartfelt contributions to today’s debate, and I pay tribute to those who called, cross-party, for the actions this Labour Government have taken. I thank the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), my hon. Friends the Members for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), for Rugby (John Slinger), for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) and for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew), my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) and for High Peak (Jon Pearce), the hon. Members for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), who also mentioned the work of the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) and for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) and for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley), the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Dr Opher) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp).
I pay tribute to the Foreign Secretary for a deeply moving and powerful speech last week, and for taking action. The Foreign Secretary’s speech resonated with so many across the country. He spoke about the history of his family, and the power of his words and actions were felt by my constituents in Stratford and Bow. On a personal level, I felt profoundly the weight of his remarks, and of the action taken by the United Kingdom. As you mentioned, Madam Deputy Speaker, these are my first remarks from the Dispatch Box, so I hope you will allow me to reflect briefly on the poignance of this moment. The Foreign Secretary spoke of the sanctuary that his family were given. My parents, like so many, were given sanctuary in Britain, which is why I was born in east London. In one generation, my family has gone from being Tamil refugees who fled persecution and war, to their daughter standing here as a Minister in the Foreign Office. That is a testament to the United Kingdom.
As my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for the middle east said at the start of this debate, the United Kingdom is a country that stands up for the rule of law, freedom and self-determination, but as the Foreign Secretary powerfully said last week, many of us feel a deep sense of shame about what has unfolded in Palestine under the eyes of the international community. We also condemn the atrocities of 7 October and the murderous actions of the vile Hamas terrorist group.
In the debate, Members rightly welcomed the Government’s standing up for what is right more strongly, and being bolder in the action we have taken. The situation in Palestine is a moral emergency. What the Israeli Government have inflicted on the people of Gaza is a stain on the conscience of the world. The occupation is unlawful. There is increasing evidence that war crimes appear to have been committed. We are witnessing unprecedented violence, including settler terrorism and ethnic cleansing in areas of the west bank. It is for those reasons that the British Government have been bolder in the actions we have taken.
I have listened carefully to the concerns that have been raised, and I will try to respond to some of the key points. At the outset, let me address the meaningful remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West on the importance of MPs not amplifying division, but promoting understanding. Many Members focused on timing and how sanctions will work, and on concerns about rising antisemitism, arms sales and E1 expansion, so I will take those issues in turn.
On timing, there is an urgent need to respond to the deteriorating reality in Palestine. We have seen a sharp rise in settler violence, accelerating settlement expansion and a persistent failure to hold those responsible for violence to account. These recent developments threaten the viability of prospects for lasting peace, security and prosperity for Israelis and Palestinians. Our immediate priority in our designations will be to prevent settlement expansion, including in E1. We have not done this alone. We are acting alongside France and Canada, and are joining the Netherlands, Ireland, Belgium, Spain and Norway, which have all either banned goods or are in the process of doing so. Many other countries—Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Poland, Portugal and Sweden—have pledged their support for further action.
On implementation and whether matters can be expedited, implementation will take six to nine months. That is a reasonable and necessary timeframe. We are working intensively on implementation. Sanctions are powerful and technical. We must take the time necessary to ensure that the measures are effective and enforceable.
On the legislative changes that may be needed, we are acting as swiftly as we can. We are also taking more immediate steps. As the Foreign Secretary announced last week, we have sanctioned a further group of extremist settlers who have supported or incited violence against Palestinian communities. We have expanded the global human rights sanctions regime, enabling swifter action against those involved in violations of international humanitarian law, whether in Gaza or anywhere else in the world. At the UN General Assembly in New York later this month, we will shine a harsh spotlight on what is happening and what must change.
On genocide and arms export licences, the UK has always supported full, robust and fair judicial processes to consider allegations, with final determinations made by competent courts before the British Government reach a conclusion. It is right that the issue has been brought before the ICJ, and I make clear that we support the court in coming to its determination.
Andy McDonald
The Minister is setting out the criteria around the crime of genocide, but would she accept that the duty actually bites when the risk of genocide is known, not at the determination of legal processes? That is when the United Kingdom has a duty to act. I welcome the steps that have been taken thus far.
Uma Kumaran
My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and as I have said, final determinations will be made by competent courts before the British Government reach a conclusion.
Uma Kumaran
No, I will carry on. The measures are not a ban on travel, tourism or visits to religious sites. British citizens will continue to be able to visit Jerusalem and religious sites in line with FCDO travel advice. The measures are not a ban on religious expression. The measures focus on settlement-related economic activity, not on people because they are Israeli, Jewish or any particular nationality or faith. We continue to oppose the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign, and will provide appropriate exemptions and continue to listen to the British Jewish community and its concerns.
I will address the arms sales question, which came up multiple times. Britain has already suspended or refused over 80 export licences used by the IDF in Gaza. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) asked how the sanctions will work and how they will be lifted. Through our new regime, we will ban the import of goods from illegal Israeli settlements and create new powers to act against individuals and companies that support, facilitate or profit from illegal settlement activity. On when the sanctions will or will not be lifted, we will continue to address and assess the actions of any Israeli Government in the future, whether in Gaza or the west bank, and the ban on such exports will remain in place for as long as the occupation persists, as will the ban on the advertising and promotion of land and property in illegal settlements.
We are working intensively on the measures. Sanctions are a powerful and technical tool, and it is important that we design them carefully so that they have the impact we intend. The measures are designed specifically to target activity linked to illegal settlements—particularly that which underpins the expansion of settlements—while protecting legitimate trade between the UK and green-line Israel.
The enforcement of sanctions is a priority for Government. The Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation, HMRC and the National Crime Agency all have important roles in enforcement and implementation. We will work closely across Government to ensure, in practical terms, that settlement postcodes will be identified and appropriate checks will be put in place to verify compliance. When breaches occur, the Government have a range of civil and criminal powers available, ranging from civil penalties to, in the most serious cases, prosecution, including powers to confiscate assets found to be the proceeds of crime. Detailed guidance will be published alongside any future legislation. Let me be clear: companies that do not take sanctions compliance seriously will face real and full consequences.
Members have rightly raised concerns about rising antisemitism. Those are concerns that we take seriously. Antisemitism is a scourge and an evil. We must call it out at every turn. In east London, where I represent, we are proud to have Jewish and Muslim communities living side by side, and long may that continue.
The measures announced are a response to the deteriorating reality in Palestine. We have seen rising settler terrorism, accelerating settlement expansion and a persistent failure to hold those responsible for violence to account. The Government must be able to disagree with the policies of the Israeli Government, uphold international law and act in relation to illegal settlements. I reiterate what the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for the Middle East have said: holding British Jews responsible for the actions of the Israeli Government is antisemitism, plain and simple.
On humanitarian support, Members have rightly raised the appalling suffering that children are enduring in Gaza. Last year, a cross-Government taskforce supported 50 critically ill and injured children, together with their immediate families, to leave Gaza and receive specialist treatment in NHS hospitals across the UK. As confirmed in a written ministerial statement in June, the UK will resume this support this year for those identified as needing urgent medical care, giving children access to specialist treatment that is not currently available locally. We recognise that many of these children and their families have experienced lasting and profound trauma.
The hon. Member for Esher and Walton raised that point and humanitarian aid matters, as well as questions on our aid budget. The Minister for the Middle East has met with the World Food Programme, and has today reaffirmed this Labour Government’s manifesto commitment of 0.7% of GDP when fiscal circumstances allow. The safety and wellbeing of the children in Gaza remains our highest priority. The United Kingdom remains committed to supporting humanitarian assistance to Gaza, where basic needs remain unmet. We continue to prioritise health, nutrition, water, sanitation and hygiene programmes. This financial year, we are providing £23.3 million to UNRWA, supporting healthcare, education, social services, emergency food assistance and shelter.
My hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow West and for Dulwich and West Norwood raised deep concerns on the support of children and students. In May, we announced a new partnership to deliver rehabilitation and prosthetic limbs for children with blast injuries. We also continue to support UK-Med field hospitals in Gaza.
My hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth and for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) mentioned World Central Kitchen. This matter is deeply concerning, and I pay tribute to their constituents who were killed. The Foreign Secretary has committed to meeting them, and I thank them for continuing to be powerful advocates here. The Government pay tribute to James Kirby, James Henderson and John Chapman, and our thoughts remain with their families. For more than two years, we have pressed Israel to deliver the justice and accountability that the families deserve. We have raised this with the Israeli authorities and will continue to push for answers. However, I want to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth and the family of her constituents that the rumours they have heard are simply not true.
In addition, we are providing a further £1 million for mine action in Gaza this year, on top of £4 million last year. Alongside that support, we will continue to work with a growing alliance of countries led by Arab partners in the region to advance the 20-point peace plan and support practical efforts to secure a lasting peace.
Last year, we supported more than 100 students to exit Gaza and take up their places at top UK universities. That support is continuing, with the first group of students arriving at the end of August, and more planned over the coming weeks and months.
Turning briefly to wider regional security, we recognise that events in Palestine are not happening in isolation. Iran barbarically slaughters its own civilians and continues both to threaten Israel and Jewish communities around the world and to threaten and endanger people across the middle east and here in the United Kingdom. Those consequences are felt far beyond the region, including here at home, through pressure on energy prices, food security and household budgets.
We have already designated Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and, as the Foreign Secretary has made clear, we will continue to target Iran’s proxy groups. Iran must never be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon. That is why, alongside our allies, we are reporting Iran to the UN Security Council for its nuclear violations. We are also reimposing major economic sanctions on Iran in line with the European Union and United States.
The United Kingdom strongly condemns the Houthi decision to resume conflict in Yemen and in Saudi Arabia. We offer our condolences to those injured and affected, and stand with Saudi Arabia and the internationally recognised Government of Yemen and regional partners.
Let me close by thanking Members for a thoughtful and considered debate, as mentioned by the shadow Minister.
Uma Kumaran
I will make progress, as you have already given me the look, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Let me close by reiterating that the two-state solution—freedom, security and self-determination for both the Palestinian and Israeli people—is the guiding principle of this Government’s policy. This is why we are taking action. We refuse to be bystanders to further suffering and to the destruction of the two-state solution. This Government are not silent in the face of deep injustice, nor are we powerless. The only route to security for both peoples is a safe and secure Israel and a safe and secure Palestine, living side by side in peaceful coexistence.
I have seen that co-operation is possible. I visited the west bank and Jerusalem last year, when I was a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. It was a young Israeli NGO worker who bravely led me to her friend, a Palestinian grandfather—his house had been demolished, and her security was at risk for the very fact that she had led us to him. But together, they spoke of their dreams for peace for both the Israeli and Palestinian people. It is that hope for peace and hope of the two-state solution that we must keep alive.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Israel and Palestine.
Business without Debate
Petitions
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Along with almost 1,700 signatures from a similar online petition, I present this petition of residents from across Plymouth, Plymstock and the rest of my South West Devon constituency about the ongoing closure of Mount Batten beach and peninsula.
This important city beach, accessible by public transport and used by thousands, has been closed since 10 July 2026, when significantly high levels of asbestos fibres were discovered in the sand. Fencing has been erected around the entire area. Since then, over 140 local residents have attended a meeting to raise their concerns about what this closure means for the local community, including businesses located at the beach, and campaigners have continued speaking out about the need to find a way to reopen the beach.
The petition calls on Plymouth City council and the Government to do all they can to ensure that measures be taken to see the beach safely reopened and safeguarded for future generations. The fight continues.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of South West Devon and the surrounding area,
Declares that the continued closure of Mount Batten Beach peninsula is having a significant impact on local residents, sea swimmers, watersports users, businesses and the wider community; further declares that residents want to see the site reopened safely as soon as possible; further notes that specialist expertise is required to identify the source of the asbestos contamination and determine the steps needed to enable the safe reopening of the site.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government and Plymouth City Council to do whatever it takes to secure the necessary specialist expertise as soon as possible, provide the community with clear answers on the next steps, and work at pace towards the safe reopening of Mount Batten Beach and peninsula.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003237]
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The balance between nature and green space and the need for housing is a delicate one, and it is always really sad when people who wish to maintain open spaces between villages are described as nimbys when they are simply trying to maintain good mental health for their communities.
The green belt was created to ensure protected open land of high quality between communities, and it serves a purpose, so it is deeply concerning to see new legislation erode that purpose and local decision making on sites coming forward when there is no relevant local plan. This has led to residents in Mid Dorset and North Poole to ask me to present their petition, signed by over 900 local people, to request that the House of Commons urge the Government to uphold the purpose of green belt and demonstrate this by calling in and rejecting the planning application for 1,200 homes on green belt between Merley and Bearwood.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Mid Dorset and North Poole,
Declares that the Green Belt land between Bearwood and Merley is a precious, high-quality green space providing a natural buffer between the two communities; further declares this land that supports local wildlife and gives residents access to valuable open space; further declares that the Government’s plan to build 1,200 homes on this land as part of the proposed Canford Garden Village development would undermine the purposes of Green Belt set out by the National Planning Policy Framework, namely to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another and to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; further declares that the people of Mid Dorset and North Poole are concerned about the erosion of local decision making in the planning process, and want their voices to be heard in the context of this planned housing development.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to uphold the key purposes of Green Belt set out in the National Planning Policy Framework by calling in and rejecting the planning application for 1,200 homes to be built on the Green Belt land between Bearwood and Merley.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003238]
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
In the Government’s own consultation about the expansion of Leicester, nine out of 10 people said that they were against it. Now, with millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money wasted so far, Ministers are having to do a complete reworking of this whole chaotic, undemocratic process, amid accusations of gerrymandering. Despite this, the Mayor of Leicester and the Government want to press on regardless. Local people do not want this, so I present this petition, which is part of a county-wide petition that has gained 40,000 signatures. I would like to thank everyone who signed it. We are making progress.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to halt and reconsider any proposals for the expansion of Leicester City Council's boundaries, and to ensure that the views of local residents are fully considered before any changes are implemented, thereby protecting the character, identity and independence of the aforementioned communities.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
And I agree.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Harborough, Oadby & Wigston,
Declares that the petitioners oppose any proposal to extend the boundaries of Leicester City Council in a manner that would incorporate the communities of Great Glen, Wistow, Newton Harcourt and Little Stretton into the City of Leicester; and further declares that these communities possess distinct identities, histories and local governance arrangements, and that any boundary changes which remove them from their existing district and parish structures would undermine local representation and community cohesion.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to halt and reconsider any proposals for the expansion of Leicester City Council's boundaries, and to ensure that the views of local residents are fully considered before any changes are implemented, thereby protecting the character, identity and independence of the aforementioned communities.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003239]
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
This petition calls on the Government to abandon their plans to force a local government reorganisation designed by the cities of Lincoln and Leicester across our rural communities in Rutland, Stamford and the Harborough and Stamford villages. In every single proposal, the Government are imposing the least popular option on our communities. That is why in the last few weeks there have been 1,326 hand-written signatures from residents, on top of 7,249 online, as part of 40,000 people across Leicestershire. Therefore, 8,573 are rejecting the Government’s plans for our communities.
The 1,326 petitioners
“therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and reject the current proposals for local government reorganisation”
being imposed on us.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that the petitioners oppose Government plans to break up local government across Leicestershire, Rutland and Lincolnshire by imposing the proposals of the cities of Leicester and Lincoln; further declares that residents of Rutland and the Harborough villages oppose being forced into a sprawling Leicestershire Council serving over 578,000 people; further declares that residents of Stamford and South Kesteven oppose being forced into a council serving 574,000 people stretching from Gainsborough to Stamford; and further declares that residents of the Harborough villages of Thurnby, Bushby, Scraptoft and Stoughton do not consent to being taken over by the City of Leicester.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and reject the current proposals for local government reorganisation in Leicestershire, Rutland and Lincolnshire.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003240]
Battle of Cable Street: 90th anniversary
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
It is an honour to lead this Adjournment debate. Let me say at the start that another colleague wants to speak, and I will take two very short interventions from Members I have had conversations with before the debate.
Next month, on 4 October, thousands of people from east London will be marking the 90th anniversary of what is commonly known as the battle of Cable Street, when the Jewish community and allies stood together to march off Oswald Mosley and his blackshirts. The victory is held up today as a high water mark for so many causes, including anti-fascism, grassroots Jewish activism and cross-community solidarity. It echoes from 1936 to the present in so many ways.
Antisemitism and hate crimes are again on the rise in Britain. Just last week, a man was charged after making a Nazi salute outside a synagogue. Of course, we must never forget the victims of the recent antisemitic attacks in north London—including the stabbings in Golders Green earlier this year—and the abhorrent Heaton Park terrorist attack a year ago, which took the lives of Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby. We are also seeing the return of far-right and racist agitators who seek, much like Mosely, to exploit the struggles of working-class people in this country and sow hatred, intolerance and division.
In the UK, migrants and asylum seekers are a sharp target. The anti-migrant pogroms in Belfast were just one among many chilling incidents of racist violence in recent months.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady on securing the debate. It is indeed important that we remember this occasion: 90 years ago, a fascist march was prevented from passing through Cable Street in London.
Northern Ireland has been especially afflicted by deep divisions running through our community, and the Peaceplus action plan has tried to address those issues. Does the hon. Lady agree that expanding and supporting cross-community initiatives across the UK and Northern Ireland can help strengthen relationships between communities? Remembering such events help us to do just that.
Apsana Begum
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct that communities must work with one another to deal with the challenges of our time—particularly the rise of racism and fascism, which we see across the world.
Far-right parties are winning elections across western Europe, so we must look seriously and carefully at our own history and how we overcame those challenges in the past. Fascism was not defeated in Britain in a single day, but no day contributed as much as 4 October 1936. I am pleased that the Minister, a fellow London MP, is here, along with my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), in whose constituency Cable Street is now situated after the boundary changes in 2024. We are here to debate the 90th anniversary and understand how the battle came to be.
By 1934, the British Union of Fascists was concentrating its efforts on building a menacing street movement in inner-city areas. In east London, the BUF had four large branches. Thousands of supporters were based in a diverse and economically struggling area, where the largest minorities were of Irish Catholic and east European Jewish heritage. About 100,000 Jews lived in east London, where shop signs were written in Yiddish and more than 100 synagogues and shtiebels were established. Fascists attempted to set Irish Catholic and Jewish communities against each other, accusing Jews of taking English jobs, smashing their market stalls and attacking and beating Jews returning from synagogue or from shopping.
On 26 September 1936, Mosley announced his intention to march provocatively right through those Jewish neighbourhoods and hold rallies with his supporters, but within two days 100,000 signatures were collected by the Jewish People’s Council—a local grassroots campaign formed only that year—to petition the then Home Secretary for a ban on the march to
“retain peaceable and amicable relations between all sections of East London’s population.”
Local mayors and local MPs including one of my predecessors, the great Labour MP George Lansbury, handed in the petition, yet shockingly the then Home Secretary refused and instead decided to send 7,000 police officers to protect Mosley and the blackshirts. Just hours after the refusal was issued, the Jewish People’s Council began to distribute leaflets calling on citizens of London to make sure the fascist march would not take place.
Far from being a spontaneous uprising, it took an extraordinary amount of effort to organise east London’s resistance. The Jewish People’s Council worked frantically to mobilise Jewish and non-Jewish communities locally, while Communist party, Independent Labour party and trade union branches all mobilised the area’s textile workers, dockers and railway workers.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)
As one whose family members were part of that demonstration in 1936 against the march of fascism, I compliment the hon. Member on her wonderful speech. Does she acknowledge that when we commemorate the march on Sunday week in her constituency and her borough we will also be opposing the rise of the far right in this country and all across Europe? We should remember that in 1936 all of officialdom said to the people of the east end, “Shut up, do nothing about it and let them march.” The people refused to let them march—it was the biggest defeat that Mosley and the fascists ever had in Britain—and we should thank them for their bravery.
Apsana Begum
The right hon. Member is correct. The debate is about recognising those really courageous, brave efforts. He speaks of his family’s contribution, as his parents were at the battle of Cable Street; over the years, I have spoken to him about his parents’ stories.
By the time that the human blockade was formed, tens of thousands of protesters had gathered at Gardiner’s corner at Aldgate, hugely outnumbering the 4,000 fascists and their 7,000-strong police protection. It is important to remember that younger anti-fascists—children as young as 12—acted as runners delivering messages and directing for reinforcements. Far too often overlooked is the role of women, who leafleted and organised workers in the run-up to the march and in their thousands defended barricades on the day.
To clear a path for the fascists, the police brutalised protesters with truncheons and attempted to charge their horses through their path. Hundreds of Jews and anti-fascists engaging in self-defence were seriously injured or arrested, and later accused by the police of having instigated the violence. Police were unable to force their entry via Aldgate or Whitechapel after huge confrontations there and eventually closed in on Cable Street. They broke through the first barrier at Cable Street, but fierce resistance pushed them back. By late afternoon, Mosley was instructed to retreat westwards. The police withdrew, and that evening celebrations erupted across the east end of London.
As the daughter of migrants who moved to east London, I feel it is all too important to consider how community solidarity and resistance continued in the aftermath. The BUF did not disappear overnight, but anti-fascists were able to build on the battle to form a confident and united mass movement in the east end of London. Leafleting and public campaigning took place to keep out Mosley’s fascists in local elections held five months later, while initiatives such as the Stepney Tenants Defence League were pivotal in uniting the Irish and Jewish communities that Mosley had attempted to divide. Jews stood with Irish Catholics, and vice versa, against evictions and exploitation by landlords. They made it clear that their struggle was a class struggle, and this cut away at the remaining support for the BUF’s antisemitic politics in east London.
For me and for anti-racists across east London and far beyond, this is an enduring inspiration. Many of those present spoke movingly about the cross-community solidarity that they saw at Cable Street that day. They included people such as Charlie Goodman. Charlie was arrested at Cable Street and after three months in prison went on to fight for the republicans in Spain. He spoke of the
“Orthodox Jews with long silk coats and soft felt hats and the sidepieces standing shoulder to shoulder with Irish Catholics, dockers and Somali seamen…they all felt there was a need to be out there to stand on that particular day.”
In other words, they knew that an injury to one was an injury to all.
This, too, is how subsequent generations of east-enders have united in the face of hostile racist threats. Indeed, in the decades after Cable Street, east London’s Bangladeshi community, especially its youth movements and socialist and trade unionist allies, mobilised in response to the racially motivated murder of a 25-year-old textile worker, Altab Ali, in 1978. A huge demonstration marched Altab Ali’s coffin to Downing Street to demand their rights, while Bangladeshis and anti-racists together organised night patrols to protect communities from neo-Nazi threats.
In the 1990s, communities on the Isle of Dogs in my constituency came together to confront the British National party. Trade unionists, the Bangladeshi community and allies once again organised huge demonstrations and mobilised across communities to challenge the BNP’s support base. Ahead of the 75th anniversary of the battle of Cable Street, the English Defence League was marched off Whitechapel, and even more recently the United Kingdom Independence party failed in its attempt to drive a crusade towards mosques last October and in its provocations again in January this year. Generation after generation of east-enders have had to confront attempts to divide our neighbours, to target, attack and intimidate them and to spread fear in our communities. As the historian, educator and author David Rosenberg has often reminded us, the anti-fascists at the battle of Cable Street did not have a blueprint, but they left us one with their sheer courage.
As difficult as this may be for some, we must also pay attention to the catastrophically poor decisions from the police and political establishment at the time. The shameful decisions of the then Home Secretary amounted to tacit consent for the fascist assault in east London. His mounted police cracked skulls and arrested scores of protesters, some of whom received custodial sentences with hard labour for defending themselves and their communities. Six fascists were arrested, compared with 79 anti-fascists. Others, including the then Labour leadership, urged members to stay away from Cable Street that day. However, rank and file members, trade unionists and grassroots socialists all saw the necessity of defeating the blackshirts and continued to organise and mobilise.
The victory at Cable Street has been memorialised in the iconic Cable Street mural, a major piece of public art unveiled in 1983 on the wall of the former St George’s town hall. It depicts a chaotic scene of mass resistance and street battles, and is itself a grassroots piece of cultural resistance with its own fascinating history. I would like to know whether the Government will be working to protect that cultural heritage, particularly as it has, sadly, been vandalised numerous times. I know that, unlike in 1936, the Government have invested resources into building community cohesion and inter-faith activities in my borough of Tower Hamlets, and I am pleased that my local council, along with local voluntary organisations, have been awarded Common Ground resilience funds to build social connections across communities, complementing numerous initiatives from the Mayor of London.
Next month, on 4 October, east London will be standing together. Trade unionists, Jews, Muslims, Bangladeshis, Somalis, socialists and many thousands more will be at Cable Street once again to mark the history, legacy and values of all those brave people who stood together 90 years ago to say, “No pasarán! They shall not pass!” Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to them and to the organising committee, including the Jewish Socialists’ Group, who have done so much to immortalise the legacy of Cable Street, and tell us how the Government will honour the legacy of Cable Street and the anti-fascists of the day as we confront the rising antisemitism, racism and division of today? As my friend Rabbi Herschel Gluck OBE said:
“Cable Street isn’t just a place on the map. It’s a concept. It’s an idea. The message of Cable Street is that we must never let evil pass.”
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) on securing this important Adjournment debate. She represented Cable Street until the last general election, and I am very proud to represent it now. She and I have much in common. We are the beneficiaries of all those who came before us, who fought in the battle of Cable Street to make the east end the place it went on to become, and the generations after, who fought against the racism of the National Front—some of our colleagues who are in this Chamber and in this House, who made the east end a safe place for us to grow up in.
My hon. Friend and I studied at the same secondary school and, as children and young people, along with our peers, benefited from learning about the battle of Cable Street and by visiting the memorial that she spoke about, which has inspired young people in the generations that came after as well as before us, and it continues to do so.
The significance of what happened almost 90 years ago, as we look to the 90th anniversary, which we will mark on 4 October, remains crucial for our society if we are to fight the modern-day intolerance, hostility and hatred that we are seeing yet again, in even greater force, fuelled by the disinformation and online hatred that is playing out in our society and in our communities up and down the country.
Growing up, I heard the testimonies of so many in our community. I am a few years older than my hon. Friend, so I was able to meet many powerful advocates of the anti-racism movement, including two of my former constituents who are no longer with us. I pay tribute to their struggles and what they did. They were young people when they took part in the battle of Cable Street: the late, great Max Levitas, whom I had the good fortune of being able to campaign with as a Member of Parliament, who fought against the English Defence League and other far-right groups that sought to exploit division and stir up hatred in my constituency when I was first elected; and the late Beatty Orwell, who died in 2023 aged 105, who also took part in the battle of Cable Street. They were two people who inspired me and supported me through my political career, along with many others in our community who told the story of the anti-racism movement and continued to work across communities.
My hon. Friend spoke eloquently about that period and what happened afterwards. The fight against intolerance and hatred continues. We have to build on the legacy of that generation, who worked so hard to ensure that division is not amplified by those who seek to divide us. I hope that as we mark the 90th anniversary of the battle of Cable Street, we can all work together to redouble our efforts to build strong communities, cohesion and strong inter-faith relations, as well as relations with those with no faith, and recognise that the modern-day challenge of intolerance and hatred is even greater in some respects, though much has been achieved. We have to be vigilant and we have to work together to ensure that we stand against racism, fascism and intolerance of the kind that we are seeing grow once again. I look to the Minister to work with us to do that.
The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)
I congratulate my fellow London MP and hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) on securing this timely debate. She referred to a number of issues that sadly are still happening on our streets. She also referred to the tragic death of 25-year-old Altab Ali in 1978. I remember when I first learned about the history of that park and the fact that it was renamed in 1998 following his death in 1978. When people go to Whitechapel and see that arch, the history and significance of that is powerful. My hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) highlighted their shared connection in that proud part of the east end.
The battle of Cable Street was a defining moment in the history of the city that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse proudly represent. When Londoners blocked Mosley’s antisemites from marching, they showed the world that hatred and intolerance have no place on these streets. London, both then and now, is built on solidarity across our differences. I am proud that we are a hugely diverse city—it is a key component of our success. We are bonded by being Londoners. We look out for each other in London. This is the point that the fascists back then could not comprehend, and it is exactly what far-right extremists today fail to understand.
The 4 October 1936 was not just a significant moment in London’s history; it was pivotal in the history of British Jews. It was Jewish communities that Mosley was targeting, and it was Jewish communities who led the response and built the barricades against the fascists, made with anything they could find from nearby streets and builders’ yards. In the many years since, the Jewish community has been at the heart of London’s culture, identity and great achievements. Yet, 90 years on, Jewish people continue to face the same ugly brutality and racism here in our city.
I can testify to that first hand. As an MP working directly with many different communities, I was deeply disturbed to be confronted by the casual, day-to-day antisemitism on our streets. We remember with deep sadness the victims of Heaton Park—I attended a memorial with the Secretary of State on the bank holiday on 31 August, meeting the families of the two people who were tragically killed—and the stabbing of two Jewish men in Golders Green. But we must do much more than remember; we must confront this hate where it persists in educational settings, workplaces, public services and beyond.
Today we are here to celebrate the resistance of 1936, but we must also draw lessons from it in how we confront the hatred we see today. In the aftermath, as my hon. Friend mentioned, Ministers introduced a ban on marching in uniforms and required demonstrations to notify the police of their intentions. These principles remain important today. The Government have demonstrated through action their unwavering commitment to tackling antisemitism. We must also be alert to how Mosley’s political violence was financed by far-right extremists abroad and raise our defences again today. But the most important lesson from Cable Street is that it was the local community that stood up against hate and division.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Is the anniversary not also an opportunity for us to pay tribute to the trade union movement and the countless working people who stood against racism, fascism and hatred? It is in the spirit of the trade union movement’s best traditions: collective responsibility, solidarity, and fighting prejudice and discrimination, wherever it occurs.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the importance of that solidarity, which our hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse also highlighted.
It was local residents from many different backgrounds, including trade unionists, east-enders and those from migrant communities, who told the vocal minority, “Your hate does not represent us.”
Today, our Jewish friends and neighbours, in the face of antisemitism, need us all to stand with them again. This Government have taken a firm stance against antisemitism and are tackling it across businesses, civil society, health, education, culture and policing. That commitment is backed by action, including £32.4 million for Jewish community protective security, alongside a wider £251.1 million policing package over the next three years, a £1 million expansion of the Common Ground programme for communities facing antisemitism, and up to £7 million to tackle antisemitism in schools, colleges and universities.
In 1936 the fascists wanted to march through the east end because its boroughs were predominantly Jewish. Today it is also home to Muslims, and for that reason the far right today often try to whip up their hate through so-called demonstrations through the east end. They will not succeed, be it in Whitechapel or elsewhere in the country, for the same reason that they failed back then: London and Britain are home to good, decent people—people who are proud to be British across ethnicities and religions.
We are addressing the root cause of division through investment in cohesion and inter-faith initiatives. As we set out in our social cohesion action plan, “Protecting What Matters”, we are providing a further £800 million to bring communities together to decide where investment is spent in our neighbourhoods. Overall, our Pride in Place programme is providing up to £5.8 billion over 10 years to support 284 places. This will serve as a cornerstone of this Government’s support for communities.
We are also supporting inter-faith work, continuing to bring forward programmes such as Near Neighbours, which brings people together in religiously and ethnically diverse neighbourhoods, and growing Inter Faith Week to strengthen understanding and interaction between people of different faiths.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that peace walks, such as the one I attended yesterday in Rugby, where members of the community, members of different faith groups and people of no faith, walked between different religious establishments, are an important part of that inter-faith work, showing that ordinary people want to come together, irrespective of their background, faith or ethnic background, and unite as one community against those who would divide us?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. Many community initiatives, including many peace walks, some of which I have attended in my constituency, are so vital where people can come together—as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) mentioned, local people, real people and trade unionists all coming together to show that solidarity.
We are taking wider steps to boost faith and belief literacy. But none of this can substitute for a very clear position that antisemitism, far-right extremists and political violence have no place in Britain. So I say to the blackshirts then and to the thugs now, we continue to say, “No pasarán! They shall not pass!”
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
Political Donations and Public Contracts
Crystal Palace National Sports Centre
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Water Sector: Public Ownership
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 762640 relating to a referendum on public ownership of the water sector.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I begin by thanking Ashley Paul Smith, who is sitting in the Public Gallery, for pulling together this petition. It has now received 208,000 signatures, and counting—I am sure that that number is already out of date. As the founder and chair of Windrush Against Sewage Pollution, Ash has been investigating the sewage scandal since 2016. Members will likely be aware that his efforts were dramatised earlier this year in Channel 4’s “Dirty Business”, which exposed the long-term impact of the private model on our water sector.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
That brilliant documentary was based on an example relating to South West Water and Devon. Many people in my area would like South West Water to become a company for the public benefit and mutualised. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that would be a good model for South West Water?
Paul Davies
As I run through my speech, the hon. Gentleman will find a theme of strong support for public ownership of the water sector throughout. We absolutely must look at that option.
Ash’s petition calls for
“a binding national referendum on whether the water industry should be returned to public ownership…A referendum would give the public back its voice about its water.”
For too long, our water sector has been in the hands of shareholders rather than the public, who pay for and rely on its delivery.
Lizzi Collinge
My constituents in Morecambe and Lunesdale are really cross about the level of their water bills, and they get more cross when they see the profits being taken out of the water industry. Does my hon. Friend agree that that anger is fair and justified, and that some change needs to come?
Paul Davies
I absolutely agree that there is huge frustration out there, which I will refer to later in my speech. I give way to my other hon. Friend.
Fleur Anderson
My constituents in Putney are angry about Thames Water. They can see that they are paying more but getting less because of the model that we have. Does my hon. Friend agree that Thames Water needs to go into special administration and that all our water companies need to be nationalised?
Paul Davies
I will certainly come to that subject later in my speech. My view is absolutely that there needs to be fundamental change in how we ensure that people have access to affordable, safe and secure water supplies.
Several hon. Members rose—
Paul Davies
I will make a little progress; otherwise, I am not going to get past the next few paragraphs.
In 1989, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher sold off our then publicly owned water and sewerage industry for £5.2 billion, arguing that privatisation would bring desperately needed investment to the sector. She told the Commons that she believed it would be a better deal than nationalised water. She hoped it would “proceed successfully”, encouraging the Opposition at the time to
“wait and see in the light of the facts rather than pontificate.”—[Official Report, 28 November 1989; Vol. 162, c. 577.]
Years later, here we are: we can see in the light of the facts that the private model for water has been far from a success. It has been an economic, environmental and public health failure. I will take an intervention now.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
My constituents in Manchester Rusholme have seen a £57 increase this year, yet it is safe to say that there has been very little to show for it. Just last week, United Utilities had to pay a further £900,000 in fines for dumping raw sewage. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must treat water reform as a strategic priority to tackle the cost of living crisis as well as the crisis in our waterways?
Paul Davies
I will make some progress, and then I will.
The current model is absolutely an economic failure. Private companies have paid out, in 2024 prices, around £83 billion—an average of £2.4 billion a year—as dividends, while loading the companies in debt. Often, those loans were taken out simply to increase the amount of cash extracted as dividends when profits alone were not enough. As we know, crucial infrastructure has been left to fail. Not a single new reservoir has been built since 1992, and water companies have overseen the waste of around 3 billion litres of water a day through leaky pipes.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Last year, Severn Trent reported profits of £850 million, which is an increase of 45% on the previous year, yet my constituents’ water bills have risen by around 10%. There have also been occasions when Severn Trent has not been as quick to carry out repairs as it could have been. Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation needs to change, so that monopoly providers do not make huge profits at the expense of hard-working families while public confidence in the sector continues to decline?
Paul Davies
I absolutely agree. As my hon. Friend will hear throughout my speech, the evidence clearly shows us that the model is failing in a range of areas. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) and the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) want to get in; I will make a little progress first, then I will give way.
The model has also been an environmental disaster. In 2024, under the administration of water companies, raw sewage was discharged into rivers and seas in England for a record 3.61 million hours. In the first six months of this year alone, raw sewage was discharged into rivers and seas during dry weather a total of 7,280 times.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Paul Davies
I will make a little progress first. According to Environment Agency data, today, just one in seven of England’s waters is in good ecological condition.
Jessica Toale
I am glad that my hon. Friend raised the public health and environmental issues related to the water system. I have received representations not only about sewage at Bournemouth beach but, most recently, about exceptionally high levels of E. coli in Christchurch harbour, which flowed out of the Stour river in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that the public interest of clear accountability in such contexts should always come before shareholder interest?
Paul Davies
I absolutely agree that transparency and accountability are crucial. As will be made clear in my speech, and, I am sure, the contributions of other Members, that is a major issue in the current model.
The model has also been a health disaster. According to Government advice, swimming in open water can increase the risk of gastrointestinal illness. Bathing water quality in England seriously lags behind that of its European counterparts. According to Best for Britain, the percentage of bathing waters in England that are rated poor quality is more than five times that in the European Union.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is well known for his courtesy, as he has just illustrated by giving way. Even more shockingly, around 80% of water companies are foreign owned—in other words, the majority of their shareholders live abroad, in all kinds of places, including China. Most users of water would be shocked to hear that. The Government have an obligation not to allow key utilities to fall into foreign hands.
Paul Davies
I absolutely agree, and under this Government work has been taking place to ensure that we have control over our vital services in the UK.
The Government are aware of the failures; their response so far has been to tighten regulation of the sector. In January, Ministers published a White Paper titled “A New Vision for Water”, which was broadly in line with the recommendations made by the Independent Water Commission, also known as the Cunliffe commission. The commission was tasked with establishing key changes to improve the water sector regulatory system, including the creation of a stronger integrated water regulator that is more streamlined and more closely embedded in the affairs of the water companies; regional planning systems; a new water ombudsman; a clearer national strategy through revamped strategic policy statements to regulators; and national targets.
Several hon. Members rose—
Gideon Amos
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. Does he agree that, as well as putting water companies into public hands, which I agree with, the companies should also be required to do more to support people to harvest their rainwater? That would reduce water bills and the amount of water being pushed into the sewers, which causes discharges into our rivers and seas.
Paul Davies
I absolutely agree with and support the hon. Gentleman’s point. The issue is also about how we look after our water in the future; unfortunately, it would appear from the last few years that such innovative and sustainable initiatives would not happen under private models.
Paul Davies
I will bring in the hon. Gentleman later, but first I will make a bit of progress.
While the steps I mentioned signify some progress—and they are welcome—they only tinker at the edges of reform. I am concerned that the Government have failed to address the fundamental error of the past four decades: while water remains a commodity, it will never deliver an outcome in the interests of the public or the environment. It was disappointing to learn that the Government did not even permit the Independent Water Commission to consider alternative ownership models, including whether public ownership was an option. That signifies a further issue, which is the continued lack of democratic inclusion in the decisions that affect the sector.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent argument. In 2025, our regional water company, Yorkshire Water, discharged untreated sewage into our regional waters for 285,000 hours. Does he agree that that shows the failure of the private sector?
Paul Davies
I absolutely agree. As a fellow Yorkshire MP, I know only too well the issues with Yorkshire Water and their impact on citizens in our region.
Public ownership is incredibly popular among the public—Ash’s petition demonstrates that, as does opinion polling. In May this year, YouGov reported that 82% of Brits believe that the water companies should be run in the public sector, compared with just 8% who believe that that they should remain private. That is a marked increase from the 59% in favour in 2017. That support is not limited to Labour voters, of whom 84% are in favour: 66% of Conservative and Reform, 83% of Liberal Democrat and 87% of Green voters are also in favour.
The public overwhelmingly back the public ownership of water—in my view, with good reason. Public ownership would mean that the £22 billion earmarked for shareholder returns and interest over the next five years would go instead towards repairing our broken water infrastructure, paying off debts and letting water company staff do their jobs properly.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for being generous with his time; many Members want to participate. I promised that I would raise this issue for my Liverpool Riverside constituents, who are complaining about United Utilities. It increased the cost of bills by 9% and then took a profit of £779 million. We are faced with crumbling Victorian systems. Does my hon. Friend agree that as a Government we need to do what we promised in our manifesto and in-source immediately?
Paul Davies
Again, as I run through my speech, my hon. Friend will see the position that I am taking on public ownership. I absolutely agree that it beggars belief to see money being siphoned off from the water sector into private hands. As has already been mentioned, many shareholders are not even in the UK while our citizens are suffering badly.
The £22 billion earmarked for shareholder returns alone would help address water poverty, which 1.8 million households faced between 2024-25. Look across the water: Paris took water back into public hands in 2010. Once that move was made, a range of social subsidies were introduced to help safeguard access to water for all. Crucially, public ownership is essential if we want to restore public trust.
Last year, the Consumer Council for Water’s annual survey found that trust in the water sector had hit an all-time low. The high cost of bills, repeated violations of environmental standards and continued enrichment of company bosses has left the public disillusioned.
Several hon. Members rose—
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
On that breach of public trust, my Mid Sussex constituents tell me they do not trust South East Water because it does not take part in planning consultations and does not say if it can supply the water that new housing will inevitably require. Does the hon. Member agree that water companies must contribute to planning consultations for the new housing that is needed?
Paul Davies
I absolutely agree. As a former councillor, I have sat on many planning committees and in many instances I was extremely frustrated by the lack of engagement or, where there was engagement, by it not being up to the standard needed. I believe the move into public ownership would help us resolve that.
Regulation alone cannot fix the crisis of confidence and, as we all know, the Government’s ban on bonuses for water companies that fail to meet high standards has been widely bypassed, with reports indicating that bosses’ total pay actually increased in the past year. Even when under an intense spotlight from academics and campaigners such as Ash, the industry is willing to blatantly outwit regulation. To rebuild trust, the public must know for certain that their bills are being used to fund services, not profits.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Cocklemoor in Langport is a popular spot for water sports on the River Parrett and it sits right at the heart of the community. I am campaigning for it to be designated as a bathing water site, but in 2025 alone, it was polluted more than 200 times as a direct result of Wessex Water prioritising profits over investment in stopping discharges. Does the hon. Member agree that tackling sewage dumping at official bathing water sites should be prioritised over paying big bonuses to water company bosses?
Paul Davies
I absolutely agree. I am old enough to remember when raw sewage was pumped into the coastal waters where I was born in south Wales. We started to change that and it changed quite dramatically. We seem to have regressed badly and we have seen a complete failure by the private sector to control that problem.
People must be able to see that their concerns are being listened to and that they have a meaningful say in how the industry operates. That brings me to the purpose of Ash’s petition.
Paul Davies
I am going to make a little bit of progress. Ash calls for a referendum because, in his words,
“I think people are sick of being told they can’t have healthy rivers and seas, just because powerful financiers want to keep making money from our water bills. Our government is listening to them but not to us, so this is how we stop being victims and start fighting back.”
I appreciate where Ash is coming from—[Interruption.] I will make a little progress; I am conscious of time.
Despite its popularity and the strength of the case behind it, there has been a total failure from successive Governments to consider the merits of public ownership. I believe we have a strong opportunity to rectify that. It is no secret that our politics has undergone significant change in recent months. We now have a Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, who proudly states a commitment to delivering “stronger public control” of essential services. In his first statement delivered to the Commons as Prime Minister, he criticised the political path of the past 40 years, which had taken control away from communities, and cited the water sector
“as a leaking monument to that approach—a country run in the private rather than public interest.”—[Official Report, 1 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 27.]
I commend the Prime Minister for those words, but words must become action. There are practical steps that this Government can take now.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he has been very generous with his time. We are being asked to believe that the solution is more complex restructuring, borrowing, negotiations and concessions. However, according to recent reporting, Thames Water will have incurred almost £2 billion in financing costs and restructuring fees over the last 18 months. Meanwhile, my constituents’ bills are going up. Does he think that is fair?
Paul Davies
I absolutely do not think that is fair. That comes to the nub of what we are talking about: the total lack of fairness in how the sector is operated and its impact on all our citizens.
Paul Davies
I will, and then I will have to make some progress—that is just a warning to other hon. Members.
Jim Dickson
For my constituents, the performance of Thames Water is a continual source of huge frustration, not least its failure to fix a long-running leak at Swanscombe station. However, a particularly egregious example of poor customer service is its failure to fit a water meter to the house of my constituent, Mr Richard Jones, despite it only requiring a small adjustment to the outside of his house to do so. As a result, he is paying an assessed household charge and therefore paying far more for his water than he should be. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is an example of incredibly poor service by Thames Water?
Paul Davies
I absolutely agree. Many of us are now customers of Thames Water; I have Yorkshire Water and Thames Water. I am sad to say that I have not been impressed as a customer with either, but what has happened to that gentleman is just not acceptable.
There are practical steps that the Government can take now. One option is for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to conduct a feasibility study of alternative models to ensure that public ownership has been given due, fair and full consideration. I understand that previously the Department has cited a total cost of £100 billion for full nationalisation, which it based on the regulatory capital value of the sector. However, that approach has been widely criticised as misleading for failing to represent the accurate market value of a company. For example, Thames Water’s RCV is more than £20 billion, yet the 2025 rescue bid from Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., before it walked away, valued the equity at around £4 billion because the company’s debts had all but wiped out the value of the capital base. A feasibility study would provide full transparency and accuracy.
It is also true that the Government face a more imminent crisis with the likely collapse of Thames Water. Here there are several options, including a special administration regime. Although that is technically a temporary form of nationalisation, it would allow the Government to test the waters for more far-reaching reform. Without an SAR water companies will know that, no matter how bad it gets, there is no real sanction. The credibility of the regulation will be fundamentally undermined.
In the spirit of devolution we must strive for a water sector that is decentralised, democratic and that serves the interests of our communities. There are strong precedents for that. Some hon. Members may be familiar with the example of Berlin’s water utility, which was re-municipalised following a grassroots campaign in the early 2010s. That was driven by demands for greater transparency and accountability, issues that have already been raised several times in interventions in this debate. Today, Berlin’s water provision is managed by a 16-person board with eight shareholder representatives appointed by the state of Berlin and eight employee representatives elected through workforce representation mechanisms.
International evidence shows that long-term democratic involvement in running our water sector is essential to rebuild trust and to secure stronger outcomes. It also has practical benefits. The cost of regulation will fall when information becomes open and transparent, and it will provide a lasting guarantee that water is run in the interests of the public, not those of the private sector. At its heart, this debate is about the right of the public to have their say over one of the most basic and essential services.
If we are serious about setting a new political path, as the Prime Minister has said, we must heed the call of campaigners such as Ash and deliver a water system that is innovative and sustainable to underpin the essential infrastructure of our economy and the health of our nations. We must be brave in our approach. We need to look at history and the decisions of past Governments. We do not remember small-scale reforms or tinkering with a broken system. We remember those who had the courage to rewire the state and deliver lasting change. This Government now face that moment. They must choose whether to preserve a failed model or to deliver a system that is stronger and more accountable. The choice is clear: it is time to put water back into public ownership.
Several hon. Members rose—
Paula Barker (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members to bob if they wish to be called to speak. Given the level of interest in this important debate, I will immediately impose a time limit of two and a half minutes. It is up to speakers if they wish to take interventions, but they can see how many colleagues wish to speak.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I am delighted to speak to this petition. It is about a really important issue, particularly in my constituency of Newton Abbot where we have Dawlish Warren, which is the place where “Dirty Business”, which showed the tragic death of Heather Preen, was filmed. I met Heather’s mother Julie when she came to this House, which was truly sobering.
I have the River Exe and the River Teign in my constituency. Both of them suffer. We are not dealing with water in the right way; I think that is plain to see. Quite how much hon. Members will say anything different in this debate I am not sure, but it is clear that we need to make a change. The experiment of 1989 failed. Heather died only 10 years after that, and we can see that investment was not being made. South West Water proudly says that it invests £13 billion in the system, but it pays out more than half of that in dividends. That is just wrong.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
On the hon. Member’s point about the failure to invest, in Basingstoke South East Water’s failure to invest in the Surrey hills pipeline has resulted in over-abstraction of the Greywell fen, which is destroying our chalk streams, holding up the local plan, which means that homes cannot be built, and risking water scarcity for existing residents. Does the hon. Member agree that investment is at the heart of the failure and that whatever model we choose must deliver investment to deliver change in all those aspects?
Paula Barker (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members to face the Chair, not other hon. Members.
Martin Wrigley
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy). There is only one place where money comes from to make those investments. The water companies cannot borrow more money. Their money does not come from the investors. The investors are sitting there; that is the original £5 billion that was made available to buy the companies in the first place. That money comes only from the customers’ bills or from Government—the customers’ tax. That is why water companies must move into public ownership and more particularly into mutual ownership so that the customers own the company. They would then be investing in their own future, not in somebody else’s profits.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Martin Wrigley
I will make progress.
I welcome the change to a single regulator, which was set out in the White Paper, but it has been clear for years that Ofwat has not had the teeth or the understanding to avoid the water companies turning into financial instruments dealing with very complex debt deals. That is where things have gone wrong, and we have to change it.
We should look differently at how we fine companies for their behaviour, prior to taking them into some form of public ownership. I strongly believe that when we find them funds, the money cannot simply come from customers’ bills. We see companies such as Thames Water putting off paying their bills for years, and that must not happen. Personally, I believe that we should look at other ways of fining the water companies, perhaps even through shares or something that hits shareholders, rather than customers. That is the only way we will have any control over these companies until we make the change.
In the meantime, we have had citizen science groups such as Friends of the River Teign and Friends of the River Exe testing water daily over the summer. It is rarely green; it is always polluted. This is a major problem. We have people swimming in the seas who rely on citizen science testing to see what is happening. I congratulate campaign groups on their efforts, but the fact that they have to do such testing is reprehensible, and it should not be happening in the 21st century. We have to take the water companies out. We have to put them under public ownership. I urge the Minister to do so quickly.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak in this debate under your illustrious chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on leading it, and I thank him for being so generous with his time. I also thank the members of the public who are in the Gallery, including Ash Smith, Julie Maughan, Rob Forrester and all the other campaigners, citizen activists and citizen scientists who have got us to the point where this is one of the hottest topics in politics at the moment.
The people who built our water system understood something that we in this place have forgotten. One of them said that
“all monopolies which are in any way sustained by the State ought to be in the hands of the representations of the peoples”.
Members and those in the Gallery may like to guess who said that. Was it Leon Trotsky? Was it Tony Benn? Well, it was actually Joseph Chamberlain, who ended his career as a Conservative Cabinet member. Many of the Victorians understood that public ownership is not ideological; it is pragmatic.
Clive Lewis
I will take one intervention, because I know that time is short.
Sir John Hayes
It is apposite that the hon. Gentleman should do so, because Joe Chamberlain is a great hero of mine; indeed, his portrait sat in my office when I was a Minister. What Joe Chamberlain understood was the balance between private interest and the public investment and public accountability that the hon. Gentleman describes. That is entirely compatible with the views of people across this Chamber and should not really be seen in Chamberlain’s terms; it should be seen as doing what is right by the people and for the people.
Clive Lewis
I agree 100% with the right hon. Member. Joseph Chamberlain is the father of municipal government and municipal socialism in many ways, and he is someone we in this place can look to.
I know that time is short, and I want to get to one key point. This debate taps into something far deeper than the yah-boo politics between those on different sides of the House: a deep public anxiety about the future of this country and this planet. People instinctively understand that something is wrong. This summer, we all watched as this country burned. We know that droughts are on their way, and we know that AI is possibly out of control. Housing, energy, water and food are things that people want under public control, not in the hands of corporations, billionaires and millionaires.
When droughts and food insecurity hit, and when we cannot get access to social care or healthcare, we understand that the public need to be able to make the decisions as to who gets what, including water. Water is vital to everything from industry, to agriculture, to people having something to drink. Given that this country may soon face a water shortfall of 5 billion litres a week, and that the national risk register suggests there is a one in four chance that parts of the country will no longer be able to have people living there, because they will have to be evacuated due to severe water shortages, there is no choice but for the Government finally to grasp the nettle and bring not just water but every critical asset this country has, from data, to health, to housing, back into public ownership where people need it—under our control, owned by us.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
My constituents want clean rivers, reliable water, functioning sewerage infrastructure and value for money. What they want is not necessarily a change in the ownership of water companies, but proper regulation, proper investment and proper accountability. Thames Water lost 136 litres per property per day in 2024-25—the worst performance in England and Wales—and South East Water, which also covers my constituency, lost almost 106 litres per customer per day. How can we ask customers to conserve water, as we have been doing over the past few months, when Thames Water and South East Water are losing so much of it?
Likewise, sewage discharges, especially those into the River Wey in my constituency, are disgraceful, although we know about them only because the previous Conservative Government started measuring them.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we could improve the regulation of water companies by ensuring we get independent audit and monitoring of the data from them? In Folkestone and Hythe, two beautiful beaches in Romney Marsh are subject to “Do not swim” warnings, partly because Southern Water comes up with the data, the Environment Agency agrees with it and nothing happens. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that important change to our system needs to happen?
Gregory Stafford
I am afraid I do not know every word in the 2024 Labour manifesto, but I believe that a lot of what the hon. Gentleman is saying is in it, and I would encourage him to ask the Minister those very questions.
I have joined the River Wey Trust for water testing, and I know that Thames Water is now undertaking phosphorus removal upgrades at the Farnham treatment works serving my constituency. However, a key question I want to ask the Minister is, will they be delivered in a timely manner?
On infrastructure, when I last met Thames Water representatives, they told me it had inaccurate records for around 30% of its infrastructure. How can a modern water company properly manage its network if it does not even know what infrastructure it has? South East Water provides drinking water for the majority of my constituency, and it has received a £22.5 million Ofwat fine, yet leaks in my constituency take weeks to be sorted.
Those are symptoms of an ageing network that requires proper investment and maintenance, and that is not cost-free. Nationalisation does not repair pipes, make treatment works cheaper or remove the need for investment; it transfers the financial risk—potentially £100 billion—to taxpayers, and it still requires regulation, which is clearly failing at the moment.
I draw the attention of right hon. and hon. Members to what has happened to South Western Railway since it was nationalised: cancellations are up, trains are shorter and delays have doubled. Why would my constituents believe that the nationalisation of water would be any more successful than this Government’s nationalisation of the railways?
Gregory Stafford
I will not, because lots of other people want to speak—I apologise.
My constituents are not asking whether the water companies are private or public; they are asking why their water company loses water through leaks, allows sewage into the River Wey and sometimes struggles even to maintain basic infrastructure. Is not the real test of this Government whether they can force these companies to perform better, as they promised in their manifesto, rather than simply changing their ownership? The choice is not between doing nothing and nationalisation. The challenge is to ensure that we have strong regulation, proper investment and real consequences for failure, without putting the bill on the taxpayer.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I am grateful to the 208,000 people who signed the petition. For many of my constituents, this debate could hardly be more timely. Last month, a burst water main on Bramley Road left thousands of households across Enfield North without water, or experiencing low pressure for many days. Around 4,500 properties were affected. Thames Water’s own planning identified almost 3,000 priority services register customers in affected areas, and 24 tankers were deployed.
However, those figures alone cannot describe the complete misery caused for my constituents. One told me:
“I’ve been a resident in Lavender Hill for 27 years and I’ve never had to endure the incident that I am currently facing. I live in flats and have had NO water for over 3 days.”
Many others described the distressing impact on the most basic aspects of everyday life, including cooking, drinking, washing and sanitation. In response, I managed to persuade the local Morrisons store to make its industrial washing machines and dryers available free of charge, and I am really grateful to it for that.
Let us be clear: this was not just an inconvenience; for many, it was a crisis. The disruption even reached Chase Farm hospital, where operating theatres lost their water supply, forcing operations to be cancelled for two days while emergency tankers were brought in.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
Is the situation my hon. Friend describes—Thames Water not being there when crises happen, while at the same time hugely increasing customers’ bills and failing to invest in infrastructure—not exactly why we cannot have a sweetheart deal with its creditors and shareholders? They must be held to account; they cannot continue with their record of failure on the backs of hard-working Londoners.
Feryal Clark
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. When a failure in water infrastructure can disrupt NHS treatment, we are no longer talking simply about poor customer service; we are talking about critical national infrastructure.
What made this incident particularly unacceptable was not simply the fact that a pipe burst—we all know that infrastructure can fail—but what happened afterwards. My constituents faced conflicting information about whether their water would return, and they struggled to contact Thames Water. Bottled water stations were located in places that were extremely difficult for elderly and disabled residents to reach without a car. When I raised that issue with Thames Water, this was its extraordinary response:
“It’s not uncommon for us to set up bottled water stations in the London area without considering residents without a vehicle.”
Think about that: an essential utility provider responding to an emergency affecting thousands of people admits that it does not routinely consider whether vulnerable customers can actually reach the emergency water it provides. If an essential service fails, surely the absolute minimum people should expect is to be told what has happened, what they should do, where they can get help and when the service should be fixed.
This experience inevitably raises a much bigger question: who is our water industry ultimately being run for? I welcome the Government’s determination to strengthen regulation, but we should also ask whether regulation alone can solve the problem.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I speak today on behalf of not just my constituents but my rivers. The Avon, Alne, Arrow and Stour in my Stratford-on-Avon constituency are part of the ecosystem of the mighty Avon. They are all central to our communities, wellbeing, local environment and wildlife. However, the current privatised water system has failed the public and the environment.
First, I want to thank the many citizen science projects in my constituency and the campaign groups across the country. Without their tireless work and water testing, much of this scandal would have remained hidden. That community effort is also matched by growing public anger about sewage discharge into rivers and seas, and about executives receiving large bonuses while customer bills rise and rise.
A model of public ownership could be for the water companies to become mutually owned. That would mean greater accountability, with a focus on public benefit rather than shareholder profit; executive boards that include environmental experts and local citizens groups; and a greater investment in infrastructure, with any profits reinvested into the water system. Public ownership would make it much easier to manage water collectively, as a social good rather than a commodity. That would make solutions such as sustainable drainage systems, sponge cities and controlling pollution at source not only feasible but easier to implement.
We in Stratford-on-Avon want clean, thriving waterways, and we will not stop campaigning until this mess is sorted out.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for opening this petition debate so well and for representing the petitioners and campaigners here today.
My constituency of Shipley is fortunate to be home to two beautiful rivers: the Aire and the Wharfe, where people walk, exercise, enjoy nature and spend time with family and friends. The rivers should contribute enormously to residents’ quality of life, but from Bingley to Burley in Wharfedale, residents are afraid to let their children paddle or swim in the rivers because of the health risks created by the illegal dumping of human waste. Just last summer, one of my constituents in Bingley, a boy of seven, was left fighting for his life with E. coli poisoning. He suffered multiple organ failure, and he needed emergency operations and kidney dialysis to beat the infection. It is absolutely disgraceful that, so much time after the first tragic death that was vividly depicted in a Channel 4 documentary, private companies are still allowed to abuse our rivers and put profit before people and nature.
Why are we in this terrible situation? As others have said, in 1989, the Tory Government did what no other country has done—there is no international precedent for this—and put the stewardship of our most precious natural resource into the hands of private companies. We were told that private ownership would bring investment, efficiency and innovation. Instead, we have seen rising debt, rising bills and more pollution in our rivers. It is claimed that there is no evidence that public ownership leads to better outcomes, yet in Paris, where there has been remunicipalisation, there has been improved service quality and water quality, and a reduction in price. In fact, water bills in Paris are about a third lower than they are for my constituents under Yorkshire Water.
We must act now to prevent further harm being done to children like the boy in my constituency by the likes of Yorkshire Water and Thames Water. I join others in urging the Government to put Thames Water into special administration and to be bold in bringing forward a water reform Bill that goes beyond the Cunliffe commission and sets out a legal framework that will enable us to build back a publicly owned water sector.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for setting out the case so well. I also thank my constituents for signing this petition; my constituency is ranked 10th for the number of constituents who signed it, with 866 signatures.
Before I get into the usual damning of Thames Water, I want to put something on the record. However corporately dysfunctional Thames Water is, there are a lot of good people who work for it. I thank the frontline teams and their managers, who have engaged on issues such as the flooding on Ladygrove in Didcot and restoring Wallingford’s Mill brook, and who attended a flooding summit at East Hanney last year
Corporately, however, Thames Water is not working, and that lets down its customers and workers. Last year, it discharged sewage into our rivers and lakes for more than 107,000 hours—yet another example of Thames Water failing its customers and the environment, and of the regulator, Ofwat, failing the British public. Despite serving 16 million people with a vital public service, Thames Water is operating with £23 billion of assets in urgent need of repair and close to £20 billion of debt, which it has said it cannot repay—a third of customers’ bills are spent servicing that debt. In that context, it is unclear how Thames Water is the right organisation to be responsible for delivering the proposed White Horse reservoir, the estimated costs for which have already increased from £2.2 billion to £7.5 billion.
Certainly, special administration is the right thing for Thames Water, but the subject of the e-petition is public ownership. We assume that nationalising organisations automatically leads to good delivery, but the evidence on this is mixed at best. It would come as a surprise to users of train services in the north of England, delivered by Network Rail, which was nationalised nearly a quarter of a century ago, and Northern Rail, which was nationalised more than half a decade ago, to learn that nationalisation automatically leads to brilliance. That is why, instead of nationalisation, the Liberal Democrats are calling for water companies to become mutually owned public benefit corporations—owned by customers, professionally managed and not driven by shareholder profit—with effective regulation.
On the proposed delivery mechanism, a referendum, I still personally have PTSD from the 2016 one. Instead, we should add this to the Prime Minister’s list of things on which he needs to forge a cross-party consensus.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
I hope I do not shock my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies), who made an excellent speech in opening this debate, when I say that I do not want a referendum to bring the water industry back into public ownership. I just want Ministers to get on and do it. The Secretary of State has the power under the Water Industry Act 1991 to petition the High Court for any water company to lose its licence for either poor performance or insolvency.
Poor performance? Discharging untreated sewage into our waterways across England and Wales 568,674 times in just one year—I call that poor performance. That is the reason that Ofwat and the Environment Agency have been imposing fines of more than £100 million a time on water companies. No river in England meets good chemical status, and only 14%—one in seven—achieve good ecological status overall.
Section 94 of the Water Industry Act sets out that companies have a principal duty to provide sewerage systems. They also have a principal duty to comply with their statutory duties under regulation 4 of and schedule 2 to the Urban Waste Water Treatment (England and Wales) Regulations 1994. The Secretary of State can apply to put a company into a special administration regime if it has contravened, or is likely to contravene, any principal duty. They have; she should.
On insolvency, let us turn to Thames Water’s disservice of my constituency of Brent West. Under section 24 of the Act, the company can be taken into an SAR if it
“is or is likely to be unable to pay its debts”.
Thames Water’s gearing is 88%. Major pension funds have written off their £956 million stake in the company, and it has failed its licence obligation to maintain investment-grade status.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Barry Gardiner
No, I will not.
The company’s credit rating is now junk status. The only way it claims it can pay its bills is if the regulator allows it not to do its job of meeting its environmental performance obligations.
For goodness’ sake, we do not need a referendum. We need a Secretary of State who is prepared to use the legislation that was provided for the purpose of defending the public.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the many constituents who signed this petition. We have heard a range of views from across the Chamber on the best ownership model, but we can surely agree that the current model is untenable, is unsustainable and lacks democratic involvement. No one wants it except the water bosses themselves.
My constituents continue to write to me to express their dissatisfaction with the system. Our local waste water company is Wessex Water. The former chief executive, Colin Skellett, received an £170,000 bonus from parent company YTL Utilities in 2024, despite a Government ban on performance-related payments following criminal pollution convictions. Accounts covering the period to June 2025 show that the Malaysian-owned parent company paid Mr Skellett remuneration of £693,000 in total. Wessex Water was subject to a bonus ban after being criminally convicted in November 2024 over a sewage pumping station failure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) condemned this passionately, but I am sorry to say that since then things have not got any better. Our rivers are not cleaner, our infrastructure has not seen significant upgrades and our water bills have not gone down. However, Ruth Jefferson, the current chief executive of Wessex Water, has received a 14% pay increase, from £590,000 to £671,000—well above inflation. Environment Agency data shows that last year the company released 190,666 hours of raw sewage into the waterways—equivalent to about 21 years of continuous spillage. How many of our constituents got a 14% pay rise for failing to do their job so spectacularly? People recognise it for what it is.
Mutual ownership by customers would put an end to this mockery. It would allow profits to be reinvested in infrastructure rather than being paid to shareholders. It would allow legally binding priorities to be set—[Interruption.]
Peter Swallow
I will give the hon. Lady a chance to drink some water, which is, of course, what we are all here to talk about. It is important to my constituents, and I know to hers. I will let her carry on with her fantastic speech.
Claire Young
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I was trying to say that mutual ownership would allow legally binding priorities to be set so that companies would have to protect the environment, provide clean water and provide standards that we do not have at the moment.
I want to say one other thing: it is not just the default local water company that deals with waste water. On many modern estates, private companies that are separate to the default water company for the area are taking the waste, and there are no guarantees. If they fail, the responsibility for that waste reverts to Wessex Water in our case, and it may end up taking on even more inadequate infrastructure than it already has. That is something else to consider when we are discussing this issue.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Barker.
We have all seen the price of failure. “Dirty Business” hit us hard with the true cost—the human cost—and the scale of sewage and chemicals. Professor Alistair Boxall is drawing to our attention the pollutants that are destroying our river health and ecology and causing our rivers to die, but also the money and how it flows—the revolving doors and the completely unaccountable power within the water industry.
Of course, when we see the revolving doors between regulators and companies, we know that we cannot trust the system. Our constituents cannot trust the system as they are fleeced to pay more for the profits of these companies—of these now millionaires who are allowing sewage to run through our cities. York has the second-worst polluted river, the River Ouse. We see floods and droughts in our city, and burst pipes that are unaddressed for days. We see the cost to our constituents.
The Minister must bring water into public ownership, and must not prevaricate or look for a different route. Plain and simple—let’s just get on with it. We have heard how we can bring forward an SAR to bring those companies and contracts back into public hands. I also say to the Minister that I have looked at this issue over the summer, and it is vital that we look at how we hold public institutions to account, who makes decisions and how the public can have a say.
As politicians, all we can often do is come to this place and plead, and use our campaigning platform to speak of the challenges we see, but we do not have power and leverage over systems. Setting up public ownership is important so that we and the public have leverage over the system. The public would have the ability, through a deliberative process and a citizens assembly, to hold water companies—public companies—to account so that they can get the answers that they deserve.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker.
I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for opening the debate, which could not have come at a more poignant time for my constituents. Just weeks ago, flash flooding tore through properties, and more than 60 homes suffered internal flooding. In the worst cases, water reached a metre deep. Among those affected were an elderly man with limited mobility who had to leave his home, and a mother caring for her severely disabled daughter who was at risk of losing the electricity supply needed to maintain essential medical equipment. Those are just a few examples to show the severity of the challenge we face and the human cost that comes with inaction.
Worse still, the problem is not new. Perry Beeches flooded badly 10 years ago. We have known for years that the neighbourhood is vulnerable, yet our infrastructure remains unfixed, our manhole covers remain blocked and our rivers continue to flow with sewage and waste—not to mention the subsidence across our city caused by leaking water pipes. The cost of our water companies doing nothing is paid in ruined homes, destroyed possessions and frightened families.
What are my constituents paying for? Severn Trent’s average combined household bill has risen by around 10% this year, and yet constituents find themselves paying more for less. It is clear that the industry is broken when a company can record more than 36,000 sewage spills lasting more than 200,000 hours and still achieve the Environment Agency’s top environmental rating of four stars.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
We have heard a lot about constituents getting sick; one of my Padstow constituents was hospitalised just a few weeks ago. On the hon. Member’s point about the Environment Agency’s ratings, Surfers Against Sewage says that 80% of hospitalisations come from bathing waters judged “good” or “excellent” by the Environment Agency. Does he agree that it is a nonsense to have a regulator like that?
Ayoub Khan
Absolutely. By way of example, how can an organisation receive a four-star rating when it is performing so badly?
Privatisation was sold on the promise that private capital would deliver investment and relieve pressure on the public purse, but with Thames Water amassing £20 billion in debt and due a Government bailout, that is clearly not the case anymore. Around the world, 90% of water is under public ownership, and yet 100% of ours is privately owned. It is not always wise to follow the crowd, but this is clearly something that we have gotten wrong.
My constituents are not asking Parliament to pretend that public ownership has no cost; they know it has a price. All they are asking us is to find out whether the price can really be greater than chronic underinvestment, rising bills, sewage-filled rivers, flooded homes and a system in which the public carry the risk while private investors take all the reward.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker.
Water is a basic natural resource, essential for public health and hygiene, but it is trapped in one of the largest ever private monopolies: we cannot choose water from a less polluted waterway or stop paying bills that rise faster than inflation, and we cannot even change suppliers. As others have said, under Thatcher, our water and sewerage system was sold off with a clean slate: £5 billion in debt was wiped and companies were given a cash boost to the tune of £1.5 billion. Yorkshire Water has paid shareholders £7.6 billion in dividends since 1989, and it has £6.2 billion in debt. That is unacceptable. Resident bill payers have paid the price.
Every promise of a better system has completely collapsed under the weight of this monopoly. On Addy Street in Upperthorpe in my constituency, residents are no strangers to jets of water coming out of the ground. The most recent instance was not the first, second or even third time that they had seen a burst main, but the fourth. These are no longer unique occurrences; they are endemic to a system that is at breaking point.
We have to be transparent: mounting corporate greed across England will not be wished away by making it easier to sack failing chief executives or imposing greater fines on companies. The personnel are not the problem. The problem is the system of deriving massive profit from life’s essential needs. Although I welcome the Government’s planned reforms, I urge them to go further than public control and regulation, and work to bring the system back in house.
Four hundred and thirty-four of my constituents have signed the petition that we are discussing today, and 440 more in Walkley have signed local activist Hannah Cawley’s petition calling for water to be brought into public ownership. They are calling for an end to stakeholder payouts, and for cleaner rivers, lower bills and real accountability. That is the least that they deserve. Sheffield, like the rest of the country, has paid enough for this failure. It is time to bring water back into public ownership, and it is time to put the people who depend on it first.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. After successive years of failure, we need a water sector that serves people, not profit. We in the Green party have long made a cast-iron pledge to support bringing water back into public ownership. During its passage, I attempted to expand the powers of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 to enable environmental failures—not just insolvency—to trigger Government intervention, and I backed a cross-party amendment on mutual ownership. The Government rejected both, and public ownership itself was denied any place in the legislation by the Minister.
Over the last three and a half decades, we have seen companies ripping off consumers while failing to invest in our crumbling infrastructure. While investors receive billions in dividends, the system needs its biggest ever investment programme. More than £50 billion has been pocketed by shareholders since privatisation, while around £16 billion is needed in the next few years just to fix storm overflows and solve poisonous nitrate pollution. Instead of pouring money into profits and managing failures, we need to build a system that is fit for the future. It is no wonder that this privatisation experiment has failed: water is a public resource and a natural monopoly.
Fantastical figures are used to scare people off the pursuit of public ownership as a solution. The figure of £90 billion was first cooked up in a Social Market Foundation report paid for by—oh!—four prominent members of the water sector. The Government could leave the debt with the debt holders and look at alternative models, such as Common Wealth’s economic assessment reflecting years of neglected infrastructure, companies struggling with insolvency, and debt leveraging for commercial survival. While costs would be incurred in facilitating the transfer, an honest valuation would put public ownership within reach.
As we see company debt and statutory fines loaded on to bills, record sewage spills and billions in dividend payouts, I implore the Government to set out a timetable to restore our water to public ownership and end Thatcher’s failed 37-year privatisation experiment.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
It is clear today that the privatisation of water was one of the biggest cons in British history. We have seen water bills rise by 44% in real terms since privatisation, rivers polluted, infrastructure deteriorate and shareholders extract to the tune of £85 billion from our water industry. Regulation has failed to fix it; we have to be honest about that. Water companies have been fined millions of pounds, but that has demonstrably failed to change their behaviour. Chronic underfunding of the Environment Agency and failures by Ofwat have meant that even the limited regulatory powers available have too often gone unenforced.
I am pleased that the Prime Minister understands these issues, because it is time to bring water back into public ownership. There is an economic case for doing it: Professor David Hall’s research estimates that public ownership could reduce financing costs by between £3.2 billion and £5.8 billion a year. That is money that could be invested in repairing pipes, tackling leaks, improving sewerage infrastructure, protecting our rivers and keeping bills affordable.
But I must stress that public ownership has to mean much more than putting a Government sign above the door. Public control cannot mean just some sort of franchise model with the pretence of overarching Government control, or the odd token councillor sitting on a water company board. That will solve nothing. We need regional publicly owned water companies with democratic accountability and meaningful representation for workers, customers and communities.
The revenues from water bills should be used to operate and improve the service, not provide returns to shareholders; investment should be planned for the long term; and environmental protection has to be at the very heart of the industry. Of course, that has a cost—we have to be honest—but we already know from research that public ownership would pay for itself within around seven years, with savings thereafter. We do not need a referendum; we need to take water back into public ownership now.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on his eloquent speech, and I thank everyone who signed the petition and the people in the Public Gallery—it shows how much interest there is in this issue.
Since the water companies were privatised, they have paid out billions in profits, taken on billions of pounds of debt, paid out millions of pounds in bonuses and put up bills. We have had hosepipe bans and sewage is being discharged into our local streams, beaches and waterways.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
Surfers Against Sewage’s submission to the independent water commission looked at five different public interest models for the water industry, each with its own strengths. Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be a culture of accountability to the wider public, not just to shareholders?
Dr Chambers
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. All the issues that I just highlighted were the result of a failure of regulation over decades, and it is absolutely time that we reform the way water companies are structured, owned and run.
We have sewage pouring into the chalk streams in Winchester—we have the River Itchen and the River Meon, and next door we have the beautiful Test valley—which are unique habitats with unique biodiversity. They are sites of special scientific interest. The salmon in southern chalk streams are genetically distinct from the salmon in the Atlantic ocean. The destruction of this type of habitat by sewage and pollution is ecological vandalism.
Businesses are also affected. A farmer contacted me because sewage discharged by Southern Water was ruining his crops. He had to get me and my office involved just to enter into a conversation with the water company to get the compensation he deserved.
People’s health is affected. I heard just last week from a mother whose three-year-old baby has been hospitalised with potential liver failure because he was playing in a stream and she was unaware that sewage was being discharged into the waterway. I heard from a woman who got very sick after paddleboarding in a stream; she was unaware that sewage was discharged upstream. This is affecting businesses, health and our local environment.
Before I finish, I want to pay tribute to the dedication of the amazing citizen scientists who have worked to gather data so that we can hold water companies to account and know the situation on the ground. To name a handful, there is the Winchester Downs Cluster, the Upper Itchen Restoration group and the Environmental Farmers Group. One of our amazing local councillors, Margot Power in Alresford, has for decades been taking samples of invertebrates in the river to measure their health.
I also pay tribute to the Southern Water crew who work on the ground when there is a flood or a discharge, or a drain needs unblocking, often in terrible weather and often late at night. Those guys are doing a brilliant job. They work in companies that are not fit for purpose, in a system that needs to be reformed. We need to ensure that they have all the support they need to make sure we have fresh water and a clean environment, and that people’s bills do not go up while directors get huge bonuses.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker.
Severn Trent customers in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire have seen their bills rise by 22% this year, and they are expected to rise by a further 47% by 2029. At the same time, Severn Trent reported pre-tax profits of £320 million in the last financial year, and the company’s long-term incentive plan could raise the chief exec’s annual remuneration to a staggering £3.1 million.
In 2024, Severn Trent was responsible for more than 300 pollution incidents, and in 2023 the company was responsible for over 60,000 sewage overflows. People living on Paddock Rise in Trentham recently had to deal with the most appalling situation of having raw sewage in their street, presenting a serious public health risk. I have raised many times the challenges faced by the village of Upper Tean, including constant flooding, blown manhole covers, the children’s playground and the recreation ground being flooded with sewage water, and dead rivers with no fish.
New developments are creating additional challenges. Although water companies are consulted on planning applications, they are under no statutory obligation to ensure that they upgrade their mains infrastructure to meet increasing demand. Developers meet obligations, as they should; water companies should also do so— especially if we intend to build 1.5 million homes.
It is fundamentally wrong that my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent South are facing higher water bills and poor services, while profits are siphoned off into the pockets of shareholders and chief execs. Basic necessities that we all need to survive should not be privatised and subject to profit incentives. Water is a basic human right. Our water should be under public ownership, not “control”, whatever that means—I would appreciate it if the Minister could provide clarity on the difference—and we need to listen to the 208,000 people who signed the petition. We need a water renationalisation plan now, and ownership of our water to be returned back to the people of this country and out of the hands of shareholders—owned by us and run for us.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. It is no surprise at all that my constituency has the second highest number of signatures to the petition. For at least six years now, Whitstable in my constituency has been plagued by frequent releases of sewage pouring out into our sea. Combined sewage overflows are supposed to occur only in the event of extremely heavy rainfall or storms, yet every single time a drop or two of rain falls from the sky, we get alerts, and within minutes my inbox will start to ping.
In 2021, I held my first public meeting at which residents were able to directly challenge the bosses of Southern Water. It was very similar to the public meetings shown in “Dirty Business”, Channel 4’s outstanding docudrama. The executives seemed taken aback by the frustration and anger and by the demand for answers; I suspect they really thought we might all be fobbed off by the kind of generic non-answers that I had been receiving as the local MP and as a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Whitstable has been plagued by this for years, and by the smell of an unmanned treatment works. The smell was so bad that people could not hang out their washing or allow their children to play in the nearby play area. They had headaches, the visible sanitary products and human waste were revolting, and in the early hours of the morning they regularly heard alarms in the unmanned building—alarms to which nobody responded.
SOS Whitstable met at that meeting and formed an extremely active campaigning group that went on to raise a petition on water privatisation, which we delivered to No. 10 in December 2022. It has now received more than 250,000 signatures, all to make the water companies public again. I held more public meetings over the next two summers, which were essentially for all those who were being so let down. Southern Water showed us a slideshow of excuses and investments that it had been making. But fast-forward through campaigns and debates in this place and endless private meetings, and all my constituents agree: we need public ownership now.
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for securing this debate.
What should be at the centre of a discussion about public ownership of water? I think it should be public health. Imagine a family spending an afternoon beside a river. The children are playing near the bank. One asks whether they can paddle. The parent looks at the water and hesitates. Hon. Members might think it is because the river is deep or flowing quickly, and they might be right, but just as importantly, the parent does not know what has been discharged into it. That should concern every one of us.
In Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, the rivers connect our towns and surrounding villages. They should be places that communities enjoy and take pride in, not places from which parents feel they must warn their children away. Yet when we discuss the water and sewerage companies, the conversation too often begins with the company finances and ends with arguments about regulators. I think we should begin with the family beside the river.
Julie is the mother of Heather, who was just eight when she died in 1999 after contracting E. coli during a family holiday in Devon. Her family story featured in the Channel 4 drama that we have heard about. Julie continues to speak out, so that Heather is not forgotten and so that other families understand the risks, but behind that campaigning is a mother who should have been watching her daughter grow up. That is why I believe the case for public ownership of our water and sewerage companies must be made in terms of the people this essential service exists to protect.
The purpose of the water system should be straightforward: to provide clean, safe water. We need water and sewerage companies that have more actual engineers than financial engineers. Our constituents should not have to become experts in the sewage discharge maps before deciding whether to enjoy their local river. No parent should be left wondering whether an ordinary afternoon outdoors puts their child’s health at risk. We cannot promise that open water will ever be entirely risk-free, but we can insist that preventable pollution be treated with the seriousness it deserves. Water is essential to life, and the way we own and manage it must reflect that.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. Sometimes public ownership is best, and sometimes private is; I have no ideological view either way, but when it comes to the water industry, privatisation has been nothing short of disastrous. The main reason is inadequate regulation. In their blind assault on quangos and the civil service, which continues to this day, the Conservatives cut funding for the regulator so badly that it entirely lost the ability to do its job. No one noticed all the sewage going into our waterways, because there was no one left to look.
Left to their own devices, water company bosses responded by extracting billions from the industry in excess profits while allowing the fabric of the system to slowly rot. It has all been exposed now and we know the sorry truth, but however angry we feel, in most cases that money cannot be recovered because the original investors sold out long ago. In my area of Horsham in West Sussex, Southern Water was one of the worst offenders. Things were so bad that the former CEO Matthew Wright now faces criminal charges for presiding over fraudulent sewage data. Painful as it is, we are now obliged to pay for the same infrastructure investment all over again through higher bills.
Calum Miller
My constituents have strongly supported this petition because they feel ripped off by Thames Water. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s refusal to consider special administration for Thames Water sends a signal to all other water companies that investing money in paying off bondholders is more important than sorting out the mess that is their infrastructure?
John Milne
My hon. Friend makes a strong point with which I very much agree. We have to find the funds to fix decades of neglect at a time of crisis in the national budget. For that to happen, it is absolutely essential that we be able to trust the water companies to do their job honestly the second time around. I flat out do not believe that we can do that without changing the present system of private ownership.
Personally, I am not opposed to renationalisation if it really can be done free, but I would be more confident asking for a mutual ownership structure, because that is clearly achievable. Mutual ownership prevents excess bonuses and profiteering. Residents can be confident that any new public money going into the industry will be spent on genuine improvements. Alongside that, we need a stronger regulator with the power to enforce quality.
More than 200,000 people signed the petition. That is a huge number, but I do not doubt that many millions more would have signed it if they had been aware of it. We put our blind trust in the water industry once, and it was abused. Once is enough.
Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
May I say what a phenomenal pleasure it is to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker? You are a wonder. As the MP for half of England’s best island, I feel uniquely placed to speak about the state of our water sector. Quite frankly, I think my constituents would never forgive me if I did not use this opportunity to highlight just how unacceptable the situation has become.
Since the 2024 election, there have been 14,902 hours’ worth of sewage in my constituency alone. Across the island, that figure rises to 26,682 hours. It is little wonder that islanders feel utterly frustrated, deeply let down and increasingly sceptical about the idea that the system is supposedly delivering for them or that private companies can be genuinely trusted to act in their best interests.
On the island, we are immensely proud of our 57 miles of UNESCO biosphere-recognised coastline. It is part of what makes the Isle of Wight so special, but it is also why so many islanders find themselves utterly dumbfounded. The Prime Minister received a lot of flak last week for his comments about the damaging impact of the privatisation of the 1980s. The Benches opposite—not the Labour and Liberal Democrat Members sitting there now; I mean the Opposition—mocked those remarks, but not even they could argue that the state of our water industry represents a ringing endorsement of Margaret Thatcher’s privatisation project.
Private equity has become so effective at fearmongering that Governments of all colours are reluctant to challenge the status quo. We hear figures, from companies that see our basic utilities as huge pound signs, that suggest that public ownership would cost £100 billion and would put workers or pension funds at risk, yet evidence from the People’s Commission suggests that public ownership could deliver a much fairer and more sustainable system than the one we have today. That is why we need to stop placing private equity on a pedestal.
Water is not a luxury. It is an essential public service. My preference will always be public control, especially when private companies have blown their chance, measured on performance, investment and public trust, and have resorted to fear stories about the alternatives. Our promise of hope in every heart and growth in every postcode will not feel real or achievable if people cannot do something as basic as trusting the water that comes out of their tap, or safely swimming in the seas that surround them.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. The case for public ownership of our water is unanswerable. We can all see the money being swindled out of the British public by the privatised system. We can all see the sewage pollution going on, even during a summer of drought. I beg the Minister, in her response, not to repeat the bogus figures that some use to argue that public ownership of one of our most essential national resources would be too expensive. Those claims have been so comprehensively debunked that using them now is just getting embarrassing.
The truth is that the cost of the societal impacts of failing to take back control of our water resources would be far higher than that of taking action now, because— ludicrously for a country as wet as ours—we are on course for a water deficit of more than 6 billion litres of water every single day in the next 30 years. The truth is that there is currently no credible plan to avert that. All the reservoirs that currently we have planned will reduce that deficit only by a meagre 13%. There is no realistic prospect of water companies hitting the efficiency targets they have signed up for, either—and that is before the speculative proliferation of data centres claims its thirsty share of our dwindling resources.
In all likelihood, we will face further and severe water shortfalls in the future. Fire services are already warning that water pressure in many areas is dangerously low for fighting the new wildfire season that we also face. Communities in my constituency have already seen the taps running dry. In the future, we will have to choose what we do and do not use water for. We cannot have a situation in which our democracy has to mediate the fundamental question of national security through the interests of private companies that have proven beyond all doubt that their overwhelming priority will always be profit. We cannot afford to leave our water in the hands of private vested interests. It must be brought back into public ownership.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for introducing this important debate. I also congratulate Ash Paul Smith, the petitioner, for all his hard work in creating the petition and gathering over 208,000 signatures.
The recent sewage spillages in Saltcoats in my constituency have greatly affected the bathing water quality in the coastal towns of Saltcoats, Ardrossan and Stevenston and have affected many constituents. On 29 June this year, a rising main pipeline near Saltcoats pumping station burst and a high amount of sewage was piped into our waters. That led to temporary repairs, which continued until 10 August, as there was apparently no easy or robust solution.
The advisory signage at the beach was not as clear as it could have been. That not only led to complaints, but confused many swimmers about the bathing quality of the water. Dog owners, too, were querying whether it was safe for dogs to go into the water, which of course it was not. Only two weeks after the public were told that they could swim again, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency confirmed on 25 August that the pollution was actually ongoing and further work on the pipe was required. That continued for a few days before the advice against bathing was withdrawn and safe swimming could be resumed. That is just not good enough.
For nearly the whole summer, constituents and visitors have been unable to swim at Saltcoats, Stevenston and Ardrossan. That is the height of the holiday season, and coastal communities rely on visits from day trippers, many of whom want to go outdoor swimming and enjoy our beautiful sandy beaches. It is important to highlight that the pipe is owned by Scottish Water, a public Scottish Government organisation. In 2021, Scottish Water oversaw untreated sewage being discharged 12,000 times in a single year. Water bosses are getting paid huge salaries everywhere, it seems—for delivering what, exactly?
I think it would be a good thing to take the water industry in England and Wales back into public ownership, but it is important to consider how we will successfully manage it. The sewage situation in Saltcoats serves as a reminder that public ownership does not necessarily mean good service. We need to get any future public ownership structures right, with robust accountability and governance to ensure a better service.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. The question of the water industry strikes at the heart of why so many of our constituents are angry—they are angry because they are paying more and getting less. In the case of water, it is even worse than that, because my constituents’ hard-earned money is going directly as dividends and bonuses to shareholders and chief executives. Money from my poorest constituents stuffs the pockets of the wealthy, lots of whom do not even live in the UK. It is perhaps the most backwards redistribution of wealth that we have in this country. For them, it is win-win: they continue to profit while we pay higher bills to fix the failure of their reinvestment. Our money flows into these companies, but it is less clear how that money flows out.
[Sir Jeremy Wright in the Chair]
That fundamental unfairness is why so many are calling on this place to act and why the Prime Minister was right in referring to the control that we have lost over the last 40 years under Governments of all colours. That loss of control has consequences, which are no more evident than in the pollution of our rivers and streams. The waters of Burton upon Trent made our town the brewery powerhouse of the world—those magical waters were home to a global ale empire. Fast-forward to today, and research has shown that the River Trent contains more E. coli than the average pub toilet. We see the failure to invest in blocked drains and clogged sewerage systems. My constituents in Stapenhill felt that last year when a water main burst on Stanton Road, leaving around 4,000 residents without a water service and causing significant traffic disruption. This is the fault of a system that was poorly designed decades ago and has not been reformed since.
Greater public control is not ideological; it is common sense. I am under no illusion as to the scale of the investment that is required, and I know that cancelling one set of bonuses will not deliver the scale of upgrades that we need. We should welcome the Prime Minister’s efforts to raise the idea of public control. I am happy to consider all options on the table, but I will not accept that the current system is fit for purpose. This failing system is making my constituents poorer but the rich even richer, and that is why we must act.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
I welcome the fact that, under the Prime Minister’s leadership, the conversation on public control of the water industry has fundamentally shifted. We must no longer bury our heads in the sand over the question of public control of the water sector, but we owe our constituents honest answers, not easy answers.
I am sure that there are few in this House who feel that they could credibly advocate that there is truly a cost-free form of nationalism out there—or for expropriation, as it more honestly should be called. Despite my background, I promise that I am very much not the “It’s all about the bond markets” guy in this case. I think we all know, however, that there is no free lunch at scale when it comes to the overall cost of funding the industry. At the same time, this industry should never have been privatised in the first place, and immense sums have been extracted from it over the years. Although some of the more recent investment expectations under this Government have begun to temper that, the extraction is still happening in egregious cases such as that of Thames Water.
Let me briefly take Members through the four options for taking back control of the industry. Option one is a pragmatic approach to cost-free nationalisation, which says that even more stringent regulation would bankrupt the companies so that we could acquire them for nothing. The problem is that we can get as good of a deal with these companies as we like, but the British public would still have to foot the £100 billion-plus investment in upgrades over the next five years or so.
Option two is that we pay the full whack. I think we all know that RCV is not a fair market valuation, but when the debt, which needs to be paid down or taken on, is factored in, the figure is up to the better part of £100 billion. Even then, there is the investment on top of that.
Option three is to wait for the water companies to go bankrupt and then acquire them for next to nothing. Ofwat sees 10 of those companies with high financial risk, but the Government would still have to foot the infrastructure bill on a company-by-company basis—that would be cheaper, but slower.
Option four is to start with what the British public actually want to see from its water system and have a democratic conversation about what they are willing to invest to solve the problem. We then work out the impact that that has on the value of the industry. The reality is that we have already had that conversation—we know what the British public want because they have been shouting it from the rooftops, often in wetsuits with surfboards in hand.
I commend the work of the Good Growth Foundation, which has gotten to grips with some of the challenges and opportunities presented by the special administration scheme to take back control of the water industry for the public good, and enable us to take those profits and reinvest them into fixing our water system.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. Like some other Members, I am not keen on a referendum because I know the anger of my constituents. It is incumbent on us to just get on, have the conversation and come up with a solution.
Across my constituency, we currently have a wave of roadworks because of a lack of investment over years and the asset stripping of Thames Water. We have now realised that those Victorian pipes, which were not replaced because the company was asset-stripped, finally need to be replaced. That causes huge disruption for my residents, and the cost of it has been placed on my Bexleyheath and Crayford constituents, who have seen increases of 30% to 40% on their bills over the last two years. They say to me there is no better example of having no control or of people in this place being powerless than the actions of Thames Water. I just shrug my shoulders—I continually bring the matter here, but I am not able to resolve the issue.
For the last five summers in Crayford town centre, we have had major leaks; the town centre has been closed for five successive summers. Let me give hon. Members an example of Thames Water’s incompetency. Last year, I wrote to them and asked them to show me a map of all the leaks and flooding in the town centre. They sent that to me and it showed the scale of the problem, yet this summer, when a constituent raised concerns about the ongoing problems and I wrote to Thames Water, they said that they had no record of any flooding in Crayford town centre over the last five summers. That shows us that we are dealing with a company that is very difficult to meet—although I am actually meeting its representatives tomorrow—and very difficult to have any control over. It is no wonder that my constituents think it is incumbent on us to resolve that.
In principle, I want the company to be nationalised, but I just want a system—I hope to hear about this from the Minister later—that gives my constituents and me some accountability over bills and resolves the issues that cripple town centres and continually cause leaks, delays and roadworks.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. Thirty-seven years after privatisation, those companies are laden with debt, our rivers and coastlines are polluted and shareholders expect good returns while investment lags. That proof can be seen in North Somerset. One young man training for an Ironman in 2023 swam in Clevedon Marine lake, which was unfortunately polluted. Within a day, he had collapsed. It took four months of tests to confirm what had happened; a virus caught in that water had lowered his blood pressure and triggered a minor heart episode. That is what “acceptable” water quality is costing real people in my constituency.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I want to reiterate my hon. Friend’s point because I have been contacted by users of Holme Pierrepont—the home of the National Water Sports Centre—which is in my constituency. It is meant to be a national standard venue, but because of pollution and sewage spills in the River Trent, there are cases of nausea, fever and vomiting. Does he agree that we need to do more about the public ownership of water companies so that we can deal with the environmental health impacts on users?
Sadik Al-Hassan
I agree. In my constituency, the Land Yeo river, which once ran clear and was a genuine source of local pride, is no longer the beautiful river that residents grew up with. Agricultural and urban runoff, as well as underfunding and a lack of investment, have left it choked with invasive plant species and thick algae.
In 2025, a storm overflow at Portbury Wharf nature reserve discharged sewage into the Severn estuary for a total of 721 hours—the equivalent of 30 full days of waste pumped from North Somerset’s shores. That is why I strongly welcome the swift introduction of the Water (Special Measures) Act, but it treats the symptom, not the disease. We are past the point of regulating out a structural failure. If a company’s incentive is shareholder return rather than public service, no amount of fines will help.
Water is an essential utility, but as we saw this summer, the failure of these companies is already compounding the impact of climate change and drought. We had one of the wettest springs on record, yet the companies have failed to invest in reservoirs, such as in Barrow Gurney in my constituency, that are needed to capture one of the most valuable resources. Reservoirs in the south-west, which should be central to how we store and manage water, have suffered from years of under-investment, neglected by companies that are more focused on returns than resilience.
Nobody chooses their water company. Nobody can switch. But our constituents are paying the price through their health, their pride in local areas and their bills. The public deserve the chance to say whether that should continue.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for introducing the debate.
My constituents are fed up of mismanagement, debt, and simultaneous price hikes and shareholder bonuses. They are also fed up of hosepipe bans, while water runs down our streets. Since April 2025, our bills have risen by 31%, and this year by an additional 3.4%. What do we get for that? Sewage dumps, burst pipes and drinking water that I advise all Members—if they do not know this—not to drink without boiling or filtering first. Thames Water is one of the worst polluters in England and, last year, got one star from the Environment Agency—I think that is only because it has not figured out how to colour in half a star or a quarter of it.
Unfortunately, Thames Water is not just crap; it is also full of crap—9,189 sewage spills last year alone, and nearly 592 million litres of water lost to leaks every single day. The company then has the cheek to call a hosepipe ban. The Thames cannot be seen from my constituency, but anyone who wants a riverside experience can just walk down Brixton Hill, where water is usually gushing from some leak, causing havoc and gridlocked traffic on the main road or some of the residential roads—a reality TV version of “The Hunger Games”, with residents scrambling for bottles of water that have been left there during an outage. Keeping the company under private ownership just delays the inevitable Government bailout—essentially, us paying twice.
I believe that the great privatisation experiment has failed in nearly every public service industry in which it has been tried. Some may call me ideological for this, but I point them to Thames Water as a case in point. We do not need a crystal ball, or even a referendum, to tell us that there would be overwhelming support for public ownership, so I ask the Minister: why has it not happened yet? Why has Thames Water not been put in special measures? Why will it not simply be brought under public ownership?
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. The current model for our water service is not working for customers and has not been working for quite some time. My constituents have watched their bills rise again and again while Thames Water falls further into debt and water bosses are rewarded with huge bonuses, despite failing to invest in critical infrastructure and allowing more sewage pollution into our rivers, lakes and streams.
These failures in investment, infrastructure and environmental performance have undermined public confidence, and customers have been unable to take their business elsewhere, because the water companies operate through regional monopolies. I commend the Government for trying to tackle some of those issues, but tougher regulation is not enough to deal with a model that is fundamentally broken. Thames Water is in approximately £19 billion of debt, but the rescue deal on the table is a market-led recapitalisation by its creditors that will keep the failing private ownership model intact in exchange for environmental leniency.
Water is an essential service and a natural monopoly, so it is reasonable to ask whether the interests of taxpayers are best served when the ownership of our water is determined by private investors. Bringing Thames Water into public ownership, either permanently or initially through a special administration regime, would allow the Government to write down debt on fairer terms than any creditor-led deal and to direct further revenue toward infrastructure and customers, rather than debt servicing and returns to shareholders.
We must restore public confidence and end the era of profiting from pollution and prioritising shareholder returns over taxpayers. Our water services are too essential to be treated simply as another commercial asset. The water privatisation of the 1980s is a failed ideological experiment that has seen profits plundered into the pockets of hedge funds and offshore investors, while the sector has been starved of investment. Not a single reservoir has been built since 1992, and there has been under-investment in our antiquated pipes and overflowing sewerage system.
Bambos Charalambous
I support my hon. Friend 100%. We urgently need the infrastructure, because we have seen the impact of drought and the need for hosepipe bans as a result of not having the infrastructure in place.
As I was saying, not a single reservoir has been built since 1992, and the underinvestment in our antiquated pipes and overflowing sewerage system is plain to see. This is not good enough. That is why public ownership is the only way forward, and why I urge the Government to put Thames Water back into public ownership as soon as possible.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for leading this debate, and the gentleman who started the petition in the first place.
I am sure that, like me, my constituents are absolutely staggered that we are having a conversation about children getting ill from paddling in our streams and drinking our water. The Victorians built a load of sewers because they recognised that this was completely and utterly unacceptable, yet we do not seem to have managed to maintain them to the point that we can actually drink our water. That is crackers. The fact that we have to have a conversation about whether our water is fit to drink should raise alarm bells.
In the 30-odd years since privatisation, £85 billion has been paid out in dividends. I am genuinely astonished that so much money has been taken from the good people of this country and given to private interests without more outcry. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary gardening and horticulture group. It is really important to note that the current arrangement does not just have implications for individuals —although they are horrific and I do not wish to understate them. It also has implications for horticulture businesses.
Our general access to water is appalling and is decimating businesses, which are paying very high utility costs across the board without being able to regularly access what they need. It is damaging our economy, and it is damaging our experience of the great outdoors. The amount that we are paying in bills is ridiculous, and 20% of treated drinking water in the UK is lost to leakage. I know that the Government have already taken some steps to improve the regulation of the water industry, but frankly we need to go further and faster.
I am so proud to represent a very beautiful area of the world. Many of my constituents have grown up playing in local rivers and streams, and people still allow their pets to go into the water, but most parents will not let their kids paddle in the same places where they used to paddle, because they know it is not safe. How have we got here? It is completely unacceptable. I know there are arguments about how much nationalisation would cost, and of course we have to consider that, but if the law prevents us from renationalising things that clearly should be renationalised, then—I speak as a lawyer—perhaps we should revisit the law. It is clear to our constituents that we need to move forward.
Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy.
The Cleddau river flows through my constituency of Mid and South Pembrokeshire. It tells a proud history of Pembrokeshire, but more recently it has told a sadder story of the failures of our water sector. At Picton pumping station in Haverfordwest, the local campaigning organisation The Cleddau Project found that the equivalent of 17 tankers of sewage were being dumped into the Cleddau every day between July 2022 and February 2024. Between January and October 2025, there were nearly 4,000 hours of untreated sewage pollution at seven different sites in and around the Cleddau.
Given the history of Welsh Water, I caution Members advocating for a not-for-profit model of water ownership. As a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I have spent many hours questioning water bosses, and it is clear to me that regulatory enforcement alone will not address the crisis that the sector is facing. The problems are symptoms of a structure and a culture within these companies. There is too much focus on financialisation, rather than prioritising environmental stewardship and customers, and executives have too often been insulated from the consequences of their poor performance.
As has been eloquently described by Members today, the water sector is fundamental to public health, environmental protection and, crucially, our national security. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on introducing this debate and on giving such an eloquent and passionate speech. It is vital that we seriously consider different forms of ownership; indeed, it is somewhat sad to me that this conversation has been so stifled in recent years. Nationalisation must form part of the conversation, and it must flow as a consequence of the continued failure of water companies. Does the Minister agree that if water companies cannot deliver for customers, the state must be prepared to step in and ensure that an essential service is run in the public interest?
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I start by thanking the more than 200,000 petitioners across the country, as well as the hundreds of my Leeds East constituents, who have signed the petition. When discussing the arguments for public ownership, we need to start by staring the facts in the face. England and Wales are the only countries in the world to have fully privatised their water and sewerage systems. We are the odd ones out, and something needs to be done about it.
The privatisation of our water system has been a catastrophic failure—not for shareholders, or for the chief executive of Yorkshire Water, but for the public, the environment and, as we have heard, even children. With climate change leading to further droughts and water shortages, the iniquitous role of the leaderships of private water companies, and the system they represent, will only get worse.
We hear a lot about Thames Water, but we also need to talk about Yorkshire Water. Under Yorkshire Water, bills have gone up by over a third in two years, and every year it dumps hundreds of thousands of hours of sewage into our rivers and seas. It is performing so badly that it has been downgraded to a one-star rating by the Environment Agency. Yorkshire Water was recently hit by an £89 million performance penalty for under-delivering, yet its chief executive’s total salary is running at over £1 million a year, so privatisation has worked for some. That is rewarding failure—as long as the profits keep flowing.
Enough of all this: full public ownership is what is needed. Let us get into step with the rest of the world, focusing on cleaner water, lower bills and a system that actually works and is fit for the climate challenges of the future. People out there in the country know this is a disgrace, and they know it needs sorting out now. We need public ownership of our water system now.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
Banbury is heavily affected by the failings of Thames Water; we have had thousands of sewage spills, leading to hundreds of thousands of hours of sewage being discharged into local rivers and streams, which is probably why so many of my constituents signed the petition. I had prepared a longer speech for the debate, but given the number of speakers and time available, I will keep my remarks much briefer.
In March, I wrote for LabourList that the water scandal had become a test of whether a Government elected on a promise of change were prepared to confront vested interests. Across England and Wales, water bills rose by 26% last year, but for Thames Water customers, including my constituents, they rose by 31%—and this year the bills have risen again.
During the Makerfield campaign, the Prime Minister said that Britain’s water industry had become a system where
“the shareholders always win and the billpayers always lose”.
He was right. On Thames Water specifically, the Prime Minister argued that public ownership was ultimately something that should happen. Although I welcome the steps that this Government have taken to address the water industry, the fact that so many people have signed the petition would suggest—as would a glance at my mailbox, and probably that of every other Member of Parliament—that most people feel that, despite what those measures are intended to do, none of them quite goes far enough. My simple question to the Minister is this. What more are the Government prepared to do to demonstrate that they understand the scale of public anger, that they hear the public’s frustration and that they are prepared to act with greater urgency in response?
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy.
Since being elected, I have heard repeatedly from constituents about flooding, sewage discharges and failures of basic water infrastructure. My constituency is served by Severn Trent Water and South Staffordshire Water—double the problem, some might say. Recently, I met South Staffs Water after concerns about the installation of meters without what many customers felt was adequate notice. The crux is that customers feel that they have zero influence over the decisions affecting them, and that companies do not seem to explain clearly why decisions are taken.
I heard from constituents in Chadsmoor, for example, who have had to put up with water leaking out at incredible rates all around their properties and dangerously high water pressure for 11 months following the installation of meters. Whatever the ultimate cause, however, the refusal of the water companies to take responsibility for finding fixes is just another example of why their customers have lost trust.
On the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) said, we grilled the chief executives of nine water companies and looked at many issues. Crucially, however, the corporate culture that has taken hold in the sector is so divorced from the lives of customers that it is really to blame for a lot of what we are discussing. Despite already knowing that public confidence was in tatters and that the sector was up sewage creek without a paddle, we were shocked by what we heard.
For me, questions of governance are as important as ownership. Who has control? Who carries risk? How is investment financed? What voice do customers have? The Government have recognised that the broken status quo cannot continue. Powers have been strengthened and Ofwat is to be replaced with a new unified regulator, but given the mammoth issues in the sector, we should ask, as so many have today, whether that is enough.
We cannot assume that public ownership would resolve all the issues. We should remember that some pre-privatisation water boards were failing their customers too. That is why, as a member of the Co-operative party, I hope that the Minister will look further at empowering customers and introducing mutual structures and co-operative principles. Our constituents rightly demand greater control over something so fundamental to their lives. Water is different from almost any other service, because we cannot take our money elsewhere. The test of the Government reforms should be simple: when people turn on their tap, look at their bill or walk by their local river, do they feel that the system is working in their interests? If the answer is no, we should have the courage to change it.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I call Becky Gittins. [Interruption.] Sorry, I have the wrong name on my list. I call Sarah Hall.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Sir Jeremy; it happens. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I support public ownership of our water industry. Water is an essential public service, and it should be run in the public interest. People in my constituency cannot suddenly decide that they have had enough of United Utilities and switch to another water company. They pay their bills because they need the service, and they should be able to expect it to work for them. In reality, however, across the country, that is not what is happening. After years of neglect, failure to upgrade infrastructure, sewage dumping in our waterways and skyrocketing bills, people have frankly had enough. We have spent decades trying to regulate these monopolies, so that they behave somewhat like a public service, but it is clear that that simply has not worked.
Across the wider water system, responsibility is divided between organisations, Departments, agencies and authorities, leaving people struggling to find out who will put a problem right. On new year’s day last year, families in Warrington had water coming into their homes, and when water is coming through the front door, they do not want an organisational chart; they just want to know what happened and what someone is going to do about it. The system that we have, which has been bolted together over the years, does not reflect how closely all those things connect. That is where we need to change the way we think.
I want to see a publicly owned water company that works holistically across the whole system. A long-term public programme would give businesses certainty about the work coming in. A steady programme of work would give British firms the confidence to invest, take on apprentices, and develop skills and technology. We must use any change in the ownership model to change the way that the whole water system works, so that it is transparent, puts profits back into the crumbling system and ends the dumping of sewage in our waterways.
The Prime Minister has spoken about stronger public control of essential services, and I welcome that, but in water, public control has to mean more than regulating private companies more closely. We have been doing that since privatisation. Regulation alone cannot decide what the company is ultimately there to do or whose interests should come first. Every one of us depends on water. I believe it should belong to the public and be run for the public good.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I apologise again to the hon. Lady. I call Darren Paffey, I think.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
As far as I am aware, Sir Jeremy, you do. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship.
I thank the hundreds of Southampton Itchen constituents who signed the petition because they know that the current model is an abject failure. Trust is completely gone, and they are fed up with being ripped off. My constituents’ bills doubled last year. Southern Water has racked up £7 million-worth of fines just this year. It won a record—not a record it wanted—£90 million fine five years ago after sewage poured into the River Test, one of Hampshire’s chalk streams. The other chalk stream is the Itchen, from which my constituency takes its name. Rare Atlantic salmon come to spawn in the Itchen, but E. coli is rife for people trying to swim there and the stench of sewage is so vile that schools near the river and the treatment works often do not let the kids out on to the playground.
The public agree that the model has failed, not just Labour voters—those of us with a history of being pro-nationalisation—but people across the political spectrum. Some 68% back nationalising water, and support keeps growing. More than three quarters of Conservative voters—though possibly not as many Conservative MPs—want water back in public hands. That is as close to a national consensus as we get, so I understand why so many have signed the petition.
I part company from the petitioners on one point, which has been reflected by several hon. Members: although I agree with the destination, I am traumatised by previous referenda. People are making their voices heard and telling us what they want. We are a Government with a majority; instead of a referendum, we need a plan of the kind that this Government have already shown they can produce.
We did it for rail: a phased, legally underpinned route back to public ownership, transferring operators as contracts expire under a single new body and with no compensation from the taxpayer. I welcome the Prime Minister’s vision for greater public control of essential services but reforming a broken model is not the same as ending it. The public see that, so I ask the Minister: please, let us just crack on with it and get water back into public hands.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy.
I pay tribute to the campaigners and citizen scientists—some of whom are in the Public Gallery—who have exposed the scale of the sewage scandal. It is only because of them and their campaigning that we are having this debate.
Our water industry is fundamentally broken. I sat with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) on the Select Committee and questioned the water bosses, and all we heard was excuse after excuse. We need a fundamental change to protect our failing water infrastructure. That is a top priority for our Labour Government and I welcome the steps that have been made so far to ramp up regulation and get tough on the water companies, but as I will outline, we need to go further.
Nothing enrages the people I represent in Hastings and Rye more than bills going up every year to prop up failing companies, while executives and shareholders try to find ways to evade bonus bans as their companies edge towards bankruptcy. We have already taken important steps, but we must go further to protect vital national infrastructure. In Hastings and Rye, we already see the impacts of the regulation that we introduced: more Environment Agency staff focused full time on monitoring Southern Water, more inspections taking place, and more enforcement notices issued. We are starting to see the results of that work, but there is still more to do. Those of us in the Chamber who favour a co-operative model believe it is the solution that would put people before profit in fixing our broken water industry.
I will talk briefly about the impact of our failing water industry on the people I represent. We have had two major water outages in the past couple of years, one lasting nine days and one five days; there was major flooding in Hastings town centre that ruined people’s livelihoods; and 300 million plastic beads washed up on our coastline—we found out that they came from a Southern Water treatment plant only because we got down on our hands and knees and exposed that scandal. Public health has been compromised and sewage is dumped in our sea regularly. Right now a digger sits on the beach in Hastings, an eyesore, because of Southern Water’s failings. I believe that the solution is to move to a co-operative model, which would be the radical shake-up that this industry needs.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair this afternoon, Sir Jeremy.
I want to speak this afternoon about the River Stort, one of the globally significant chalk streams that runs right through my constituency. It is a place where families walk, where anglers spend their weekends, and where countless residents connect with nature. It delivers enormous social, recreational and environmental benefits for our community, but at the start of the month, raw sewage was again discharged into the Stort navigation in a spill that lasted more than eight hours, leaving dead fish and visible pollution in its wake.
I have been requesting a meeting with Thames Water to discuss protecting the Stort since the start of the year, following hundreds of hours of sewage discharges. It has repeatedly failed to engage with that process, only agreeing to meet with me this week after I said that I would effectively turn up at one of its sewage treatment sites to demand an explanation. That is not good enough.
We know that, whatever Thames Water says when I meet it later this week, the truth is that the privatised water industry is failing in its duty of care to our environment, and that privatisation has been a failure. There is simply no other way to put it. We were told that private ownership would drive investment, efficiency and better outcomes, but too often, we have seen the opposite.
As others have said, water is not a luxury; it is an essential public service. We therefore need a system that puts the public interest before shareholder returns, investment before extraction, and environmental protection before corporate profit. To my mind, the only credible path forward is to call time on a failed system and move to a model of public ownership of our water industry. We should start by bringing Thames Water into special administration now. The pollution of our rivers and waterways cannot continue. For the sake of the River Stort, for communities across the country and for future generations, we must take this opportunity to choose a different path.
I am grateful to the Minister for taking the time to meet me earlier this year regarding Thames Water and the River Stort. As I said, I will be meeting Thames Water later this week, so I would be very grateful if she set out in her response what message she would deliver to Thames Water were she in my position, and whether she would consider meeting me again to discuss these repeated failures.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
With gratitude for his patience, I call Lloyd Hatton.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
Thank you, Sir Jeremy. As we have heard from many Members today, the privatised model in the water sector has, to put it mildly, completely and utterly broken. For so many of my constituents, this really does feel like the biggest scandal of the 21st century, with water companies continuing to profit while water users and bill payers are left footing the bill for crumbling infrastructure, water shortages and disgusting sewage spills.
It is safe to say that this issue really matters to my constituents in South Dorset. With Chesil beach, Ringstead bay, Lulworth cove, Durdle Door, Old Harry Rocks and Studland, wherever people look across South Dorset, they will find a world-renowned coastline. Of course, South Dorset has been a popular holiday destination for some two centuries now: sailors and windsurfers gravitate to Portland, young families flock to Weymouth and Swanage, and walkers and nature lovers alike regularly make their way across the Isle of Purbeck. Our coastline is central to our lives, and central to our local economy as well.
I suppose my constituents have a simple message for the Minister, and also for the new Prime Minister. First, overhaul the toxic and self-serving corporate culture that has been allowed to permeate the water sector. Secondly, make it clear that this Government believe that polluting comes with a price. Thirdly, begin that urgent work of reviewing the model of ownership for the water industry.
We must now look at alternative ownership models. Whether that be municipal control, mutuals, not-for-profits, full nationalisation or a Government bond-backed public utility, there are so many options on the table. What my constituents and the tens of thousands of people who have signed this petition have made clear is that they want to see action; they want to see that move to public ownership without further delay.
I look forward to hearing from the Minister in her winding-up remarks, but please can we consider those options? My constituents are clear: they want better value for money, they want a system that protects the environment and public health, and they want to have greater and much more meaningful public control of our water industry. That must be at the core of this Government’s work. Then, finally, we can stop the spills.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I thank the hon. Gentleman and all Back-Bench speakers for managing a very restrictive time limit.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for opening this debate and for his patient and gracious fielding of so many interventions. I express my thanks to Ash Smith and the phenomenal team at Windrush Against Sewage Pollution for bringing this petition before Parliament and for their dedication and commitment to protecting our rivers. I also thank the other campaigners who are in the Gallery; they are passionate and perseverant in their pursuit of cleaner water across our country.
More than 208,000 people signed the petition, including over 600 of my South Cotswolds constituents, which is the ninth most sewage-polluted constituency in the country. Last Saturday, I stood beside the River Coln at Fairford in my constituency with residents who are sick and tired of seeing their river used as a sewer. I spoke with Debbie Campbell, who is in the Gallery and who was most charmingly dressed as a poo emoji. Debbie became a campaigner after swallowing polluted water while open water swimming and ending up doubled over in pain. Her experience is shocking, but sadly the pollution that caused it is no longer exceptional; it has become the norm.
Behind the sewage scandal lies another scandal—what has happened to customers’ money? The promise of privatisation was that private capital would bring investments and efficiency, but research from the University of Greenwich estimates that between 1991 and 2023, shareholders extracted around £85 billion more from English water and sewerage companies than they actually contributed in new equity.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The sewage literally flows outside the King of Prussia in Kingsbridge, and customers have to be really careful when they step outside it every time we have heavy rain. Does my hon. Friend agree with me and the more than 800 people who signed the petition from my constituency that we have to look again at the water ownership model? It is just not working: bills are going up and up, while shareholders are still extracting money from the water companies rather than it going into upgrading infrastructure.
Dr Savage
I absolutely agree that we need to get upstream of the problem, and I assure her that I always try to step out of pubs carefully.
The supposed justification for private ownership was that investors would bring money into our water system. Instead, over those three decades, vastly more money has flowed out to shareholders than shareholders put in. Money went out, infrastructure deteriorated and debt piled up, and now customers are being told that they must pay to put it right. That is what makes the British public and me so furious. The water companies need to come clean and so does the Government.
Helena Dollimore
Does the hon. Member agree that some of our water companies operate in extremely murky arrangements? Often, there is a complicated network of different companies that sub-contract from each other, meaning that the customer who pays the bill has no idea what value for money, if any, they are getting.
Dr Savage
I absolutely agree—much like our water supply, these arrangements need to be more transparent and stink less.
Ministers have been talking about the forthcoming £104 billion investment programme as though the private sector has suddenly reached into its pockets and found that £104 billion to rescue our crumbling water infrastructure, but it has not. Ofwat has confirmed that that money will come through a mixture of customer bills and yet more borrowing and shareholder equity.
Barry Gardiner
I fully agree with all that the hon. Lady is saying. Does she find it strange that, although we talk about taking tough action against these companies —we talk about Thames Water’s £80 million rebate and the more than £100 million fine—it is not the investor who ends up paying that, but we the billpayers? Even then, it is not the companies’ investors who suffer; it is us.
Dr Savage
The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point that I totally agree with.
This is not private enterprise riding to the rescue; it is customers being made to pay yet again for the consequences of corporate failure, and we cannot take our business elsewhere. If I do not like my supermarket, bank or mobile phone provider, I can take my custom elsewhere, but I cannot change from one water company to another unless I physically move house. We are captive customers of a monopoly, which gives water companies an extraordinary responsibility, but they are not living up to it. Too often, we see risks pushed onto customers while the rewards go to investors.
Going back to Fairford, we can see exactly how that plays out in the real world. Fairford sewage treatment works was among the approximately 120 deferred Thames Water investment schemes. Thames Water’s former chair told the EFRA Committee that more than £1 billion was removed from its capital programme to preserve liquidity. In other words, the investment that was needed to protect communities, rivers and nature was postponed because the company needed to shore up its financial position. Now my constituents are living with the consequences.
The analysis of Professor Peter Hammond at WASP records that, at Fairford alone, more than 8,100 hours of sewage spills have flowed into the River Coln since the beginning of 2024. Under the Environment Agency’s “heavy rainfall” methodology, only 347 of those hours—just 4.3%—were assessed as compliant. That means that more than 95% of that outflow was not compliant. This is not an occasional emergency measure; it is sustained pollution on an industrial scale.
It is not only an assault on people: rivers are living ecosystems that sustain fish, birds, insects and plants. Pollution strips oxygen from the water and destroys habitats, but nature has no seat in the boardroom and no voice with the regulator. Nature depends on us to speak for it today, and I am doing what I can, as many colleagues have, to speak up on behalf of our waterways. I feel like I have spoken time and time again in this House about sewage, failing infrastructure and Thames Water, yet the sewage keeps flowing, the debts keep mounting and customers keep being asked to pay more. Frankly, they have had enough, and so have I.
I share the petitioners’ diagnosis that the present model has failed, but the Lib Dems differ from others on what we believe should happen next. We do not believe, as a number of colleagues have mentioned, that we need to spend a long time waiting for a national referendum to tell us something we already know. The Liberal Democrat answer is mutually owned public benefit water companies that are professionally managed but owned by and accountable to the customers who depend on them, with profits reinvested into the water system rather than extracted for shareholders. For Thames Water in particular, that journey should begin with special administration now. Take on the creditors, restructure the company and bring it out the other side under a fundamentally different ownership model.
Ownership change alone is not enough. The new Clean Water Authority must have the teeth that Ofwat so conspicuously lacked. It must inspect assets, publish open data and require companies to measure what they actually put into our rivers—not just the duration, but the volume and toxicity. I want to see citizen scientists and environmental experts formally represented in water company governance so that somebody is at the table to speak for the river itself.
I would like to ask the Minister for three further commitments: ban bonuses until spills end and leaks are fixed; introduce a three-year cooling-off period before the new regulator can employ people from the industry it regulates; and create a single social tariff so that nobody is priced out of the precious water that they cannot do without. The River Coln flows into the Thames, and the Thames flows past this Parliament. The evidence of the failure of privatisation is literally on our doorstep. The petitioners are right to demand fundamental change: the question at the heart of the debate is not simply whether ownership should be public or private, but who is the water system here to serve?
For too long, customers have paid the bills, carried the risk and lived with the pollution while money flowed elsewhere. Our water system should serve customers, communities and the environment, not shareholders, creditors and bottom lines. I do not want to have to come back to this Chamber to again state the obvious: we have to get upstream of the sewage crisis and change the ownership of the water companies, and change it now.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I start by offering our sincere condolences to the Prime Minister on the very sad passing of his father. He and his family are in our thoughts and prayers.
I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for opening the debate and congratulate him on his powerful contribution. We heard many powerful contributions from across the House. Normally at this point, as the shadow Minister responding, I would put my lifejacket on, get in a canoe and start paddling round everyone’s constituencies. However, so many Members have spoken today that I would use up my entire time allocation by name-checking every one, so I will just thank everyone for their powerful contributions and for speaking on behalf of their constituents to raise issues about the unacceptable behaviour and performance of many of the water companies.
Every family, household or business uses water. We all need it. It is a life-giving, essential resource. We all have an intrinsic interest in water: how much we pay for it, what services we receive, the performance of our local water company, and the sustainability and future of our water supply. The petition we are debating today reached over 208,000 signatures. I thank all those petitioners and the more than 300 people in my Epping Forest constituency who signed it and expressed their clear dissatisfaction with the current state of our water sector.
For too long, customers have seen water companies in the news for the wrong reasons: from awful environmental pollution spills to unacceptable water outages affecting tens of thousands of consumers. In fact, during this summer’s extreme heat in August, many thousands of people and properties in my constituency of Epping Forest, including in Loughton, Chigwell, Buckhurst Hill, and Epping, were left completely without water for up to a week, let down by Thames Water because of burst pipes and failing infrastructure.
Vulnerable constituents were left in distress; homes were without water, with people unable to flush their toilets or bathe; parents were left without water to make up bottles for their babies; and livestock owners were panicking over getting water to their animals. Communication and logistics from Thames Water were very poor. Priority service customers were openly saying that they had been told they would not receive any bottled water, despite being priority customers to whom companies have specific duties. As we have heard across the House today, the response by Thames Water in many situations has been wholly unacceptable.
Bottled water was provided in too few locations that were not convenient to get to outside Epping Forest, and those who could get there faced agonisingly long queues in the scorching summer heat. It happened in the hottest week of the year. Other locations that did become available in my constituency either ran out of bottled water or were closed early. To add insult to injury, that all took place in the context of the news of Thames Water’s new chief financial officer receiving a £1 million welcome package. My constituents and constituents across the country rightly ask how that can be justified when Thames Water failed to provide basic services while bills continue to rise. A staggering hike of a 36% has already been greenlit by the water regulator for 2025 to 2030, and there is more to come following the announcement over the summer.
I know that my constituents and those who have faced water outages across the country would be grateful if the Minister could explain what steps she is taking to ensure that water companies step up to the plate and properly prepare for such crises, so that our constituents are not left in such distressing circumstances again. It is a pleasure to serve opposite the Minister, as I have in a number of debates and Bill Committees, and I know that she is genuinely engaged in this matter. I raised those issues with her over the summer, and I hope she can take it forward and listen to the voices of our constituents in these important matters.
In rural and semi-rural areas, we must not forget that water is also vital for livestock such as farm animals, horses and ponies, and I declare an interest here as a veterinary surgeon. As an illustration, a 500 kg horse needs around 25 litres of water a day—that is not on a hot day—and a lactating dairy cow needs upwards of 100 litres. I assure hon. Members that that is no small amount; that is a lot of bottled water. In these situations, water companies do not step up. It is local communities, livery yard owners and farmers who roll their sleeves up and help each other to get valuable water to these animals. I have raised the issue with the Minister before and I hope that she can take it forward and put pressure on the water companies.
When we get these outages, which are sadly now predictable and will occur, animals as well as people need to be looked out for. We have heard today about the people, and I have highlighted the situation of vulnerable people in my constituency who have not been able to live their lives with their basic needs met, but there are other situations to consider. I urge the Minister to put pressure on water companies when we get outages, as we have seen this summer in my constituency and in many constituencies across the country.
We have frequently debated at the Dispatch Box in this Chamber and the main Chamber the question of people in Kent and Sussex who have had unacceptable water outages from South East Water. I press the Minister once again to explain to the House what steps she and the Government are taking to ensure that a market-based solution can be found for the Thames Water situation.
Dr Hudson
I will not give way at this point.
His Majesty’s official Opposition have been clear: we are not cheerleaders for this water company, but we do not want to see Thames Water fold. Although the water supply would continue, that would carry the serious risk of higher bills for customers and would not solve all the issues facing the company. Bizarrely, a few months ago the third party led legal action that could have sunk the company. With them, Reform—strangely their allies on this issue—appear to be happy for the company to go under, exposing taxpayers to billions and pushing consumer water bills sky-high. That is billions of pounds that we as a country simply just cannot afford, as the Government have admitted.
Outages such as the one I described in Epping Forest also highlight the real and present impacts of climate change and increased demand. We have outdated water infrastructure designed to cope with significantly less demand than it is now required to. Changing weather risks more leaks, bursts and breakages. The water outages that tend to follow have knock-on implications for people, schools, businesses and healthcare. It is important to know the economic and social costs of the outages that have occurred over the last few months and years. Will the Minister take this opportunity to provide some reassurance that existing infrastructure is being assessed to prevent leakages or bursts in the first instances and hold water companies to account for that?
The work of the previous Conservative Government in this area means that we now understand the severity of the situation surrounding the performance of water companies in the first place—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh but I remind them that, when Labour left office in 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were monitored. The previous Government worked proactively to increase that percentage: by the end of 2023, it had increased to 100%. It went from 7% to 100%.
This is basic science: it is only when something is measured and vital data is collected that the extent of the problem can be seen. It was the Conservative Government that started that, and that started to put in place measures to address the situation—something they, and indeed the new Labour Government, have found to be complex and not easy to solve.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Gentleman has made it perfectly clear he is not giving way. All points of view in this debate must be heard, and heard respectfully. If the shadow Minister is not giving way, there is little point in continuing to bob unless he changes his mind.
Dr Hudson
Furthermore, the previous Conservative Government’s landmark Environment Act 2021 introduced significant changes to how water quality is managed and monitored in England and Wales. The Act mandates enhanced reporting, monitoring and treatment compliance measures from businesses. It also establishes long-term goals to limit pollution and protect natural water resources from wider range of potential pollutants.
I am sure that, in considering what action the current Government have taken, the Minister will cite the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025—I was on the Bill Committee shadowing her, and I really appreciated her constructive work. It is encouraging to see the current Government adopt some of the measures the previous Government had already introduced, such as banning water company bonuses for bosses if the company had committed serious criminal breaches that damaged the environment. However, it was disappointing that they failed to support the constructive amendments the Opposition tabled, including to ringfence funding from enforcement fines for bespoke water restoration funds; to guarantee that companies fix the environmental damage they cause locally; to require Ofwat to create rules on financial reporting in its renumeration and governance rules; to reduce consumer bills if companies were hit with enforcement fines; and to ensure that companies do not leverage too much debt. Those were sensible, constructive amendments that the Government voted down.
Indeed, there is a recurring pattern of the current Government attempting to claim credit for measures introduced by the previous Government. The current Government have repeatedly claimed to have secured £104 billion of investment in the water system, but £93 billion of that had already been submitted by water companies in October 2023—under the previous Government.
The Independent Water Commission published its final report in July 2025. It was a comprehensive document containing 88 recommendations. Since then, the Government published their water White Paper in January 2026. In May 2026, the King’s Speech included the promise of a clean water Bill. Given that there has been a change in Prime Minister since then, I would appreciate clarity from the Minister about whether the Government plan to proceed with special administration orders for water companies such as Thames Water, as was first suggested. Furthermore, are they going to do that as bespoke individual actions or as part of a nationalisation programme? Will that form part of a clean water Bill? Can she confirm when we will see that clean water Bill come before Parliament?
A well-functioning, properly regulated water system is achievable if there is the political will to make it happen. The public want change, as has been proved by the petition today. His Majesty’s official Opposition are ready to work constructively with the Government on ensuring that that is done for the benefit of people right across the country.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I offer my sympathy to the Prime Minister on the loss of his father. Losing a parent hurts, whatever age you are. I thank my hon. Friends and other hon. Members for being so kind when I lost my own dad earlier in the year. Thanks, everybody.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for securing this important debate. He cares deeply about this issue, as do so many members of the public—many more, I imagine, than the 208,000 people who signed the petition.
I pay tribute to all the citizen scientists, environmental groups, campaigners and Members of Parliament from across the House. I particularly mention Julie and Reuben; I hope I am not giving too much away when I say to Julie how deeply moved both I and the previous Secretary of State—my right hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds)—were after we met her, and how touched and privileged we felt to be presented with one of Heather’s shells as a reminder of the need to campaign on this. I promised her that we would focus much more on public health. We have generally lost that focus, and one of the key things in all the reforms we are trying to make is putting public health back at the heart of water. That is why we created the water system to begin with—for public health—and it should be focusing on that right now.
All the failures that hon. Members mentioned—all the people who have become sick and the impact on places that people love—are outrageous. They talked about the places where they used to paddle but cannot now, and places they used to visit. It is horrific that we have ended up in this situation.
I have always wanted to introduce a water Bill that meets the political moment and the public appetite for change. I am delighted that it feels that we are closer to that. The change in Prime Minister has opened up options that were previously not available; as I will mention, more things are suddenly on the table. I apologise in advance for being an irritating politician—we can quote that one—who is not going to give specific answers, but that is honestly because we are working through things right now. We are working through things across Government, and are looking to introduce a Bill that meets that appetite for change.
Hon. Members have had many key messages. As the shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), mentioned, I would normally respond to everyone. I apologise that I am not going to do that, because too many spoke. However, I hope hon. Members recognise that I have been a very open Member of Parliament. We received a parliamentary question from an Opposition Member asking how many meetings Ministers have had with Back-Bench MPs. I have done 141.
Barry Gardiner
First, I reassure my hon. Friend that she is not an irritating Minister at all; I think she is generally held to be a very good Minister. Can I tempt her to enlarge slightly on what she said? When we talk about an SAR, people say, “Let’s start with Thames Water—it is the obvious one to start with.” Might the reason for the Minister’s hesitation to elaborate be that the Government are now looking much more holistically at what could be done with the whole water sector?
Emma Hardy
We are looking at all of the sector and what can be done right across it. The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear, in all the comments he has made, that, in his words, the current water sector is “a leaking monument” to a system that prioritises private over public. He has used similar words on a number of occasions.
I completely understand why people are asking fundamental questions about ownership. For too long, pollution, poor performance and financial instability in the water industry have left customers and communities to pay the price. Infrastructure is crumbling, as we see with water outages. Lots of hon. Members mentioned national security, water and resilience. How can we meet the changing climate when we have a system that is so ineffective? I want to move towards a better system, in which we are thinking about the management of water in a catchment—about water, flooding, wetlands and nature, and how we can do all that together.
To do that, we need significant reform to give people and places greater control and to make the industry work for them again. Believe it or not—I know that nobody here would question it—there are some who question whether climate change is real. It is real, everyone. Just remember what it was like in summer. Our water industry must be fit for climate change of the future, delivering clean waterways, reliable services and fair and predictable bills.
Whatever the ownership model, we face a challenge around ageing infrastructure. We need major investment. The provision of basic services and the prevention of sewage spills is a fundamental requirement of the sector. Some 30 years of privatisation has not left the system in a good state, and that is probably an understatement. I want to create a system that protects customers, improves the environment and secures reliable water services for the future.
There is no single easy fix, but the Prime Minister has been very clear that the failures of the past cannot continue. We will look at all possible solutions for the water industry and bring forward reforms to make the sector work for people and places again. As the Prime Minister has said, later in the year our 10-year plan for Britain will set out plans for stronger public control over essentials such as water.
I will not pretend that there is one simple answer to the problems facing the sector, but what is not in question is the need for significant reform. That means tougher regulation, which we have started to see through the increased inspections by the Environment Agency, the court cases coming through and the fines it is starting to issue. We have that tougher regulation, but we still need greater enforcement, greater financial resilience and absolutely a stronger voice for customers and communities. Many hon. Members talked about democratic voice, which I agree is missing from the water sector. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and I had a quick conversation about how we need to bring people’s voices and that accountability back into place. I know that the Prime Minister is completely committed to looking at devolution and at how organisations can be responsive and answerable to place.
Bathing water sites are prioritised for upgrades. The hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) is no longer in her place, but I know that she and I share a love of pre-pipe solutions, which is looking at nature, wetlands and how we can create spaces for water to go to prevent it from entering the system. On looking at assets, we have introduced MOT tests, which has uncovered more problems. When people first go in to inspect, they will identify different problems, and we are seeing that.
I want to pick up on a point made by one hon. Member—I apologise; I did not write down their name—about the trade unions and the workers. We can never forget that the workers on the frontline are not responsible for the failures of the water companies. I have absolute respect for them. I meet with the trade unions on a regular basis, and one thing they mention is the abuse that workers get when they are out working. They are not responsible—in fact, I would say that the workers out there on the frontline are the ones holding these companies together. I pay wholehearted tribute to the trade unionists and workers in all those water companies, who are doing a great job in incredibly difficult situations.
I completely agree that the system is not fair at the moment. We need to look at rain water management. England’s drinking water is world-leading. There are many things where we can say there is failure, but our drinking water quality is incredibly high. On referendums, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) mentioned that he was scarred by a previous referendum, the result of which I still feel deeply myself. But I think we know what the public think about this sector.
The Prime Minister has been clear that the Government’s priorities must be the public’s priorities. People want more ownership and control over the things that matter most to them. Public trust in the sector has been damaged by pollution, financial difficulties at some companies and a failure to invest sufficiently in infrastructure. Channel 4’s “Dirty Business” further highlighted the public concern about sewage pollution, shining a light on issues that matter to communities.
Public interest should be at the heart of how our critical services operate. For decades, the essential services that underpin daily life, including water, have suffered from over-privatisation, leading to high costs to the public. The Government are clear that the public have a right to expect those services to be affordable and accountable. We have established a public control taskforce that will rewire the state, examining how public control across sectors, including water, can be utilised to return them to public service and bring down costs for families. That ambition is reflected in the reforms we are already taking forward: strengthening accountability, improving performance, giving customers and communities a stronger voice, and ensuring that the water sector works in the public interest. We know that bold action is needed, and that is why we are fundamentally reforming the water sector.
I conclude by thanking the campaigners, the 208,000 people and everyone involved in working together on this issue. I hope we can all unite and push forward together to build the water system that we need for our communities, for our environment and for our public health.
Paul Davies
I start by thanking not just Ash for the petition, but the many campaigners who have worked so hard and tirelessly on this issue. You have made sure that there is no hiding place for the water companies, and that is the most important thing; this is out in the open and it is clearly understood by the public. We know that the public view the model as completely broken and are demanding significant change. I know that you will keep the work going, and you need to keep it going because you need to keep all of us on our toes and pin us down to make sure that we deliver as well.
I thank all hon. Members. There has been a clear consensus across the House that the model is broken. There are some nuances in terms of views on the solutions, but the starting point is clearly that the privatised model does not work. If we go back to 1989, the architect of the model, Margaret Thatcher, told Members not to pontificate and to look in the “light of the facts”. Well, I think we have all looked in the light of the facts. We know where we are. We know that we need to make that change.
I said in my speech that the Government have to be brave, and I say it again. We have to be brave. There are clearly many issues on the road to public ownership, but that does not mean that we give up at the first hurdle. We have a direction that many of us have talked about, and we have to find solutions and ways to overcome those obstacles and make this a reality. Again, I give many thanks to Ash and everybody else, and to all the Members who contributed to the discussion.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to everyone who has spoken. I also thank those in the Public Gallery for attending this evening. I know some of you had to be patient to wait for a seat, so thank you for that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 762640 relating to a referendum on public ownership of the water sector.
Written Statements
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Speciality Steel UK
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Blair McDougall)
I wish to update the House on the position regarding Speciality Steel UK.
SSUK entered liquidation in August 2025, with the independent, court-appointed official receiver managing the liquidation process. Throughout this period, the Government have provided funding to enable the official receiver to carry out his statutory duties, including maintaining site safety, supporting employees and conducting a sales process for the business and its assets.
For more than 12 months, the Government have worked hard to facilitate a private-sector solution, funding the official receiver’s process while interested parties engaged in the sale process.
As part of that process, the official receiver engaged with a number of interested parties seeking to acquire the business and its assets. The final bidder taken forward by the official receiver subsequently sought Government support associated with its proposed acquisition of SSUK. Following extensive engagement with the bidder and its advisers, and detailed consideration of that request, the Government have concluded that they cannot provide support on the terms proposed.
This decision has not been taken lightly. The Government carefully examined the proposal and explored whether an arrangement could be reached that appropriately protected public money while providing a sustainable basis for the future of the business. Despite extensive engagement, material concerns remained regarding the evidence supporting the proposed financing package and the protections available to taxpayers.
The Government’s decision relates specifically to the proposal for Government support that was presented. It should not be interpreted as a broader judgement on the bidder or its wider business activities.
SSUK occupies a unique place in the UK steel ecosystem. Its specialist capabilities have potential applications in advanced manufacturing sectors, including aerospace and defence, while its sites are major employers in communities facing significant economic challenges.
The Government also recognise the significance of the SSUK sites to the employees, local economy and communities it supports. Given the size and complexity of these sites, an official receiver-led closure process could materially reduce future options and create significant uncertainty for workers, communities and local stakeholders.
The communities surrounding SSUK have already suffered a prolonged period of uncertainty. The Government cannot accept the prospect of a prolonged process that will restrict HMG’s aim to create the growth opportunities this area deserves, especially while viable future options remain available for consideration. We are determined to ensure that decisions about the future of SSUK are taken in a way that protects local communities, preserves opportunity and supports economic growth.
The Government will therefore engage with the official receiver’s sale process and develop a proposal for the public acquisition of SSUK. This approach will help preserve control of the sites and maintain strategic optionality while decisions are taken on their longer-term future.
Public acquisition is not an endpoint and does not pre-judge the outcome of this work. It will create the space for a detailed assessment of a sustainable future for SSUK as a speciality steelmaker, regeneration of the sites, or a combination of the two.
The Government will engage closely with local communities, elected representatives, the mayor and relevant experts to determine the most appropriate future for the business and its sites.
All future decisions and spending commitments will be subject to detailed due diligence and funded from existing Government budgets.
The Government will continue to keep the House informed of significant developments.
[HCWS341]
Pubs Code and Pubs Code Adjudicator: Statutory Review
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
In line with the Government’s regulatory action plan, which seeks to ensure the UK’s regulatory system is targeted, proportionate and supports growth, I am today publishing and laying before Parliament the report on the third statutory review of the pubs code and Pubs Code Adjudicator.
The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 provided for the establishment of the pubs code to regulate the relationship between large pub-owning businesses and their tied tenants in England and Wales. The pubs code is found in the Pubs Code etc. Regulations 2016. It governs the relationship between large pub-owning businesses, who have estates of 500 or more tied pubs in England and Wales, and their tied pub tenants.
The code is based on the principles that tied tenants should be treated fairly and that they should not be worse off than they would be if they were free of their tie. The code includes a range of rights and protections for tied tenants in their commercial dealings with their pub-owning business—POB—related to their fair and lawful treatment. The code also gives tenants the right, at certain times, to exercise a market rent only—MRO—option, to change from a tied tenancy to a free-of-tie tenancy, where the rent is set at the market level and the tenant is able to buy products on the open market
The Act requires the Secretary of State to appoint a Pubs Code Adjudicator. The role of the PCA is to enforce the code and to encourage and monitor compliance with its requirements. The PCA can also give advice and guidance, investigate non-compliance with the code, enforce the code where non-compliance is found and arbitrate disputes under the code. Where the PCA finds non-compliance, it can require the publication of information, impose financial penalties or make recommendations.
The Act requires the Secretary of State to review the following every three years: the operation of the pubs code, the performance of the PCA, and the regulations setting the PCA’s costs, fees and financial penalties. This statutory review covers the period from 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2025 and draws on publicly available evidence and data published in the Government’s pubs code post-implementation review. It also includes stakeholder views from the Government’s 12-week call for input, which was published on 22 May 2025 and received 36 responses.
This third review found the code to be operating consistently with the two overarching principles set out in the Act: the fair and lawful dealing by pub-owning businesses in relation to their tied pub tenants; and tied tenants not being worse off than they would be if they were not subject to any product or service tie.
While there have been improvements in the professionalisation of support available to tied tenants, the review found that there is some concern with tenants’ ability to access the existing MRO gateways. The review also found that POBs believed MRO hindered their ability to invest and plan for the future of their business.
The Government will therefore develop proposals with stakeholders to introduce additional MRO gateways and further opt-out provisions, with the aim of further strengthening the effectiveness of the pubs code.
With regard to the PCA, the review found the PCA has been broadly effective in enforcing the code over the review period, with particular success in reducing arbitration cases and successfully completing the first investigation under the code. The review however notes that there are areas for improvement. While the Secretary of State does not believe he needs to issue new guidance under the Act, the Government encourage the PCA to act on six areas identified in this statutory review to further improve its effectiveness. As the PCA has now been in existence for over a decade and the current PCA is reaching the end of her second term, the Government will also consider commissioning an independent review of how it protects tied tenants’ rights and fair treatment under the code.
The review further found that no changes were necessary to the related code and PCA fees, costs and penalties as set out in the Pubs Code (Fees, Costs and Financial Penalties) Regulations 2016.
The report on the third statutory review of the pubs code and PCA has today been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.
[HCWS339]
Information Commissioner’s Office: Transition to Information Commission
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
Today I am pleased to announce that on 30 of September 2026, the Information Commission will take over all the functions and responsibilities of the Information Commissioner’s Office to become the UK’s independent data protection regulator.
This marks an important milestone in the modernisation of the UK’s data protection regulator. In an increasingly data-driven economy, the regulator sits at the heart of the UK’s data and digital landscape, playing a vital role in maintaining public trust, upholding high standards of data protection, and ensuring personal data is used responsibly to deliver economic and social benefits.
The transition to the Information Commission is designed to ensure that the regulator is equipped to meet future challenges and seize opportunities. The ICO currently operates as a corporation sole, with powers and responsibilities vested in one individual, the Information Commissioner. From 30 September, those functions will transfer to the Information Commission, a body corporate with non-executive and executive members, and with collective responsibility for decision making.
This change has purpose and value. The new governance model will bring together a broader range of skills, experience and perspectives at the top of the organisation, strengthening accountability, resilience and decision making, and ensure that the regulator is well placed to navigate rapid technological change, increasingly complex data-driven services, and evolving public expectations around transparency and accountability.
The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (Commencement No. 9 and Transitional and Saving Provisions) Regulations 2026
To give effect to the transition, the Government have made regulations commencing, on 30 September, the sections of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 that abolish the Information Commissioner’s Office and transfer all its regulatory and other functions to the new Information Commission. In July, the Government announced the appointment of seven new non-executive members to the Information Commission: Laurie Benson, Maggie Carver, Stephen Cohen, Sukhvinder Kaur-Stubbs, Gary Kildare, Hilary Newiss and Scott McPherson. Together with the interim chief executive, Paul Arnold, they will assume their roles on 30 September and lead the organisation into its next chapter.
The new board brings expertise from across business, technology, regulation, governance and public service. It will help shape the commission’s strategic direction, support delivery of its ambitious agenda, and ensure the organisation remains focused on serving in the public interest.
Above all, this transition represents a new beginning for the regulator. The Information Commission must be an organisation that people trust, and trust starts with strong leadership, clear accountability and the right culture. The new governance structure provides strong foundations for an organisation that is open, accountable and resilient, capable of regulating with rigour and independence while building public confidence in the responsible use of data for years to come.
I congratulate all the newly appointed members on their roles. The Government have also launched a public appointments campaign to recruit a new chair of the Information Commission, who will play a vital role in shaping its future direction and ensuring its success.
[HCWS337]
School Food Standards
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Paul Waugh)
The Government today have published their formal response to the consultation on proposals to improve the school food standards in England.
Ensuring children have access to healthy and nutritious food at school is an important part of giving every child the best start in life. School food plays a vital role in supporting children’s health, wellbeing and readiness to learn. Yet too many children are not getting the nutritious food they need: children consume around twice the recommended amount of free sugars, over 90% consume insufficient fibre, and almost one in four children leave primary school living with obesity. Dental decay remains the leading cause of hospital admissions for five to nine-year-olds. Since the school food standards were last updated, nutritional evidence has evolved. The Government therefore launched a consultation on updating the standards for the first time in over a decade, with the aim of improving the nutritional quality of food and drink provided in schools and supporting healthier eating habits for children and young people.
The consultation ran from April to June 2026 and received 5,216 responses from parents, pupils, schools, caterers, local authorities, health professionals and representative organisations, alongside wider engagement across the education, health, catering, faith, farming and food sectors. Respondents were generally supportive of improving the nutritional quality of school food, particularly proposals to increase fibre, fruit and vegetables, strengthen drinks standards, introduce dedicated breakfast standards and improve school food governance and transparency. They also raised important considerations around affordability, implementation, meal uptake and inclusion. These views have helped to shape the Government’s final decisions and implementation approach.
Having carefully considered the consultation responses, the Government will proceed with many of the proposed reforms, while taking into account stakeholder feedback on the practicalities of implementation. The revised school food standards will strengthen the nutritional quality of food and drink provided in schools by placing greater emphasis on fruit, vegetables, fibre and a wider range of healthy protein sources, while reducing sugar and further restricting foods high in saturated fat, sugar and salt. For the first time, dedicated breakfast standards will ensure that food and drink provided before the school day supports a healthier, lower-sugar and higher-fibre offer. The revised standards will also strengthen requirements relating to fruit and vegetables, fibre, protein and healthier drinks, while maintaining access to free drinking water throughout the school day. Some requirements affecting secondary schools, including changes relating to drinks, cheese and pulses, will be introduced on a phased basis to support deliverability and pupil acceptance.
Reflecting the views expressed during the consultation, the Government have refined some of the proposals to support effective delivery. These changes include greater flexibility in how vegetables can be incorporated into meals, adjustments to fibre requirements and wholegrain provision, limited flexibility for processed meat in secondary schools, and the retention of up to two sweetened desserts or baked products each week in secondary settings. The Government have also broadened the range of permitted products in several areas, including plant-based options and drinks, while retaining the overall ambition of improving children’s diets and supporting healthier eating habits.
The Government intend to lay regulations in October 2026, alongside the publication of supporting guidance. During autumn 2026, we will work with schools, caterers and sector partners to co-develop practical implementation materials and ensure that stakeholders across the supply chain are supported to understand and prepare for the revised requirements. This collaborative approach will help ensure that the guidance and supporting resources are practical, deliverable and responsive to operational challenges.
Most of the revised school food standards will come into force from September 2027, providing schools, trusts, caterers, suppliers and local authorities with time to prepare for implementation. A limited number of secondary school requirements, including specified changes relating to drinks, cheese and pulses, will be introduced from September 2028 following a transition period. This phased approach reflects consultation feedback on deliverability, pupil acceptance and meal uptake, while supporting practical implementation across secondary settings.
Alongside the revised standards, the Government will introduce a new national compliance framework from September 2027. This will include strengthening governance and transparency around school food, by expecting every school to appoint a lead governor for school food, and to publish their menus and school food policies online. We will also take forward the development of a national monitoring system on school food. This will form part of a wider package of resources, training and guidance accessible to all schools.
This work sits alongside other measures to ensure children have access to healthy, balanced food. We are rolling out free breakfast clubs in every state-funded school with primary aged pupils in England. We have extended free school meals to all children from households in receipt of universal credit, providing over half a million children from disadvantaged backgrounds with access to a free, nutritious meal every school day, and lifting 100,000 children out of poverty. Together, these measures represent the largest expansion of school food provision in a generation, helping to improve attainment, behaviour and outcomes by ensuring more children have access to nutritious food throughout the school day.
We continue to work alongside the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as it develops a new food strategy to ensure the food on children’s plates is good quality, accessible and affordable, as well as sourced locally where possible.
Taken together, these reforms will support healthier food provision across the school day and help ensure that children are well nourished, ready to learn and able to thrive.
A copy of the Government response will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS338]
Covid-19 Inquiry Module 3 Report: Government Response
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Yvette Cooper)
On Thursday 19 March 2026, the covid-19 inquiry published its third report, which focused on the impact of the pandemic on the healthcare systems of the UK and put forward 10 recommendations for the Government to consider. Today, the Government are publishing their response to the report, and setting out the actions we are taking to address its recommendations.
The covid-19 pandemic was one of the most significant public health challenges in recent history, placing extraordinary demands on health and care services and affecting people and communities across the United Kingdom.
Many thousands lost loved ones, often in deeply distressing circumstances, and our thoughts remain with all those affected. We also continue to pay tribute to the health and social care workers across the country who served the public with extraordinary dedication, compassion, and courage in the most challenging of conditions.
The Government are grateful to Baroness Hallett and the UK covid-19 inquiry team for their continued efforts to ensure that we learn all the necessary lessons from this crisis, and we are grateful as well to all those frontline workers and bereaved families who shared often harrowing evidence of their experiences with the inquiry.
The module 3 report is a sobering and important account of the impact of the pandemic on healthcare systems across the UK. It recognises both the extraordinary efforts of frontline staff and the profound pressures under which they worked.
It also shows how the pandemic exposed significant vulnerabilities in our health and care systems, including long-standing weaknesses in staffing, capacity and infrastructure, and it sets out the consequences that these had for patient care during a national emergency.
It is vital that the lessons from those failings continue to be learned and embedded to strengthen the future resilience of our health and care systems.
In many areas, that action is already under way. Our 10-year health plan sets out a long-term vision to make the NHS fit for the future, delivering better, faster care, with a workforce that is more empowered, flexible and fulfilled. We are also bringing forward legislation through the Health Bill which is integral to our modernisation agenda to improve patient care, system co-ordination and accountability.
Most importantly, alongside these reforms, our new pandemic preparedness strategy shows how the UK will build on the specific lessons from covid-19, and ensure we are better ready and able to deal with pandemics in the future.
Our response to the module 3 report takes this work further and sets out the actions we are taking to strengthen preparedness for future health emergencies. These include improving infection prevention and control governance, strengthening visiting rights, modernising health data systems through the single patient record and strengthening psychological, emotional and occupational health support for the health and care workforce.
We recognise that meaningful change will require partnership working across all the nations of the United Kingdom, the NHS, local government, and the wider health and care sector. We are committed to working closely with our partners to ensure that the lessons of this report are fully embedded at every level, and in every region. We will continue to work on these issues to turn the lessons identified in the report into lasting change and ensure the country is better prepared for future threats.
While the module 3 report is focused on healthcare systems, teams across health and social care have worked together to strengthen joint working between the two systems, so that people experience more integrated and person-centred care.
The upcoming module 6 report will consider social care in more detail, and those findings will be carefully taken into account as the Government develop their plans for a national care service, and ensure that the social care system in our country gives people the dignity, support and security they deserve.
We owe it to all those who suffered during the pandemic, and all those who served on the frontline of that health crisis, to ensure that the failings of the past have been properly acknowledged and addressed, and that a stronger, more resilient health and care system will be built for the future.
[HCWS342]
Standard of Proof for Unlawful Killing Consultation
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
Today, the Ministry of Justice is launching a public consultation on the standard of proof to be applied to the short-form inquest conclusion of unlawful killing.
This consultation follows the publication on 23 October 2025 of the independent police accountability rapid review, as announced by the Home Secretary in her written ministerial statement which can be found on the UK Parliament website under the number UIN HCWS987.
Commissioned in October 2024 by the then Lord Chancellor and Home Secretary, the review was conducted by Tim Godwin OBE QPM and the right hon. Sir Adrian Fulford, and examined two issues: the threshold for police misconduct proceedings involving use of force, and the standard of proof for unlawful killing inquests.
The Home Secretary accepted the recommendation to revise the threshold for police misconduct proceedings involving the use of force, and amendments to the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 were laid on 9 June and came into force on 30 June.
On the issue of the standard of proof for unlawful killing inquest conclusions, the review found a strong case for a return to the criminal standard (i.e. beyond reasonable doubt) reversing the effect of the Supreme Court’s 2020 Maughan judgment, which applied the civil standard (i.e. balance of probabilities) to all short-form conclusions. However, the reviewers also recognised that this issue has broader implications beyond policing, including in healthcare, detention, and workplace settings and that its own engagement was necessarily limited. The review therefore recommended that the Government should undertake a full public consultation before deciding whether to legislate for a change. The Lord Chancellor has accepted this recommendation.
Accordingly, the consultation launched today seeks views from across sectors and communities on whether the current standard remains appropriate. It does not propose a change, nor does it assume that one will be made. The aim is to gather evidence and perspectives to inform future policy development, ensuring that any decision is grounded in transparency, fairness, and public confidence.
The consultation will run for twelve weeks, closing on 7 December 2026, and is available at: https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/standard-of-proof-for-the-short-form-inquest-concl/
I encourage all those with an interest in the coronial system, public accountability, and access to justice to engage with this important consultation.
For clarity, the issue considered in this consultation relates only to the short-form conclusion of unlawful killing in the coronial jurisdiction. It is not connected with the Government’s recent decision to exclude criminal offences related to unlawful killing such as manslaughter or death by dangerous driving from the Sentencing Act’s progression model.
[HCWS340]
Robert Hamill Inquiry Report
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Bryant)
I am today laying before Parliament the report of the Robert Hamill inquiry, and publishing it in full online.
I acknowledge the significant delay of 15 years between the completion and publication of this report. While necessary to allow legal proceedings to conclude, this prolonged wait has undoubtedly caused Robert’s family deep anguish. I offer my profound sympathies to his family and pay tribute to their dignity throughout this ordeal.
On 27 April 1997, Robert Hamill was violently attacked by a large crowd in Portadown simply because he was a Catholic, dying from his injuries weeks later. His murder was a horrifying tragedy.
The inquiry addressed two primary public concerns regarding the conduct of the Royal Ulster Constabulary: first, whether officers in a nearby Land Rover were responsible for Robert Hamill’s death; and secondly, whether the subsequent investigation was inhibited by wrongful acts or omissions.
The inquiry concluded that officers in the Land Rover were not guilty of any wrongful act or omission directly facilitating the death, though Sir Edwin Jowitt expressed a dissenting view. However, the inquiry made stark findings regarding wrongful omissions during the initial police investigation between 27 April and 7 May 1997, concluding that these omissions severely hindered the investigation.
These omissions included:
Failure to carry out initial debriefings at the scene or at the police station, which was negligent and severely impacted the murder investigation;
failure to carry out a full debriefing once it became clear Robert Hamill’s injuries were life threatening;
wrongful omissions by two officers to supply relevant information regarding an individual seen at the scene, which was negligent in one case and deliberate in the other.
Furthermore, the inquiry found that RUC officer Robert Atkinson committed a deliberate wrongful act by tipping off a suspect, resulting in the destruction of evidence, and subsequently conspired to cover up the call, leading to his conviction for conspiring to pervert the course of justice.
The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland will reflect on these findings. The Government remain committed to establishing effective mechanisms that deliver transparency and accountability for legacy cases.
I place on record my gratitude to the current and former chairs and panel members—Sir John Evans, the late Sir Edwin Jowitt, and Reverend Baroness Richardson —for their diligent service in uncovering the truth. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS343]
Grand Committee
Armed Forces (Service Complaints Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Baroness Antrobus
That the Grand Committee do consider the Armed Forces (Service Complaints Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Antrobus) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before both Houses on 29 June 2026. They make consequential amendments to the Armed Forces (Service Complaints Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2015, following amendments introduced through the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025. For ease of reference, I will refer to them as the 2015 regulations.
These draft regulations introduce two principal amendments. First, they amend the 2015 regulations to replace references to the “appropriate officer” with references to the “appropriate person”. This allows for suitably qualified civilians, as well as military personnel, to carry out specified administrative functions within the service complaints system, including liaising with the Armed Forces Commissioner and providing updates on the progress and outcome of service complaints. The regulations also include a transitional provision to ensure that existing cases continue smoothly when the changes come into force.
Secondly, the regulations amend the list of matters that may not be the subject of a service complaint. Specifically, they provide that decisions on whether an appeal has been brought on valid grounds cannot themselves be challenged through the service complaints process. This ensures that the system is not burdened with complaints concerning procedural admissibility decisions, and it supports the efficient operation of the service complaints process.
Overall, the amendments provide greater flexibility and efficiency in the administration of the system, while maintaining existing safeguards and preserving the rights of service personnel. The amendment permitting suitably qualified civilians to undertake specified administrative functions within the service complaints system was requested by the single services themselves, to provide greater flexibility in administering the system.
The amendments will be implemented through existing service complaints processes and procedures. Any necessary guidance and administrative instructions will be updated to reflect the changes made by the regulations.
In summary, these regulations make two technical and consequential amendments to the service complaints system. They improve administrative flexibility, support the efficient operation of the service complaints process and ensure consistency between the regulations and the Armed Forces Act 2006, as amended by the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025. Importantly, these amendments do not alter the rights of service personnel or the protections available within the service complaints system. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft regulations. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted to welcome the Minister to her place and thank her for introducing this draft statutory instrument so clearly and effectively. We may be aiming for a record in how fast we deal with a statutory instrument, because it appears, on the face of it, to be uncontroversial. Changing the words “appropriate officer” to “appropriate person” is absolutely straightforward.
The one area where I would be interested to hear the Minister’s advice is on the change to the appeals process. In her opening remarks, she said that it would not really make any difference and that it is intended simply to streamline provisions and to make sure that people are not appealing on frivolous grounds. However, could there be any cases where someone who would have been able to find a way to appeal could be somehow knocked back during the appeal process because the person making the decision—it is not clear whether it will be the “appropriate person” deciding who can and cannot appeal—takes a very hard-line approach to whether the appeal is valid? That is the only area of possible concern.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I too take this opportunity to welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. I look forward to having many instructive exchanges with her.
The crux of the matter under consideration in these regulations is, as has already been mentioned, the substitution of “appropriate officer” with “appropriate person” in the 2015 service complaints regulations. Noble Lords present may well remember that this issue was first raised during our debates on the then Armed Forces Commissioner Bill last year. At that time, my noble friend Lady Goldie raised a concern about the removal of the chain of command from the service complaints system. However, after discussions with the Minister and officials, the Government clarified that the amendments to Sections 340B and 340N of the Armed Forces Act 2006 did not replace the role of the commanding officer but simply supplemented their involvement by permitting a sufficiently qualified civilian also to make a referral to the newly established Armed Forces Commissioner. After receiving that assurance, my noble friend was content to withdraw her opposition to those amendments.
These regulations are consequential to the changes made by the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025 and simply translate the changes made to the service complaints process into the relevant secondary legislation. As such, given the assurance that we received last year, we do not oppose these regulations.
Baroness Antrobus (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions, brief though they were, and for the constructive scrutiny that they have brought to this important issue. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for their welcoming words. I am grateful to them and to their colleagues, as I have learned much from their insightful contributions to defence debates in the months since my introduction to this place earlier this year. They have been most instructive, and I look forward to working with them—preferably not against them, where possible. We all agree, I am sure, that the defence of the nation is the primary duty of our Government.
I will address the concerns raised. On the specific concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the amendment is not intended to prevent service personnel making a complaint. Service personnel will continue to be able to raise service complaints. The amendment applies only to decisions on whether an appeal has been brought on valid grounds. The idea is to make the service complaints system better for those who need it most and ensure it is not clogged up by specific service complaints about a service complaint. The amendment does not affect the substantive right to make a complaint or appeal a complaint decision; it simply clarifies that procedural decisions relating to the validity of an appeal cannot themselves be challenged through the service complaints process.
As I set out, the regulations make two technical and consequential amendments to the service complaints system. To recap, the first amendment provides greater flexibility by allowing suitably qualified civilians, as well as military personnel, to carry out specified administrative functions within the service complaints system. The second amendment clarifies that decisions on whether an appeal has been brought on valid grounds cannot themselves be challenged through the service complaints process, supporting the efficient operation of that system. Importantly, these amendments do not alter the rights of service personnel, the grounds on which a service complaint may be made or the protections available within the service complaints system. With those comments, I commend the instrument to the Committee.
Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross
That the Grand Committee do consider the Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 10th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise to noble Lords for the delay to the start of these proceedings. I will begin by setting out the background to this instrument. It concerns the governance arrangements for the Windsor Framework and Northern Ireland’s trading arrangements, and the UK/EU withdrawal agreement.
First and foremost, the instrument takes forward and supports certain commitments the Government made in response to the independent review of the Windsor Framework that was conducted by my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen and published at the end of 2024. It does so by providing greater flexibility in the process for the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Democratic Scrutiny Committee to scrutinise regulations that are applicable under the Windsor Framework. It also clarifies the statutory obligations of Northern Ireland departments to support the committee by providing it with responses to reasonable requests for information.
Secondly, the instrument helps facilitate the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee to use written procedure to adopt decisions or recommendations such as those in relation to the Windsor Framework, which is, of course, a crucial element of the withdrawal agreement. This will keep the governance arrangements of the withdrawal agreement working effectively, particularly where we need to keep rules that apply in Great Britain and Northern Ireland in step.
I will now explain in more detail how the instrument meets its purposes, which are threefold. First, in response to recommendations made by the independent review of the Windsor Framework, the Government committed to providing greater flexibility to the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee in examining and considering EU legislation relevant to Northern Ireland. The committee plays a valuable role in scrutinising regulations relevant to Northern Ireland. Its reports and engagement with affected stakeholders inform the work of government, just as they will inform the work of many Members of the Assembly. These changes to Schedule 6B to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 are aimed at providing the Assembly with greater latitude in conducting its work within a two-month window following the publication of relevant EU Acts, if it wishes to use it.
A timeframe for the scrutiny of EU Acts under the Windsor Framework is provided for in law so that everyone is clear—MLAs, businesses and civil society—about how the process works and what the impacts of those enactments are. Currently, the committee has five working days to vote on whether to hold an inquiry into a replacement EU Act. If an inquiry is held, a report must be produced no later than 15 working days before the end of the two-month scrutiny period, which begins the day the EU publishes the Act in its Official Journal. This instrument gives the committee greater flexibility by expanding the inquiry decision window to 10 working days and alters the publication deadline for inquiry reports to no later than 12 working days before the end of the scrutiny period. These changes will allow the committee greater latitude to choose how to run its inquiries, take evidence and report on them.
Secondly, the instrument takes account of the need to ensure continuing, effective governance arrangements that are fit for the future. This future includes the three new agreements we are seeking to take forward with the EU on SPS, electricity and emissions trading. This change is made by omitting Section 15C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This will allow the UK to agree to decisions and recommendations at the joint committee between meetings in a process known as written procedure. In effect, this will revert the arrangements to how they were when the withdrawal agreement was first agreed, as this mechanism has always been contained within the treaty text. It will enhance the UK’s ability to take necessary decisions without having to wait for a meeting of the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee, which typically happens only once or twice a year.
As with the changes to the Democratic Scrutiny Committee’s procedures that I have already set out, written procedure will be an optional flexibility and will not be utilised for every decision. The effect will be to enable the Government to ensure, where there are EU regulatory obligations applicable in Great Britain, that Northern Ireland can keep pace. This could also, for example, cover urgent measures needed to protect the smooth operation of Northern Ireland’s dual market access and its place within the UK market.
I emphasise that these changes do not amend the process of scrutinising those decisions where the Government maintain obligations to Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The process remains as it is today, including where it is provided for in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and in the Government’s EU scrutiny arrangements with the European Affairs Committee and the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee. By removing this restriction, the governance of the withdrawal agreement will be aligned with that of the trade and co-operation agreement, which has no similar restriction on the use of written procedure. As with the EU-UK Partnership Council, which was established under the trade and co-operation agreement, the joint committee would still remain the default forum for UK-EU decision-making in relation to the withdrawal agreement and continue to meet, just as the Partnership Council does.
Finally, the instrument provides for and clarifies the responsibilities that Northern Ireland departments and Ministers are already under to the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee. This is aimed at supporting the work of the Democratic Scrutiny Committee and the governance arrangements of which it forms part. This instrument clarifies the duty on those authorities to comply with a reasonable request for information from the committee, and that such a request should not be regarded as unreasonable solely on the ground that a Northern Ireland department or Minister lacks primary responsibility for the EU Act in question. This change is made in response to recommendations in the independent review on how Northern Ireland departments should be empowered to provide evidence to and support the committee.
I also note, for completeness, that the instrument makes some technical amendments to existing legislation. Specifically, it amends outdated references within the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, so that these now refer to the Windsor Framework. This minor change provides clarity and aligns UK domestic legislation with the international context.
In conclusion, this instrument demonstrates the Government’s commitment to implementing the recommendations of the independent review of the Windsor Framework, to ensure that Northern Ireland’s trading arrangements work well, and to take the practical steps necessary as we build a stronger relationship with the EU, from which Northern Ireland will benefit and which will deliver the good growth that we wish to see in every postcode. I beg to move.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I welcome this SI and am grateful to the Minister for introducing it so effectively and carefully. It is part of a process in which the Windsor Framework becomes more centre stage and the withdrawal agreement takes a step back. This is a vital process: the core of the Windsor Framework is to introduce more suppleness in facing up to the difficult question of Brexit. It is not perfect and there are many, many imperfections, but I think—this might not be a bad day to say it, following the meeting of the First Minister of Northern Ireland and the First Ministers of Wales and Scotland in Cardiff—that there is a danger, within Northern Ireland, of not coming to terms with the fact that the Windsor Framework has actually effected positive changes, and that this is part of the process.
A long time ago, there was a taskforce report following the 1985 Hillsborough agreement, signed by Margaret Thatcher—the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, will remember this. That was far more threatening and destabilising in its impact on Northern Ireland than anything in the Windsor Framework or the initial withdrawal agreement. The taskforce report represented a conclusion involving the two main unionist parties, after some period of rather sterile activism against the United Kingdom Government. It said that there was no set security or sanity in the junior partner in the United Kingdom being permanently estranged from the senior partner. The period since Brexit has opened up a similar period of estrangement, and it is time that this came to an end.
The crucial thing about the Windsor Framework, as underlined by the Minister’s remarks, is that it moves away from the very problematic commitment in the withdrawal Act that the British Government would foster an all-Ireland economy. How you would do that I was never quite sure, by the way, because the all-Ireland economy is based on a model condemned by Piketty, Krugman and Stiglitz—all Nobel Prize winners in economics—which is basically one of low tax for incoming American firms. It is difficult to do anyway. The point is that the Windsor Framework unhooks the British Government from a commitment to further the all-Ireland economy. In that sense, given the problematic aspect of the withdrawal agreement, many difficulties and flaws remain, but I welcome the fact that the Minister has come today and, essentially, refreshed certain aspects of the Windsor Framework. I am grateful to the Minister for her introduction.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I am deeply grateful for being given permission to take part in this debate. I welcome these regulations, like I have welcomed the Windsor Framework on many occasions, because it deals with special arrangements to prevent a hard border on the island of Ireland. I do not want to see borders anywhere between the UK and Ireland and between Northern Ireland and Britain. Therefore, it is important that the challenges and impediments presented by the Windsor Framework are ironed out—hence the appointment 18 months ago by the then Secretary of State, Hilary Benn, of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, to deal with particular issues regarding implementation.
The noble Lord was fairly circumscribed in what he could do, but some of those recommendations looked at democratic scrutiny and the democratic deficit. He also proposed that Assembly Members on the Democratic Scrutiny Committee would have a greater amount of time for scrutiny. A committee that I am a member of, the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee, met the Democratic Scrutiny Committee on several occasions and it raised with us the lack of time that it has been given to do scrutiny, so I was very pleased when the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, proposed that the instrument would extend by five days the time by which that Democratic Scrutiny Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly must vote on whether to hold an inquiry. That recommendation was accepted by the Government and now we are giving it legal effect. I welcome that.
I also ask this of my noble friend the Minister. Our Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, proposed a hub. I note that I am sitting beside my noble friend Lady Anderson, who has met me on that specific issue to seek an update on the hub. How far is it progressing and what work has been done already? When will there be a report to the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee and to your Lordships’ Chamber on the progress that has been made? In summary, I support this instrument and the changes that it seeks to introduce as they will bring greater accountability from the work carried out by the Democratic Scrutiny Committee.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I suppose it comes as no surprise that I have a different opinion on the Windsor Framework. Rather than it being the answer to many problems, it has also created many problems in its impact on Northern Ireland businesses and the rest of the United Kingdom. I am fed up, when ordering something from the mainland, to be told, “It cannot be posted to your address”. That has happened countless times, but that would not be accepted in any other part of the United Kingdom. Why are we supposed to be thankful, when we are looked upon as the poor relation within the United Kingdom?
As regards the theatrics of what happened today with Michelle O’Neill, I remind everyone that the First Minister has no power whatever to sign any memorandum of understanding as the First Minister. She can do so as the deputy leader of the Sinn Féin party, but she has no authority to sign anything on behalf of the Northern Ireland Assembly or the elected representatives of Northern Ireland in Stormont.
This SI flows from the Murphy review. We have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. It was to strengthen the place of the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee, yet one aspect has been deleted. Members of the other place have already drawn attention to this. It is Section 15C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her detailed introduction to these regulations. From these Benches we welcome them and very much welcome any measures to implement the recommendations contained in the important report by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, which we very much supported.
As the Minister will be aware, there remain a great many concerns about the Windsor Framework in Northern Ireland, as the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, has illustrated very well. However, from these Benches we have always recognised that it is a pragmatic solution to a far from optimum situation stemming from the hard Brexit approach adopted by the previous Conservative Governments.
I have two quick questions for the Minister. Can she say whether there is a timetable for implementing the rest of the recommendations contained in the important report from the noble Lord, Lord Murphy? Can the Minister, to follow on from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, say whether there plans for a wider strategy on how to ensure parliamentary oversight here in Westminster for secondary legislation stemming from the Windsor Framework and other legislation resulting from dynamic alignment with the European Union?
The Minister will be aware that there are already lots of debates on regret Motions on regulations relating to the Windsor Framework. Indeed, I believe there is another one tomorrow evening from the noble Lord, Lord McCrea. She will be aware that even more will result from the EU Bill, so it will be very useful for us to understand the Government’s thinking about Westminster’s oversight role in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords in this regard.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, this instrument makes changes to the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee, which scrutinises EU law that is applicable in Northern Ireland under the Windsor Framework, implementing some of the recommendations made by the independent review of the Windsor Framework.
His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are of the strong opinion that the Government must explain why they are removing the safeguards introduced by the previous Government prohibiting the use of written procedure in the joint committee, which were meant to ensure full ministerial accountability for its decisions. This instrument removes Section 15C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The Explanatory Memorandum to this instrument says that this provision was being made:
“to facilitate decision making between the co-chairs on time-sensitive issues during the period in between formal meetings, noting the bulk of decisions at the Joint Committee relate to the Windsor Framework”.
However, the Explanatory Notes for the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which introduced Section 15C into the 2018 Act, stated that the prohibition on the use of written procedure in the joint committee by the UK’s co-chair was to ensure that,
“decisions made by the Joint Committee are made by a Minister in person. The purpose of this provision is to ensure there is full ministerial accountability … for all decisions made in the Joint Committee”.
That was well highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea.
Introducing the use of written procedure in the joint committee by the UK’s co-chair was not recommended by the independent review. In line with the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, we have one important question: will the Minister explain in more detail the rationale for allowing the written procedure? Is there a risk, as has already been discussed, that it would allow changes to slip through inadvertently without even the minimal scrutiny currently in operation?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to today’s debate. The instrument is a key element of the Government’s commitments made following the independent review, and I hope that it demonstrates that we continue to take action to ensure that the Windsor Framework works for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland, which is this Government’s intention for it to do.
In relation to a couple of the points that came up in the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Bew, raised an important point. I fully agree with him that Northern Ireland’s dual market access is a unique opportunity that has potential to drive real growth for Northern Ireland. The Government are committed to taking all necessary steps to protect the internal market while implementing the Windsor Framework in good faith, including having regard to all aspects of the Northern Ireland economy.
In relation to the points raised by my noble friend Lady Ritchie, I am happy to meet to discuss progress on the hub.
With regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, the robust parliamentary oversight frameworks already in place remain entirely unchanged. I hope that provides him with some reassurance. The written procedure simply ensures that, when the UK’s interests depend on swift action between the scheduled meetings, bearing in mind that they might take place only once or twice a year, we can take that action and Parliament will continue to be provided with explanatory memoranda on decisions made in the joint committee. I clarify that, in our view, this does not weaken the accountability of the Government at the joint committee. The scrutiny process for joint committee decisions made by the Government is not changed by this SI. That includes the role for Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly, as set down in law and in writing, which is very important.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
Will the Minister clarify whether the Government are removing Section 15C or not? We cannot have it both ways.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
The Minister is saying that the protection is there, but Section 15C was inserted by Section 35 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which was very clear that the reason for precluding Ministers was simply to ensure that nothing could be slipped through and that there had to be accountability. That is its purpose, so to remove Section 15C is to remove its purpose of providing a safeguard. Removing the safeguard cannot be the same as protecting the safeguard.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We think that there is a sufficient safeguard in place, but I would be happy to meet the noble Lord to discuss this further if he would find that helpful.
I return to my concluding remarks on the SI. This is not the only action that the Government are taking to protect the internal market. We have announced £16.6 million to strengthen the UK internal market and help Northern Ireland boost trade with Great Britain. This includes a comprehensive one-stop shop regulatory support service, beyond what is currently available on GOV.UK. This will help businesses trade across UK and EU markets and benefit from Northern Ireland’s unique dual market access. We have also established a triage process to support co-ordination between the Government and Northern Ireland departments on relevant EU legislation. This Government are clear that Northern Ireland is and should be a core player in that relationship. Arrangements that necessarily protect Northern Ireland’s place in the union and its internal market prevent a hard border on the island of Ireland and deliver certainty to businesses on the basis of the agreement with the EU.
I recognise and respect that noble Lords may have different views on how we arrived where we are now from Brexit, and on its merits and otherwise. However, on behalf of the Government, I should be very clear that our focus must remain on what we do next to ensure that our relationship with the EU works best for all parts of the UK.
We are focused on looking forward to a new strategic partnership with the EU, which stands to benefit Northern Ireland. I assure the Committee that we will also remain focused on smoothing flows of goods to Northern Ireland where we can, with the arrangements that apply now, with an eye to the new and beneficial arrangements that we are seeking to obtain in future.
I am not sure that I have managed to answer all noble Lords’ questions. I will ask my office to write to all those who have taken part in today’s debate as I am happy to have a continued conversation about these very important matters. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Boiler Upgrade Scheme (Amendment to the Energy Act 2008 etc.) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Curran
That the Grand Committee do consider the Boiler Upgrade Scheme (Amendment to the Energy Act 2008 etc.) Regulations 2026.
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Baroness Curran) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid in draft before Parliament on 13 July 2026. The boiler upgrade scheme is the Government’s flagship scheme for supporting the decarbonisation of heat in homes and small non-domestic buildings across England and Wales. The scheme provides grants towards the installation of eligible low-carbon heating technologies, primarily heat pumps, helping households overcome the upfront costs associated with transitioning away from fossil fuel heating systems.
In 2025, the Government consulted on expanding the range of technologies supported through the scheme, including the potential introduction of heat batteries. Heat batteries are a type of thermal energy storage system that can use low-carbon electricity to generate and store heat, and release that energy when required. Following consideration of the consultation responses, the Government confirmed their intention to support heat batteries through the scheme once the appropriate standards are in place. The amendments made by these regulations are an important step towards implementing that decision. The Government are supporting the future inclusion of heat batteries in the boiler upgrade scheme to increase consumer choice, as they have the potential to provide an alternative low-carbon heating solution for consumers in homes where heat pump installation may not be appropriate.
These regulations amend the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish schemes to facilitate and encourage the renewable generation of heat in England and Wales. These schemes can be established only in relation to the listed sources of energy and technologies. These regulations add thermal energy storage systems to the list of those sources of energy and technologies. This amendment provides the necessary statutory basis for thermal energy storage systems to be supported through government schemes that derive their powers from Section 100 of the Energy Act, such as the boiler upgrade scheme. Subject to Parliament approving these regulations, the Government intend to bring forward a statutory instrument to amend the Boiler Upgrade Scheme (England and Wales) Regulations 2022 and to enable support for eligible heat batteries through the scheme.
The regulations also amend Regulation 22 of the Boiler Upgrade Scheme (England and Wales) Regulations 2022. This is a technical amendment that clarifies the powers available to the scheme administrator where an installer has received an ineligible payment. The change will enable the scheme administrator, Ofgem, to recover any amount owed through a combination of repayment and offsetting against future grant payments to that installer, improving the administration of the scheme and the protection of public money.
The changes made by these regulations will ensure that the legislative powers underpinning the boiler upgrade scheme can accommodate heat batteries. In doing so, they deliver an important step towards the Government’s commitments to support heat batteries through the scheme, to increase consumer choice and to help more homeowners across England and Wales decarbonise their properties. I beg to move.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument.
The passage of time points to the boiler upgrade scheme’s own record. Regrettably, there have been years of missed installation targets: the original goal was 600,000 a year by 2028, but barely a tenth of that figure has been met. It is now self-evident that expanding the scheme’s budget and eligibility in 2026 will escalate spend on a mechanism that has structurally underperformed without any intention to reform it coming from either the Government or the Liberal Democrat Benches. At this point, I should declare my interest as the chairman of Buckthorn, Acteon and Amey.
The clearest recent articulation of this comes from the shadow Business Secretary and former shadow Secretary of State for Energy, Claire Coutinho, fronting a report from the think tank Onward. It argued that UK electricity prices are too high and that cheap power itself, achieved partly by using more gas and cutting green levies, will do more to drive heat pump and EV uptake than continued subsidy and mandates.
It is compelling economic sense, and it is the belief on this side of the Committee that this approach would make electrification more attractive, while delivering prosperity and a better environment. In other words, no one is arguing that heat pumps are bad, but we believe that a BUS-style subsidy is now proven to be the wrong lever and that removing green levies from bills would achieve similar ends without state spending.
Moreover, my colleagues in another place have consistently pressed Ministers about the stronger evidence that costs associated with the wider agenda for the decarbonisation of heat, including mechanisms such as the clean heat market mechanism boiler tax on manufacturers, are being passed to consumers via higher gas boiler prices. In other words, the current approach taxes conventional boiler households to subsidise heat pump adopters, and this is regressive.
There are a number of specific points, and I am grateful to the Minister for having raised them. The first was a constitutional process concern. This SI amends primary legislation via secondary legislation. That is not unusual but, because it touches Section 100 of the Energy Act 2008, it requires the affirmative procedure. Regulation 2 modifies the list of sources of energy and technologies as set out in Section 100(4) of the 2008 Act to include “thermal energy storage systems” and, as stated:
“By virtue of section 105(3A) and (3B), these Regulations attract the affirmative procedure”.
Instruments that amend an Act of Parliament rather than just delegated regulations routinely draw scrutiny from committees such as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee or the JCSI over the appropriateness of using a Henry VIII-style power for what is a fairly narrow technical expansion.
A related 2026 BUS amendment instrument, SI 2026/390, had to be reissued because the original published version did not reflect the version signed by the Minister and had to be removed and replaced. That is not this specific SI, but it illustrates the concerns about drafting quality that Members of Parliament in the other place and committees have been raising about the pace of legislation on the boiler upgrade scheme.
My second point—I am grateful again to the Minister for raising this—relates to the question of heat batteries or thermal storage. This came out clearly in the Government’s consultation on the eligibility of expanding the BUS, which took place in November last year and which underpins this SI. I would be grateful if the Minister, in responding, could update the Committee on whether any product standards yet exist. Currently, as I understand it—and things may have moved on since November—there are no product standards for the thermal energy storage performance of heat batteries. These technologies will become eligible for scheme funding only once the relevant standards have come into force, which means that the law will permit funding for a technology category that cannot actually be certified or verified yet.
On efficiency and running costs, some respondents raised concerns about direct electric heating’s lower efficiency relative to a heat pump, its running costs and a lack of evidence on the performance and suitability of the various technologies. Some respondents preferred excluding the heat battery category altogether, arguing that funding should stay focused on technologies with proven carbon savings rather than diluting the budget across less tested electric heating options.
The Minister rightly pointed out the importance of the Regulation 22 payment offset amendment, which is a much more mundane and fairly straightforward change clarifying that the administrator may take one or a combination of the actions available to recover payments, provided that the total does not exceed the sum of payments due. As I understand it, it has not attracted any public objections, but it is worth flagging and I am grateful the Minister did; it is a tidying-up clause that gives Ofgem a somewhat broader discretion to recover overpayments and clawbacks. A point that scrutiny committees sometimes probe is whether it expands administrative power beyond what was originally debated, but, as the Minister said in her opening remarks, that would not be the case on this occasion.
I believe that the Government should stop increasing the cost of gas boilers for families through their boiler tax and stop wasting money forcing people into buying heat pumps that they do not want to make marginal reductions to our already limited contribution to global emissions. The Government must, above all, make electricity cheaper and back consumer choice, if they truly want families to adopt electric heating technologies instead of simply forcing people into changing the way that they live their lives to meet their self-imposed, unachievable net-zero targets.
That is why we have called for the scraping of the boiler upgrade scheme along with the clean heat market mechanism that places an obligation on gas and oil boiler manufacturers to install a minimum number of heat pumps at an estimated cost of £340 million in the first year. This goes far further than the boiler upgrade scheme introduced in 2022 under the Energy Act 2008, which encouraged the use of renewable heat by providing financial support for families to install heat pumps to replace fossil fuel boilers. As the Minister said, this instrument amends that Act to extend financial support eligibility to heat batteries, electric heating tech and thermal energy storage systems.
Many of us on this side of the Committee who have studied this consider it to be a case of excessive government intervention and cost to ease the effects of other government interventions. Energy prices are currently high, not despite our transition to renewable sources and green policies but because of them. The Government have acknowledged the fact that policies are to blame by removing VAT from energy bills. Similarly, their focus on renewables, inextricably linked to firm power—oil and gas—has caused the cost of using gas-fired power plants to rise, as they are forced to operate on an ad hoc basis dependent on the weather and are thus far less efficient and very expensive.
Taxes and renewables are the two core policies that have led to the increase in energy bills, which are now the highest of any IEA member country, both including and excluding taxes, for industrial and domestic bills. The Government should not be subsidising the cost of renewables by promoting higher bills for some instead of bringing them down for all through more systemic changes, which will be a subject we will return to, no doubt, on the long overdue introduction of the supremely misnamed energy independence Bill, which will increase energy dependence on imports and not decrease them. That said, on a personal note, I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box for this SI and look forward to further debates and discussions with her.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that contribution, and on that very note I welcome his remarks. We debated some of these issues on my very first outing at the Dispatch Box on the Floor of the House, and I think we will debate some of the fundamental points that he made about the direction of energy policy. He is right to contextualise this within that wider debate about energy policy. It is perhaps one of the great debates of our time and will dominate our thinking and discussions in the time ahead. I am tempted to go into a very long discussion about that; I am sure we will have lively debates going forward. He will know, as I said on the Floor of the House, that the Onward report faced some criticism and there were some arguments from the sector about the report’s premises, but I will leave that because I am sure that we will return to it. At the end of my contribution today, I will comment on the general policy of our approach.
I will now address the boiler upgrade scheme. I put on record that I recognise and respect the noble Lord’s detailed points about it and will pay great attention to the arguments that he is putting forward. It is an argument that this Government want to win, and we believe we can win it, but we will do that only by paying attention to the substance of what he said—and I recognise that substance. I will go through the points that he raised. I will not repeat that the boiler upgrade scheme remains the Government’s flagship scheme for supporting the decarbonisation of heat in homes and small non-domestic buildings across England and Wales, because we see decarbonisation as fundamental to the challenges facing the country and as offering solutions to some of the great issues around climate change and its consequences. I will return to that.
I shall focus on the points raised by the noble Lord and the detail of what he said. He acknowledged that the boiler upgrade scheme is directly funded by the Exchequer. It does not put any direct costs on consumers’ bills. Furthermore, our scheme evaluation data shows that people who have received grants from the boiler upgrade scheme most commonly find that their energy bills decrease as a result. Some 50% of boiler upgrade scheme grant recipients reported that their total energy bills decreased when replacing a gas boiler with a heat pump, compared with just 15% who reported an increase. As he acknowledged, eligible low-carbon heating installations currently benefit from 0% VAT, which further reduces costs for consumers.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
Can I return to a question that I raised, which the Minister has answered? She seems to be in agreement but it is a real concern. Without product standards for the thermal energy storage performance of heat batteries, these technologies will become eligible for the scheme but the law will permit funding for a technology category that has yet to be certified or verified. I know the Minister said in response that she hoped that it would be done in the near future. I know she would agree that there are significant safety risks associated with this, and consumers and the industry are very worried about it. Recent incidents have highlighted critical gaps in safety standards, indicating that certification alone does not guarantee safety under real-world conditions. That makes the importance of certification and having product standards all the more important for the safety. Can she write to me at the time when the Government are likely to approve these product standards, and therefore introduce into effect what we are considering in the SI today?
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that, and of course I commit to write to him and always to keep him as informed as I possibly can. He raises an interesting point, which was exactly the point that I asked during my three or four briefings with the team to prepare myself for today’s statutory instrument. I asked specifically about where we were with safety regulations and product standards. I have to say that I was concerned about the timing of it, because I want to make sure we move forward in this, but we also talked in some depth about the safety measures around that. I cannot recall in detail offhand every single step they took me through at the moment, but they explained to me the rigorous process that it goes through, which sometimes means it takes that bit longer. One example they cited was that you have to ensure that, as with a driver’s test, the installer must be observed by a senior person to get their certification. I can assure the noble Lord that we have this in hand, but I will of course write to him and keep him appraised of our process in that regard.
Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
That the Grand Committee do consider the Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, in speaking to these regulations, I will speak also to the Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) (Local Elections) (Northern Ireland) Order 2026 and the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Uprating Election Expenses) Order 2026. These statutory instruments make certain changes to the electoral system in Northern Ireland. They will make participation in elections more accessible to more people in Northern Ireland, and will bring certain rules governing Northern Ireland elections closer in line with those in Great Britain.
The first instrument updates the list of permissible forms of ID that can be used by voters at polling stations at parliamentary and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland. The second instrument makes identical changes to the list for local elections in Northern Ireland. The third instrument will uprate expenditure limits for candidates standing in local elections in Northern Ireland to reflect rising costs due to inflation; an equivalent uplift in the spending limit for reserved elections in Great Britain and for UK Parliament and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland was approved by Parliament in 2023.
Before I proceed further, I draw the Committee’s attention to the correction slip for the local elections draft order, which corrects a minor typographical error. In the last paragraph on page 1, the words “on Him section” have been amended to “on Him by section”. This refers to Section 84 of the Northern Ireland Act, which allows Northern Ireland’s local election rules to be amended by Order in Council, and “Him” refers in this context to His Majesty the King—one would have thought that would be slightly more polite than “Him”.
I turn to the specifics of the first and second instruments. The documents being added to the list of acceptable IDs that can be used by voters at polling stations are a Commonwealth passport, a Proof of Age Standards Scheme card, an HM Armed Forces veteran card and a blue badge from the disabled person’s parking scheme in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. These forms of ID are already accepted at polling stations in the rest of Great Britain. Adding to the list of acceptable IDs will support participation in elections for a range of people in Northern Ireland. The Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland and the Electoral Commission are both supportive of this change.
It is vital to ensure that those who cast their vote are eligible to do so. Photographic ID is an important step in the process of protecting this important principle of elections and maintaining trust in Northern Ireland’s electoral institutions and processes. Producing photographic ID at polling stations has been a requirement in Northern Ireland elections for more than 20 years. It is a well-understood, established part of voting. The list of acceptable IDs in Northern Ireland has historically been more restrictive than the list in Great Britain and is updated less frequently. Expanding the list of acceptable ID will remove barriers to voting and support more people in Northern Ireland—including some of the most vulnerable in society—to participate in our democracy, while retaining important security measures.
I will now set out in more detail the measure in the third instrument relating to uprating local election candidate expenditure. This draft order will uprate the spending limits for candidates in Northern Ireland’s local elections. The limit will increase from £600 plus 5p per elector registered to vote in the district electoral area in which they are standing to £960 plus 8p per elector registered to vote in the district electoral area. This will bring the spending limit in Northern Ireland into line with the spending limits for local elections in England. The current spending limits in Northern Ireland have remained unchanged since 2005. Consequently, candidates contesting local elections face a disadvantage as compared with those contesting parliamentary and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland. They are also at a disadvantage as compared with those contesting local elections in England, where spending limits were uprated in 2023.
Democracy relies upon the ability of political parties, candidates and other campaigners to communicate their views, so that voters can make an informed decision. The current limit means that local election candidates in Northern Ireland are restricted by lower real-terms spending on their campaign, which impacts on their ability to communicate with voters. The Electoral Commission has been consulted on these changes, in line with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland’s statutory duty, and is supportive of the new measures.
In conclusion, these draft instruments are necessary to support more people in Northern Ireland to participate in and engage with our democracy. Expanding the list of acceptable voter IDs is an important step in updating electoral processes to reflect the modern electorate in Northern Ireland, while preserving the additional security features that are essential to maintain trust in Northern Ireland’s electoral system. Uprating local election campaign spending limits will ensure that those limits remain aligned in real terms with the original limits set by Parliament.
I hope that, following my setting out of the details of these statutory instruments, the Committee will support them. I beg to move.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I broadly welcome the three SIs before us. As the Minister has indicated, they fall into two categories: one aspect dealing with the widening of accessibility in terms of voter ID, and the second aspect dealing with the expense limits.
I have said down the years that the use of voter identification has been positive in preserving our democracy. That is not to say that there have not been other problems with electoral fraud within Northern Ireland. One thinks of a particular example, which would probably be most familiar to the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, where a polling station was kept open beyond its hours, which had a material impact on the course of that electoral result. If one looks at the situation as regards postal votes, there have still been elements of electoral fraud done in relation to them, so we are not dealing with a perfect situation. However, broadly speaking, the electoral ID side of it has been beneficial to democracy in Northern Ireland, but it is not always watertight.
To give perhaps one example, during an election a number of years ago, I remember calling at the house of an elderly lady who had requested a lift to the polling station. Obviously, in wanting to make sure that this was not a wasted journey, I said, “Just before we leave, have you got your photo identification with you?” At which point she said, “Hold on a moment, son”, and disappeared into the back room of her house. She emerged about five minutes later with a small photograph of herself. There was nothing else on it, just a photograph of her, and she said, “Look son, you can see it’s me in that photograph”. So, it is not absolutely watertight in that regard, but in most cases it has worked well.
The changes being proposed today seem to make a level of sense in terms of accessibility. Of the four aspects, I welcome in particular the veteran card. We know that while there are other forms of identification, there will be some veterans who are always a bit anxious about what identification they have with them, so this is something which has a positive benefit.
Perhaps I can ask one question of the Minister in relation to this. I may be asking about something which is not to hand but, while I would be supportive of each of the four elements, does the Minister have any breakdown of the numbers that are used in Northern Ireland for each of those? Specifically, is there any indication of the number of people for whom these would be the sole means of identification, so how much are we guaranteeing widening accessibility? It would be useful to have that information, if not now then perhaps in writing.
The second aspect is, obviously, the level of election expenditure. I have come here from the Chamber, where there are major issues about financial support from outside the United Kingdom and talk of crypto millions, et cetera. When we are dealing with local government elections, the kind of money that we are talking about is an awful lot less, but where we have the limits at present is causing real difficulties because they have not been updated for a number of years.
I know going back, for example, to the 2023 election, for the vast bulk of candidates, their only expenditure was on perhaps a piece of canvass material, something that would be given to the Post Office for a postal drop, and maybe some posters. We are not talking about high-tech, extravagant costs, particularly as costs in terms of printing have accelerated, I believe, at a rate beyond that of inflation. I know that in the last local government elections a number of candidates found themselves unable to do all those aspects, particularly some candidates in Belfast where the electorate tends to be larger per DEA than in other areas. They simply had to say as regards a postal drop that they could not afford the printing and remain within limits. That is a particular problem, not simply because it reduces the level of democracy when people are not in a position to obtain that information, but because some unscrupulous candidates falsify the expense that they go to and try to get their material at an artificially reduced level to remain within the limit.
These are very sensible proposals as regards that level of expenditure. It bring us into line with the rest of the United Kingdom in terms of those levels and, from the point of view of candidates from whichever party, or indeed independents, it puts it within a realistic level for next year’s local government elections—so I support the proposals that have been put forward.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Weir, on this issue. First, I welcome my noble friend Lady Anderson to the Dispatch Box representing the NIO. This the first occasion on which I have had an opportunity to take part in a debate with her on Northern Ireland.
I support these SIs because they underpin trust in the electoral system and the principle of democratic accessibility by ensuring that people have access to the franchise to exercise their vote. I welcome the fact that the number of identification documents has been increased, and I welcome the blue badge, because many people have blue badges, but until now in Northern Ireland they could not use them for electoral identification purposes.
I recall that in 1985 when electoral identification was introduced the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and I were candidates in the local government elections, him in Belfast, and me in Down, we were told just a few weeks before the election took place that they were going to be subject to electoral identification and documents. At that stage, it was medical cards, then it moved on to allowance, child benefit or pension books—then photographic ID came into play, as the Minister outlined, 20-odd years ago. It is important that we were in the vanguard for identification for eligibility to vote. Obviously, there were very good reasons for that. Political parties, in the main on the constitutional side, demanded that level of support, shall we say, for those who wanted to exercise their mandate.
I recall—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Weir, in relation to this issue of electoral fraud—that some agents are particularly adept at undertaking electoral fraud. When I was a candidate in 2017, people told me that they went to vote for me using photographic ID and could not vote because their votes had already been used. Obviously, some mechanism was used deliberately to falsify their identity. I would like to think, as I am sure other noble Lords would like to ascertain, that means have been found to address those issues to ensure that that level of electoral fraud does not happen again.
I welcome the instrument on spending limits in local government. There is another aspect: many candidates in Assembly and local government elections will use videos and social media to convey their messages because, as we know, many young people today use social media to gain information about elections. Therefore, we should ensure that spending limits cover that form of communication. With those few comments and the query on electoral fraud to which I have already alerted the Minister, I support these SIs and look forward to her response.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on these statutory instruments, which I welcome broadly for the reasons that my noble friend Lord Weir and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, outlined. I have a couple of queries on which I would be grateful for the Minister’s response.
First, on the identity documents that can now be used in local government elections, were any other documents or materials considered and not accepted by the Northern Ireland Office? Will the Minister outline whether other means of identity were considered but rejected and, if so, why?
Secondly, on costs, the increase is quite substantial. The base figure is well over 30% and then it is nearly 33% per individual elector. Those are quite substantial increases, so could the Minister indicate when these figures were last upgraded and why there has been such a delay in bringing them up to an acceptable level, given that they have been increased by a substantial amount in one fell swoop? I remember, at the last local council elections, candidates and parties of all persuasions complaining bitterly about the restrictions on spending compared to elections elsewhere in the UK, so I would be grateful for that information.
The Minister mentioned that part of this is to bring Northern Ireland into line with or align it closer with the rest of the UK. In that regard, I raise an issue that I have raised before—postal ballots. This pertains in Northern Ireland but not in the rest of the UK as, if someone does not receive a postal ballot that they have applied for and has been accepted as legitimate, it is possible to get a replacement issued by the electoral authorities in England and Wales but, in Northern Ireland, that has been refused for decades now, for some reason. When this has been raised previously, there has been some allusion to the issue of security, but in very vague terms.
When one considers the amount of postal ballots that are sent out in Northern Ireland and across the country, the amount that would sent to replace lost ballots would be very small in comparison. I cannot understand why there is some problem with bringing Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the UK on an issue that concerns people’s right to vote. If somebody applies for a postal vote in good faith, and it does not arrive but there is still time to get another one by contacting the electoral office or going to collect it, it is very difficult for them to understand why they should be denied their vote, through no fault of their own where they have taken steps to receive a ballot. One or two people have been in touch with me about this. I would be grateful if the Minister could reply to that point.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to thank the Minister for her introduction of these SIs and to support them in both general and specific terms. I add one coda: these SIs come without an impact assessment, which is understandable enough in this context, but I keep thinking that we ought to have one at some future date.
Today’s debate and the more general public debate about foreign money in UK elections are taking place for understandable reasons, but the fact of the matter is that Sinn Féin is easily the richest political party in Ireland. It is also the case that it is easily the most likely to receive money from outside Ireland from the United States of America. It has been my duty, as a professional historian, to read the very interesting memoirs of republicans, whom I knew well. Not one does not boast of an election fixed here or there at some point by the application of superior resources, semi-bullying or whatever. That is why I say that there is a case for a delayed impact assessment. These are good measures that ought, on the whole, to improve the honesty of elections in Northern Ireland and bring them closer to the rest of the United Kingdom, but I have this yearning for a real impact assessment.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bew, with his historical perspective. I thank the Minister for her detailed introduction to these instruments. We on these Benches support all three measures; I shall, therefore, be extremely brief.
Liberal Democrats have always had significant reservations about the introduction of voter ID at polling stations. We believe that it is extremely important that nothing is done to discourage people from voting. However, I understand that the particular circumstances in Northern Ireland required voter ID to be in place well before voter ID was introduced to the rest of the UK. I am, therefore, fully supportive of measures that increase the number of acceptable documents that can be used in polling stations in Northern Ireland, such as the Armed Forces veteran card, PASS—Proof of Age Standards Scheme—cards and the blue badge for the disabled persons’ parking scheme.
I have a couple of quick questions for the Minister. First, I understand from the Explanatory Memorandum that “the permitted identity documents” will be kept
“under review in consultation with the Electoral Commission and the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland”.
Following on from the question from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, can the Minister say how frequently she expects additional forms of ID to be added, if appropriate?
My second question goes slightly beyond the scope of these SIs. Given the Prime Minister’s enthusiasm for devolution, can the Minister say whether the Government are giving any consideration to reviewing local government in Northern Ireland, both in terms of expanding the powers and budget that local authorities in Northern Ireland have and on the wider question of the wider devolution settlement in Northern Ireland? I do not necessarily expect her to reply to that this evening, obviously, but perhaps it is something that we could discuss in a future debate or in more detail at a later stage.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, before I turn to the measures before us, this is the first opportunity that I have had to pass on publicly my sincere condolences to the family of Stephen Walker, a journalist in Northern Ireland of great professional integrity whom I knew for around 30 years. I commend both of his biographies—one of John Hume and the other of David Trimble. Stephen was only 61 years of age when he died a few days ago; it is very sad indeed.
Secondly, I warmly welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. She will recall that, when we first faced each other, following the general election just over two years ago, I expressed some regret that Northern Ireland did not have a full-time Minister in your Lordships’ House. I am very pleased that that has now been rectified, and I sincerely congratulate her on her elevation to Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State.
I turn to the three regulations that we are debating today. They bring Northern Ireland’s voter ID and spending rules into line with the rules that apply in the rest of the United Kingdom, mainly England, and as such we do not oppose these measures. I have one question to put to the Minister on the issue of the veteran card. What assessment have the Government made of the possibility that veterans in Northern Ireland may be reticent to carry such a card and use it for voter identification? There has been some reluctance in the past, as Members of the Committee will know, for veterans to identify themselves in such ways. Of course, that reticence is no reason not to grant electors the option to use a veteran cards if they wish to do so, but it would be helpful to know what work, if any, the Government have done on this.
As the Minister knows, the Representation of the People Bill, which is currently being debated in the Chamber, will amend legislation to allow for bank cards—that is, non-photographic ID—to be used as a form of voter ID. Have Ministers made an assessment on the potential risk to electoral fraud in Northern Ireland of using bank cards? I ask this very conscious of the fact that it was a Labour Government in the early 2000s—in 2002, I believe—who legislated to move from paper ID to photo ID for Northern Ireland, given the historic experience of high levels of voter personation there.
On spending limits, we accept that the update is sensible, but there is a question of coherence. I understand that, on 29 August, the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government announced a review into candidate spending limits, with the implication that they are too high. How does this measure before us today relate to that review?
I assure the Minister that I personally regard votes at 16 as completely insane. If the Government are committed to pursuing this madness, what work are they doing to ensure that younger voters have access to voter ID?
Slightly more broadly, in July this year, the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland published a paper on the future of electoral registration and the canvass, in which he declared the once-a-decade canvass to be no longer fit for purpose. Can the Minister say whether the Northern Ireland Office has had an opportunity yet to study his recommendations? I appreciate that they were published only in July, but do they agree with them and do they have a timetable to take them forward?
Finally, with the indulgence of the Committee, I turn to issues beyond these regulations. This is the first opportunity that I have had to ask questions of the Minister since the President of the United States visited Ireland, in his usual understated way, at the weekend. Can the Minister say what the position is of His Majesty’s Government on the President’s remarks in support of a united Ireland? Do they, like my right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition and me, regard those comments as deeply unhelpful and irresponsible? What discussions have Ministers had, or plan to have, with the United States Administration following those remarks? Can the Minister reaffirm the position of the Prime Minister using exactly the same words when he said in Belfast recently that a border poll is off the table? Can she reiterate that it is for the people of Northern Ireland alone to determine the constitutional future of Northern Ireland? Finally, can she confirm that it is the clear wish of His Majesty’s Government, as it is my party, that the people of Northern Ireland will always express their desire to remain part of the United Kingdom?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, there was me thinking we were just going to talk about elections in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I immediately confess that one of my ministerial responsibilities is for elections in Northern Ireland. Given the imminent elections, I think that in part answers some of the questions about the timing and further reviews that we may need to undertake. We have an urgency before us to make sure that there is a level playing field for the elections that are about to happen.
I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful consideration and input today. I want to take this opportunity to provide some further detail on some of the points that have been raised. I start with the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Weir, on electoral fraud. He asked several questions; I will have to reflect on some of them and come back to him. On the breakdown of veterans’ cards and the number of veterans who likely to use this form of ID as well as wider forms of ID, that information is not published. We are not sure whether it is collected by the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland, but I shall ask and write to the noble Lord with a follow-up.
The issue of absentee voting was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Weir.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
Just to clarify, although I raised the issue in relation to the veteran card, it was in reference all four forms of identification. I appreciate that the Minister probably does not have the figures in relation to those to hand, but perhaps she could write to me on them.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Absolutely; it is about take-up as well as who is likely to have access to those pieces of ID.
On absentee voting, Northern Ireland security checks are among the most stringent in the whole of the UK. As in the rest of the UK, applications are checked to ensure that the name, address and national insurance number of the applicant are valid. Requiring a digital registration number means a further level of security that does not exist elsewhere; I hope that that is reassuring to the noble Lord, Lord Weir, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie.
Noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Ritchie and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, touched on the potential issue of electoral fraud. The Government, the Chief Electoral Officer and the Electoral Commission are all clear that there is no current evidence of organised electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. Research commissioned by the Electoral Commission following the 2024 general election suggested that public confidence in the electoral system is growing, but this does not mean that we should not always be vigilant about current initiatives—especially as the use of technologies develops—and about what people can and cannot access.
On the addition of new IDs and communication, my noble friend Lady Ritchie was absolutely right about making sure that people have enough time to know what is coming in front of them. I assure her that the Government have been working closely with the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland and the Electoral Commission on these changes. They will publicise the changes in their literature and voter information campaigns. This is why it is so important that we do these SIs now: so that both voters and future candidates are aware of the changes that are in front of them.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, asked whether any other ID documents are being considered. The Government have not seen any demands or had any requests for additional pieces of identification, so we have not considered any and dismissed them. However, as and when other forms of ID appear, we will keep electoral legislation under constant review in case there is additional demand.
The noble Lord also mentioned postal ballots and their reissue. Given my ministerial responsibilities, I would very much welcome the opportunity to have a meeting with the noble Lord to discuss what can and cannot be done in that space.
The noble Lord, Lord Caine, raised two issues—well, more than two, but I will come on to his last one right at the end. On ID for voters at 16, we will consider what measures in the system may need to be updated to ensure that 16 and 17 year-olds are able to vote at polling stations in Northern Ireland as the legislation that is currently being discussed in the Chamber progresses through your Lordships’ House.
On a change to make bank cards eligible voter ID, let me be clear that there are no plans for that to happen in Northern Ireland, given the wider context; the noble Lord will know that context well, and the Committee will be aware of the specific challenges that we have faced in Northern Ireland. There has been a requirement to show photographic ID in Northern Ireland since 2003; this is not the same as the requirement in England. The voter ID system in Northern Ireland is well established, and the Electoral Commission agrees that it is well understood and trusted.
I want briefly to touch on some other issues before I come on to the really easy question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Caine. On the cost of where we are, many Members of your Lordships’ House have, I think, stood for election. It is very easy to underestimate printing costs, especially if you use a trade union printer—as you should—in order to ensure that there are appropriate terms and conditions and that payments are paid to the people actually doing the printing. That has to be reflected in the cost of what we are doing.
Noble Lords raised videos on social media and the demands that are on all of us. Some of these things are mitigating election campaigns, especially for those who are standing not as independents. However, inflationary costs need to be considered. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, rightly raised how much these costs have gone up and the cost increases that we are allowing. These allowances have not been uprated since 2005. Although this is a significant one-off hitch, we need to keep this under review. However, it is important to get the figures done now.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
That is precisely my point. I do not argue with the need to uprate them, for the reasons that the Minister has set out, but why has it taken so long? Why has it been 21 years since there was any change in these limits, given the massive increase in costs that there has been? Can she give a guarantee that, as with the forms of identity, costs will be kept under periodic review and that we will not go for another 20 years without any change in the spending limits?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
It is very easy for me to say “yes” from this Dispatch Box, so I will. There is an issue about how the limits have not been uprated in that time. However, we have been very clear that, in advance of next year’s elections, the uprating must come into effect. This is the first requirement of this Government to ensure that there is a level playing field for elections.
The noble Lord, Lord Bew, raised an important issue about foreign money in elections. The Rycroft review has made significant recommendations on this, all of which the Government have accepted. There is always, as with everything else, a Northern Ireland element to it. I look forward to having discussions with the noble Lord about it as this continues.
The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, raised adding new ID. This is under constant review regarding any new request for ID. We will review as circumstances change and as people use ID in different ways, not least on their phones rather than as physical ID. She also asked an interesting question about the devolution of local government in Northern Ireland. I would prefer to get through next year’s elections before we talk about what comes next but, given the priorities of the Prime Minister, we will undoubtedly have these conversations about what devolution in England means for the rest of the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Caine, raised an important point on the canvass and the NIA response. I have not had advice on this yet but I expect to and I look forward to discussing it with him. I will write to him with that view. On the constitutional settlement of the status of Northern Ireland, President Trump is entitled to his opinion, as is everybody else, but there is no evidence to suggest that the majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to separate from the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister is personally committed to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, as am I. The noble Lord will be aware, as we all are, that the only mechanism for a border poll is determined under the Belfast/Good Friday agreement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
On that easy, cheerful note—I loved the news at the weekend—I know that all noble Lords agree that encouraging participation in our democracy is paramount. I hope that the Committee agree that these instruments enable us to ensure the integrity of the electoral system in Northern Ireland by maintaining the safeguards that are already in place while ensuring that the system adapts and keeps pace with modern practices. I am therefore pleased to be able to introduce these measures.
Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Uprating Election Expenses) Order 2026
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
That the Grand Committee do consider the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Uprating Election Expenses) Order 2026.
Relevant document: 11th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) (Local Elections) (Northern Ireland) Order 2026
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
That the Grand Committee do consider the Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) (Local Elections) (Northern Ireland) Order 2026.
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Leveson of Liverpool
Introduction: Lord McTague
International Financial Fraud
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress in combatting international financial fraud they hope to make during their two-year presidency of the Financial Action Task Force.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, the UK assumed the presidency of the Financial Action Task Force in July and has made tackling fraud its key priority. Under UK leadership, FATF is developing practical steps to help countries prevent, detect and disrupt fraud, particularly scams linked to organised crime groups operating across borders. This work will also focus on strengthening co-operation between Governments, law enforcement, banks, technology companies and online platforms.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I am glad that the British Government are taking the lead in combating international financial fraud and money laundering, particularly now that cryptocurrency and its problems are so much in our minds. I note that one of the Government’s priorities as president is improving information sharing. The British Government are responsible for a large number of Crown dependencies and overseas territories, many of which are offshore financial centres. They do not share information fully, and I note that the British Virgin Islands, for example, are on the FATF’s grey list, which deals with countries with strategic deficiencies in efforts to prevent fraud and money laundering. What do the Government intend to do to make sure that our leadership against financial fraud includes making sure that our overseas territories and Crown dependencies are up to the mark?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an important point. The overseas territories and Crown dependencies are committed to meeting international standards on tax transparency, anti-money laundering and illicit finance. They have committed to introducing publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership, going beyond international standards set by the Financial Action Task Force and putting them ahead of most jurisdictions. The UK Government respect their constitutional autonomy on domestic tax matters while supporting the implementation of these commitments, including through technical assistance and engagement with organisations such as Open Ownership. The overseas territories and Crown dependencies are also independent members of FATF and therefore are subject to those standards that are set out. They have committed to combating financial crime in their relevant jurisdictions.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as a former Minister for the Overseas Territories, I worked closely with our OTs. Many of them represent the best of British and we should stand by and support them. They operated a scheme of exchange of notes, which allowed for legal authorities and tax authorities to get through. Can the Minister reassure me that overseas territories that need support will be supported by His Majesty’s Treasury? Some do not require a SAMLA register: Tristan da Cunha does great lobster, but it is not a centre for financial services. Can the Minister reassure me that we will look at this tactfully and strategically?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I will have to take the noble Lord’s word for it on whether the lobster is any good; being Jewish, it is not really something I would have tried. However, the noble Lord is absolutely right. Where our Crown dependencies require our support, they will get it. Where it is not appropriate for them to operate in that space, it would seem a tad illogical for us to deploy resources in that way.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, will my noble friend encourage positive engagement with the draft international anti-corruption treaty during our presidency?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
How could I say anything other to my noble friend than yes, of course?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Minister may have seen the RUSI paper published in July by Veronica Stratford-Tuke on the UK’s efforts on anti-money laundering, counterterrorism financing and the risks. It says:
“The UK does not appear to have appropriate mechanisms to work through trade-offs between its financial crime risks and competing political objectives”.
Will the noble Baroness acknowledge that that is a problem and see that there is a problem in the Financial Services and Markets Bill, given that it is a Bill to deregulate the financial sector and aim to grow it?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I have seen the report. I disagree with the noble Baroness’s suggestion that we would prioritise political decision-making. Let me just touch on what the Government have done. In terms of fraud action, there are 400 new specialist investigators at the national fraud squad. We have established the National Cyber Security Centre and its early warning service. We have established the Online Crime Centre with the NCA as a public/private initiative. The measures in the Online Safety Act to protect against fraud are now being fully implemented. We have funded the UN and Interpol’s Global Fraud Summit. This Government are doing more than just talking; we are taking action.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, about two or three years ago, FATF removed Cambodia from the risk list. Cambodia is widely seen as one of the most corrupt countries in Asia and is one of the major sources of fraud and scams globally. Given that decision, does the noble Baroness think FATF is fit for purpose?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord will know better than I do that FATF assesses every country, including ours. Where there are concerns, it puts in place an action plan to make sure that people are fully compliant with their commitments under the standards of FATF. Given that we are now the global president for the next two years, I would very much believe us to be fit for purpose.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, stopping the money laundering means stopping the enablers. Will the Government rethink their legislation to transfer from professional bodies to the FCA the direct AML supervision of professional firms? Have they now recognised that the FCA lacks the resources and the expertise but, worst of all, that it has no capacity to provide the myriad small firms with adequate support rather than general guidance, thereby creating huge loopholes?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I appreciate the noble Baroness’s expertise in this area and, while I understand her concerns, the Government do not share them. We have invested a significant amount, not least through the economic crime levy, to protect against AML, which includes an extra £110 million per annum.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, according to a former Minister, 40% of global illicit financial flows pass through the UK, its Crown dependencies and overseas territories. Can the Minister explain why UK Governments continue to fail to curb the flow of illicit financial funds?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord—my noble friend rather, although maybe not based on that question—has significant expertise in this area. While I appreciate his concern, this is of course something that the Government take very seriously, which is one reason why we have been elected to chair the FATF presidency for the next two years. It is also why we are taking action on anti-money laundering and in the fraud space. We are very aware that 47% of all crime in England and Wales is through fraud and we are working to protect the victims of this crime.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, fighting financial fraud is very important, but it imposes huge costs on honest and reputable businesses without always catching the criminals. How do the Government gauge whether regulations and their enforcement, which she described so graphically, are proportionate?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I occasionally agree with the noble Baroness, and in this instance, I find that I do. One of the issues here, though, is the wider cost of fraud to UK plc: it is currently £14 billion a year. While I appreciate the concern about the impact on individual companies, the reality is that there were 6 million attempted frauds in the UK last year, 80% of them were online and 70% had an international dimension. I appreciate the concern, and there is a reason we have been very targeted in the economic crime levy about who is paying for it, but there is a genuine issue here that is undermining us in every corner of the economy.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, I raised this last week, talking about the billions of pounds in fraud. Can the Minister kindly tell me when they are going to recover the millions of pounds of fraud from the noble Baroness, Lady Mone?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend will be aware that there are current, ongoing legal cases, so I cannot comment on an individual case.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I want to return to the question of the overseas territories, recognising the difference between Tristan da Cunha and the Cayman Islands, other than merely the question of lobsters. I speak as a member of the Constitution Committee, where we have urged the overseas territories time and again to come up with bilateral compacts, recognising the differences between the territories and allowing us to judge progress or otherwise in each of them according to their own lights. The slowness of reports coming forward is proverbial, and I wonder if my noble friend the Minister can inject some energy into that process.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend is aware that I tend to inject energy everywhere I go, so I will endeavour to do so here. There are two issues, one of which is about the role of FATF, which undertakes a review of every jurisdiction, as I said. There is a responsibility on us too, but I will have to write to the noble Lord about where we are with the bilateral conversations.
Public Sector Fraud Authority
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Coffey
To ask His Majesty’s Government why they have transferred the Public Sector Fraud Authority from the Cabinet Office to the Department for Work and Pensions, given the function and powers of the Minister of the Cabinet Office set out in Part 1 of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, the Public Sector Fraud Authority’s repositioning into the Department for Work and Pensions reflects the Government’s commitment to tackling public sector fraud. Both organisations will use their unique expertise to tackle fraud and error in welfare and across the public sector. The Treasury will continue to co-sponsor the Public Sector Fraud Authority. A transfer of functions order will ensure that functions under the public authorities Act 2025 are transferred to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I start by saying that this is not intended to be a dig at the First Secretary of State, who I thought was poorly treated by the previous Prime Minister. However, the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act, which we passed only last year, was billed as key to tackling billions of pounds of fraud beyond HMRC and the DWP. It gave many powers solely and specifically to the Minister for the Cabinet Office with regard to tackling fraud and the Public Sector Fraud Authority. How effectively can the powers in this legislation now be deployed? I am surprised to hear that an Order in Council will be sufficient. It is better to get on and just use these powers and not worry about one day’s bad publicity.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The functions under the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act will still be able to be used. They will be appropriately transferred, as I said to the noble Baroness, to a relevant DWP Minister and they will be able to be exercised in the way that the Act intended. In addition, the Public Authorities Fraud Investigation and Enforcement Service, which was established as a result of the Act, will continue to legally pursue cases of fraud against government while the transfer takes place.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, in response to the Public Accounts Committee’s report earlier this year on using data to tackle public sector fraud, the Government committed to supporting a review of relevant legislation, to be concluded by March next year. Can the Minister tell us what forward planning the Government are doing to ensure that any proposals from that review can be put promptly to Parliament? In particular, will she commit that any necessary secondary legislation will come to Parliament before the end of 2027?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
This will all take place when parliamentary time allows. I am happy to make sure that the noble Lord gets a briefing from the relevant team about the progress and where it is all going. We want to make sure that we get this right, but I am happy to arrange for a briefing for the noble Lord.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, when we were debating this Act only about a year ago, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, explained with her usual clarity that the purpose of the PSFA is to drive cross-government collaboration to tackle fraud across all public authorities. In what possible parallel universe can the DWP be the best department to drive cross-government collaboration? Does the Minister perhaps have some examples of where that might have happened?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The DWP is one of the departments that routinely work to tackle fraud, so there is considerable expertise in the department. The Public Sector Fraud Authority will continue to work with all departments and public bodies across the public sector to drive counterfraud performance and accountability, deliver cross-system services and increase counterfraud capability. In our view, this will be further bolstered by its repositioning in the DWP, in that it will be able to learn from existing, mature counterfraud capability in the department to optimise its services, and vice versa.
Lord Redwood (Con)
How much fraud did the PSFA find last year and how much more does it think it will find with the enhanced methods of going about it?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The PSFA has a strong record of delivering beyond its annual financial target. In the 2024-25 financial year, it delivered over £480 million in audited counterfraud benefits, which is a return of £34 for every £1 invested. The PSFA has delivered a total of £1.2 billion in savings since its establishment in 2022. Clearly, it could go further, and we are absolutely determined to make sure that it does.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
Fraud was rife during Covid, both in the loans that were granted when they should not have been and in PPE contracts, for instance. Can the Minister tell us how much has been recovered of that fraud and how much is still outstanding?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right to highlight that there were particular issues in relation to fraud during the pandemic. I will need to write to her about the amount that has been recouped so far, because the figures change on a regular basis. It involves considerable amounts but, obviously, more can be done. I will write to the noble Baroness and make sure that a copy of my letter is placed in the Library.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm whether any investigation, information notice, recovery action or other statutory power has been exercised by DWP Ministers or officials since responsibility for the PSFA was transferred, and whether the Government have taken legal advice on the susceptibility of any such decision to judicial review, if the statutory transfer of functions has not yet taken effect?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
It is in the process of being transferred. My understanding is that this is not holding up enforcement, but I will need to write with a detailed answer to the noble Baroness’s question.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, has the Minister noticed that the opposition parties are very keen on fighting fraud in the welfare system, but they are very slow to fight blue-collar fraud and their own fraud?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I could not possibly comment on that. What I can say is that public sector fraud wastes public money, drives up the deficit and damages the public sector. We are clear that we want to tackle it, and put structures in place to do this. My noble friend is correct, however, that it is not just public sector fraud that affects the public, and we are determined to do whatever we can to keep the public and the public finances as safe as possible from fraud and error.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, these interventions are all very commendable, but are the Government going to get behind the idea of letting those agencies fighting fraud on our behalf retain more of the money they recover so that they can exponentially increase their effectiveness?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
That is a really interesting proposal. I understand from my amazing noble friend Lady Anderson that a number of trials are under way. I am very happy to meet the noble Lord to discuss this, having offered letters to other people—obviously, I am happy to meet any noble Lord at any point.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I was responsible in the Cabinet Office for the fight against public sector fraud—and energetically so. I share my noble friend Lady Coffey’s concern about the move to the DWP, which risks focusing the fight against fraud too narrowly. Is this because it was too awkward a portfolio for the First Secretary of State?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Of course not; I find that an absolutely appalling question. The Public Sector Fraud Authority’s repositioning reflects the Government’s absolute commitment to tackling public sector fraud. Both organisations will use their unique expertise to tackle fraud in welfare and across the public sector. The co-sponsoring by the Treasury of the Public Sector Fraud Authority will enable a cross-government perspective as well, and the transfer of functions order will make sure that its functions are transferred to the DWP Secretary of State.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that whistleblowers have a big role in uncovering public sector fraud? Does she also agree that there is an awful lot more the Government could do both to encourage whistleblowers and to protect their identities? Will she agree with the measures my noble friend Lady Kramer has been talking about for a long time and bring in an office of the whistleblower to make this happen?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord is correct; DBIST is undertaking a review into how this can be achieved.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister acknowledge that our most famous whistleblower here in the House of Lords is probably the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, who was very dissatisfied indeed with the way that fraud was being pursued? Can we ensure that his views are again sought to see whether he feels that sufficient change has been introduced?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I would be very happy to arrange a meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, and I thank my noble friend for that suggestion.
Public Inquiries
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hoey
To ask His Majesty’s Government what criteria are used when deciding on which subjects to carry out public inquiries.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
With apologies to your Lordships’ House, it is me again. Public inquiries can establish facts about what happened in order to learn from events and reduce the likelihood of recurrence. When deciding whether to establish an inquiry, Ministers consider a number of factors including its objectives, whether and why alternatives are not appropriate, the inquiry’s likely duration, the likely costs—including those that are deliverable and realistic—and whether the public interest outweighs those costs.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, why does the Ministry of Defence continue to oppose the requests for a public inquiry from the 29 bereaved families of the Chinook helicopter crash on the Mull of Kintyre? The Ministry of Defence stated that the evidence had already been considered and no further investigation was warranted. However, it is now reviewing thousands of documents and asking the families themselves to help identify the evidence relating to airworthiness. Will His Majesty’s Government please tell the families how this can be reconciled with a Government committed to a duty of candour in the Hillsborough law? Does this not demonstrate precisely why the MoD should not be left to investigate its own conduct, and why an independent review is now necessary to restore the families’ and the public’s confidence? Surely, seeking justice should have no expiry date.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I agree with the noble Baroness that seeking justice should not and must not have an expiry date. The hearts of all of us across your Lordships’ House go out to them, and we extend our sympathy. I understand there have been ongoing discussions and that my noble friend Lord Coaker has met with some of the bereaved families, and I think that there are ongoing discussions within the MoD as well.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will hear from the Cross Benches next.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, given that statutory inquiries are held when events have caused public concern, and often cost tens of millions—if not hundreds of millions—of taxpayers’ money, does the Minister agree that reasons should always be given by Ministers for rejecting inquiry recommendations, so as to ensure due openness and accountability to the public?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord is right in the sense that we think that it is really important that people understand when and why the Government would accept the need for a public inquiry. They are a really important way to investigate issues of concern, particularly around state failures, so that we learn lessons and that events do not happen again. As was reflected in the work of your Lordships’ House’s the Statutory Inquiries Committee, a public inquiry is not always necessarily going to provide the answers and resolution that people expect. One of the things that the Government are doing through the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, in particular through the duty of candour, is to make sure that, among the different types of reviews and inquiries, a statutory inquiry is not the one that has protected characteristics in relation to the responsibility of public servants to tell the truth. The Bill will extend the duty, and we hope this means that people will not necessarily see the need to have a full public inquiry to get answers.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister explain the way that people are chosen to sit on these various inquiries? The reason I ask this is that we had a Select Committee on obesity, which is very much a medical problem. Yet, although there were eight medical Peers available at the time, not one of them was asked to sit on the committee. Would the Minister look into ways of correcting that sort of anomaly, so that rather more balanced outcomes could be produced?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
That is generally a matter for the House, but I think that your Lordships’ House has noted the point.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, for decades the compensation schemes that have flowed from the issues that triggered public inquiries have often had a poor track record. The most recent scheme for victims of infected blood, for example, had to be created because of the many failings of four previous schemes over 40 years, and it seems there is no consistent learning from past mistakes. My noble friend Lady Brinton has campaigned to set up a single compensation body that would oversee schemes and would have that institutional memory, which would indeed save time and money as well as get compensation to victims more quickly. Would the Minister agree to look at that proposal?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I would be very happy to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about the proposal. I understand her concerns about some of the issues that happened with the infected blood compensation schemes and the support schemes previously, having been briefed on those since I became a Minister in the Cabinet Office. We share the ambition of your Lordships and of the Infected Blood Inquiry that fair compensation is delivered as quickly as possible to every eligible person. That has not always felt as easy when there have been compensation schemes, and we want to actively look at ways we can make that feel more victim-centred rather than too bureaucratic.
Lord Doyle (Non-Afl)
My Lords, given recent scandals, it is perhaps not surprising that the public regard judge-led statutory public inquiries as the necessary standard. However, this is not always proportionate. Have the Government given consideration to how they can build confidence in other routes for the public, so that people can still get to truth and justice?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We have an inquiry team within the Cabinet Office that has a formal role advising departments and Ministers both on potential new inquiries and terms of reference, and it also gives advice across government on different routes. We are keen to look at what more we can do to advise the public and campaigners of the different options available. I would be happy to update your Lordships’ House at a future date when we have made more progress with this work.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, the Government accepted a number of recommendations from the Statutory Inquiries Committee’s report, Public Inquiries: Enhancing Public Trust, including on the format of future inquiries, proper consultation of victims and survivors and stronger Cabinet Office capability. When will the Government implement those commitments, and will the House be updated at that point?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am very happy to update the House on progress. Since the work of the House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee, we have undertaken a number of different actions, including launching a publicly accessible tracker reporting progress on delivering inquiry recommendations. We have also amended the Ministerial Code to ensure that Cabinet Office policy expertise informs decisions on establishing public inquiries, and we are looking further at what additional changes can be made to improve the inquiry system. That includes publishing guidance, which is a priority. This will take account of the changes to inquiries that will come into effect following the passage of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, on the earlier question about the importance of publishing a public audit of inquiry recommendations that will and will not be implemented and why, does the Minister agree that, without such a duty of candour, it could fuel mistrust in inquiries, which start to look like expensive ways of shutting down public debate and kicking concerns into the long grass, with no action, no accountability and no transparency?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We are determined that the duty of candour will address some of the concerns that people have had about public inquiries in the past. The length of some public inquiries causes additional trauma for some of the people involved in what are often huge injustices and sometimes major state failures. We are clear that we need to make sure that people get the truth. There have been some issues in the past: for example, some people lied to the Kerslake review into the Manchester Arena attack, but, obviously, the statutory inquiry that followed got answers. We need to make sure that people get the answers, and that is what we think the duty of candour will deliver.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, when looking at public inquiries, could the Minister also look at the issue of the veterans Bill that will come forward? This is the same sort of thing, as it is exposing veterans of conflict in Northern Ireland to inquiries 30 and 40 years later. There is something very odd about this. Could she please look at that as well, because most of us feel that it is unwarranted and disreputable?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I will speak to my noble friend Lady Anderson and my noble friend Lord Coaker regarding the point that the noble Lord raised.
Young People in Scotland: Employment Opportunities
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cameron of Lochiel
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the Employment Rights Act 2025 on employment opportunities for young people in Scotland.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Lord Sarwar) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have published a comprehensive assessment of the Employment Rights Act in consultation with experts. The assessment shows that the Act could benefit 18 million workers across the UK and could increase employment. Our analysis further shows that young workers stand to be amongst the biggest beneficiaries of these reforms. Scotland is also expected to benefit more significantly, with around 55% of workers projected to gain from the Act.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
I begin by warmly welcoming the Minister to his first Question at the Dispatch Box. In the latest labour market trends published by the Scottish Government, the unemployment rate of those aged 16 and over in Scotland was estimated at 5.1%, up 1.4% over the year, and above the UK rate of 4.9%. We know that the Employment Rights Act will take effect over the coming months. The views of these Benches on the deficiencies in that legislation are well-known. What contingency measures are Ministers putting in place, should the Employment Rights Act lead to even higher levels of unemployment among young people in Scotland?
Lord Sarwar (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for the question. He and I debated these issues in a very different Parliament not so long ago, and I am sure that neither of us imagined we would be debating in this Chamber today. As he knows, a lot of these responsibilities are devolved, so we have to make an assessment of the impact of the Employment Rights Act; but let us not forget that the Scottish Government are responsible for schools, high schools, colleges, universities, apprenticeships, the apprenticeship levy rates and so much more. Therefore, although we are confident that the Employment Rights Act will not have a detrimental impact on young workers, we need fundamental reform in Scotland in those other areas.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge that numerous tax and regulation actions are undertaken by both the UK Government and the Scottish Government that have an impact on job prospects for young people in Scotland, yet both Governments operate separate, unconnected programmes in Scotland to address youth unemployment? Would it be better if the two Governments worked together to find ways of jointly attacking the problem of youth unemployment, and, given that the Minister has experience of both this House and the Scottish Parliament, is he not the right Minister to lead that initiative?
Lord Sarwar (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. He can pay me all the compliments he likes—I will happily take them. Of course, on principle we should work together whenever it is in the national interest, and there will be different responsibilities of the Government here at Westminster and the Government in Scotland. For example, we have responsibility for the Employment Rights Act and the campaign to make work pay, along with increasing the national minimum wage for young people. We have the jobs guarantee scheme, and we have committed an additional £2.5 billion over the next three years to the youth guarantee scheme, as well as reforming the growth and skills levy. Of course, responsibility for how that levy is spent in Scotland is for the Scottish Government. Therefore, I accept the principle of the argument the noble Lord is making, and we stand ready to work with the Government in Scotland to deliver for Scotland’s amazing young people.
Baroness MacLeod of Camusdarach (Lab)
My Lords, the unemployment figures for young people in Scotland make pretty grim reading—the NEET figures are going up. In the West Highlands and Islands of Scotland, there are great employment opportunities, whether it is renewable energy, fishing, tourism or dry dock facilities. However, there is very little infrastructure, there are very few houses, and there seems to be an ignorance of the problems facing the area. Can my noble friend mobilise his department and other Whitehall departments and work, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, has said, with the Scottish Government to make sure that those sins of omission are corrected?
Lord Sarwar (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question and agree with her wholeheartedly. I repeat what I said to the noble Lord: we stand ready to work with the Scottish Government on these issues. I will give the example of an area that is of course of real importance to my noble friend: the Western Isles. There we have a particular challenge, with a ferry service that is not competent, meaning that there is loss of trade almost every week. Services are being taken away—for example, around our skills system—and resources are being taken away from the university based there and in the highlands. In addition, too many young people are being forced to leave the Western Isles because they cannot get adequate housing to bring up their young families. This shows that we need a joined-up approach, and the Government stand ready to do that. However, I again urge the Scottish Government to take much more action on all these issues, rather than undertaking stunts in other parts of the country such as the one they engaged in today.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his place. To some extent he has touched on this in his previous answer, but does he agree that the Scottish First Minister would be better placed dealing with practical priorities such as co-operating with the UK Government on issues such as youth unemployment, rather than engaging in performative pantomime politics such as meeting the leaders of Plaid Cymru and Sinn Féin today?
Lord Sarwar (Lab)
I emphasise again that of course, I and the First Minister of Scotland have a different view on the constitution of the UK and the constitution in Scotland. However, to be honest, the most meaningful thing the First Minister of Scotland, and indeed the First Minister of Wales and the First and Deputy First Ministers of Northern Ireland, can do is deliver for their populations. When in Scotland we have rising youth unemployment, ever-longer NHS waiting lists and too many children leaving school without the opportunities they deserve, those are the issues the Scottish Government should be grappling with every day, rather than gathering in Cardiff to sign a piece of paper and perform a stunt, acting against the interests of the good people of Scotland.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I, too, welcome the noble Lord to his ministerial position; I think this House is greatly enhanced by people who served in the Scottish Parliament, personally, and I wish him luck in his role. The area where I live, the Scottish Borders, has the lowest average working wage, and we also have too high levels of outward migration of those in the workforce, including young people. Working across the border, businesses have to navigate both devolved and reserved legislation, and when Governments are not working together in an area such as the Scottish Borders, that exacerbates the problem rather than resolves it. What initiatives can the Minister take with his colleagues here to ensure that in the Border area, cross-border work is enhanced rather than diminished?
Lord Sarwar (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. The Borderlands Inclusive Growth Deal is a good example of local authorities, the Scottish Government and the UK Government working together to drive investment into the Borderlands area—exports out and investments in—to create more opportunities. Let me emphasise again: in far too many parts of Scotland, young people are forced to leave because there is no access to local skills, well-paid local jobs or local housing. Many of those young people leave and never go back, and that is unfair for far too many parts of our country.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, the Interministerial Group for Business and Industry last met on 3 February by videophone. The communique lays out the four items that were discussed, which did not include this very important area. Will the Minister, whom I welcome to his position, tell us when the interministerial group will meet again and whether he will undertake to make sure that this issue is on the list of items to be discussed when it does?
Lord Sarwar (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl for his question. We were due to meet last week, but, sadly, Ministers in the devolved Administrations had to rearrange. I look forward to meeting very soon, and I will ensure that youth unemployment is high up the agenda.
Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, as ACAS research has shown, commercial and competitive success in delivering job opportunities is much more likely to be achieved in workplaces where people feel valued and respected and their voice can be heard—key objectives being delivered by the Employment Relations Act, in Scotland as in England and Wales?
Lord Sarwar (Lab)
I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend. Let me again demonstrate how important these reforms are. In April 2026, the Government strengthened statutory sick pay, introduced day-one rights to paternity leave and unpaid parental leave, and launched the Fair Work Agency. Further measures will be delivered in phases through 2026 and 2027, giving businesses and workers time to prepare. Let me emphasise a point I have not had a chance to make so far. The significant rise in the national minimum wage for young people is good, I believe, for employers and workplaces and for employees. I think it is perfectly fair that if a person is doing the same work, they should rightly expect to have the same pay.
Lord Jack of Courance (Con)
I welcome the Minister to his place. I know him well and I have done business with him in the past, and he is very welcome in this House. Does he agree that increasing taxes is a drag not only on job creation but also on growth?
Lord Sarwar (Lab)
Let me first emphasise that that was political business in the past, in case I get in trouble with the relevant authorities about my entry in the register of interests. Of course, you have to look at all these areas with the right balance to make sure we have the right fiscal arrangements in place, the right levels of pay and the right conditions. We also have to make sure that there is a more joined-up approach. To give an example, it is right that we increase the pay for young people—most disproportionately, young people working, for example, in the hospitality and retail sector; but if we are honest, nor is there a balanced or level playing field in our business rate system for the retail and hospitality sector.
Hospitality Industry: VAT
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Wirral
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following a letter signed by more than 800 hospitality industry leaders calling for VAT on hospitality to be reduced from 20 per cent to 10 per cent, what assessment they have made of the impact of rising costs on (1) hospitality businesses, (2) investment, (3) employment and (4) opportunities for young people.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Lord Pitt-Watson) (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by recognising and thanking the hospitality businesses for their enormous contribution to jobs—it is nearly 3 million jobs—and to growth, communities and the economy. I think it is nearly a £100 billion contribution to the economy. They have seen rising costs, some to do with national insurance and many to do with rising food and labour costs. But the Government are providing targeted support to the sector, including lower business rates multipliers, a £4.3 billion business rates support scheme and the Great British Summer Savings scheme, but they are doing that while ensuring sustainable public finances. I must come back to that, because HMRC estimates that reducing VAT on accommodation and food and beverage services to 10% would cost around £11 billion a year. I think this figure is already known publicly.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has acknowledged that over the past two years hospitality has experienced higher cost, but it is nothing but higher cost, imposed in particular by this Government, from employment costs and business rates pressures to regulation, and now it faces the prospect of potentially sky-high holiday taxes. In February the Prime Minister, when Mayor of Greater Manchester, said he favoured halving VAT on hospitality to 10%,
“because of the social value that your businesses bring to places and towns that need that life injected into them”.
Will the Prime Minister now listen to himself and the 800 hospitality businesses and industry leaders who have written to him, and will he now cut VAT to support, in particular, our small business sector?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
I cannot comment about changes in taxation, particularly in the run-up to the Budget, but if I might just correct the noble Lord, the point I made in my first Answer was that there has been support given, particularly to pubs and music venues. Support has been given particularly to smaller businesses—750,000 properties—and in reductions in national insurance to 900,000 people who work for smaller businesses. The corporation tax here in the UK is the lowest in the G7 and it is reduced for small businesses, so I reject the thought that no help has been given.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, back in November 2025 my party called for a 5% cut in VAT on hospitality because the situation was so dire, with at least a third of the industry operating at a loss. Will the Minister now look again at the VAT cut? Will he also follow through on those other issues where small businesses need help, such as a different regime for NICs for part-time workers? Will he look at their energy costs, because most of them cannot access the attractive energy packages as they are not available to the small firms? The change in business rates favours the corporate chains but actually disadvantages most of the small independents. They are the backbone and they are the employers, especially of our young people.
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
I entirely echo the noble Baroness’s congratulations to the hospitality industry. I will be more than happy to answer the questions she has asked after the Budget, but I think most of them anticipate changes in tax, which it would be inappropriate for me to discuss at this point.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend on the Front Bench, and to the House, for jumping the gun in my attempt to ask a question. I listened carefully to what the Minister said. I think he accepted that the industry is under a great deal of pressure, because he talked about some of the areas where the Government are attempting to help. Can I press him on the point that my noble friend raised? Given that the industry is under pressure, how on earth will allowing mayors around the country to impose a tax on people going on holiday help anybody with the cost of living?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
As the noble Lord may be aware, those sorts of rights exist for mayors and other local authorities in almost every other European country. In the UK they will need to consult locally before they introduce any such tax, but many mayors will believe that the extra revenues can raise the economy of their local area and provide better facilities so that the hospitality industry, along with everyone else, will prosper. As I said, this is part of a devolution agenda, but it is one where there will be consultation before any additional charge is introduced. It will be proportionate, of course, in the sense that it is a percentage of the cost, so it would cost more for an expensive hotel than for lower-cost accommodation.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, picking up on that point, does the Minister agree that a tourist tax spent in the main on arts and culture would be logical, since that is what tourists come here for? If our cultural attractions are properly maintained and developed, that will in turn significantly help the hospitality industry.
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
That is a really good question that mayors and local authorities around the country will have to think about—how they make their towns attractive to tourists and nice places to come and visit and therefore support the hospitality industry and the wider community.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that everyone would like a tax cut? Any individual, company or sector will want tax cuts, but you have to be responsible. The Truss Government were not responsible and that set the bond markets off and caused a lot of the problems that we are experiencing now.
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. It brings me back to the fundamental question that we have to think about, which is that we can live only within our means. A VAT cut of 10 percentage points would cost £11 billion. That is about the same cost as the Royal Navy. We need to ask ourselves what the priorities will be. As we look to the Budget, I know that the Chancellor will be looking at absolutely everything, but I thought that benchmark might be helpful for your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister stated his support for the tourist tax, but the impact assessment of it has not really been made and some parts of the country will do better than others. Can the Minister say what assessment the Government have made, despite the fact that it is potentially a devolution area?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
The assessment is that this should be in the power of the local authority. It will be devolved. On any cost-benefit analysis that has been done, given that I was alerted to this Question only two hours ago, I do not have that with me. If I could write to the noble Baroness, I would be happy so to do.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I do not believe the Minister had the pleasure of participating in the Employment Rights Bill, and I will not relitigate the entire debate, but the legislation undertakes to substantially change the zero-hours regulations that affect many of the businesses that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned. Does the Minister acknowledge that the consultation now and the decisions that will be made as a result of that consultation—how those changes are applied, and in particular the threshold at which they are applied—will materially affect these businesses and existentially affect some of them? Does he undertake to make sure that when those regulations are published, they take into consideration the health of this sector?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
I will try to answer more broadly about employment. The UK employment rate is in the top half of OECD economies. It is above the G7 average. Unemployment is in the bottom half of the OECD. Participation among 16 to 64 year-olds is higher than the average participation rate in every year but one of the last 50 years. The Government are increasing funding for employment support to more than £4 billion a year, including £2.5 billion investment in the youth guarantee and the growth and skills levy in the next three years, supporting 500,000 opportunities to earn and learn in the hospitality industry and all other industries. As I say, we are faced with many challenges ahead of us, but I believe that what the Government are doing in this area is correct.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, the Minister raised the importance of copying Europe with the tourist tax, but many European countries—all of them, I think—have a VAT discount on tourist shopping, one of the things the last Government sadly did away with. This has a huge impact on the retail, hotel and hospitality sectors. The Minister is not going to give me a sneak preview of the Budget, but can the Government at least look imaginatively at trying to find a way to attract tourists back into this country to spend their money? Then socialist mayors around the country can charge them even more for their hotel tax.
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
As the noble Lord says, I am not going to give him a sneak preview of the Budget.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, the greatest impact of this tourist tax will be on those who have to go on holiday during the most expensive weeks of the year—in other words, families with school-aged children. Does the Minister agree? Can he give us an indication of how much it is likely to cost such a family? I assume the impact assessment does this.
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
We have not made a specific assessment of that number, no.
Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)
My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that mayors in my former region of the north-west have for several years been championing the tourist tax to boost their local economies and local employment?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
I absolutely am. Indeed, I was at one time a councillor in a Conservative borough in London that also championed a tourist tax. It is a good idea, but the decisions about the tourist tax should be local decisions for the local authority to make.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, the Minister uses a European example: most countries abroad seem to have a holiday tax, so it must be a good idea here. I know this Government love most things EU-related, but many EU countries have a lower rate of VAT on hospitality, for a very good reason—because it is a good thing. The Government have already crossed their own Rubicon with a lower rate of VAT for this summer period for many families to enjoy things as a cost of living cut. Surely a lower VAT rate on hospitality follows the same example and thinking that the Government have already found.
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
I think I am struggling to get across my main point here. If I could halve VAT for every industry in Britain and it had no knock-on consequences, that would be wonderful. But this has £11 billion of knock-on consequences. The thing that noble Lords need to think about is not whether it would be nice not to charge people money. Of course we would rather not charge people money. But if the Exchequer loses £11 billion, where is that funding going to come from?
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions. Given that tourism is probably the number one industry in more parliamentary constituencies than any other single private sector industry, is it not time, to demonstrate and reflect its importance, to bring tourism into the title of DCMS?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
I will pass on that thought to the DCMS Minister. I thank the noble Lord.
Air Traffic Control Disruption
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, last week was a catastrophe for many families and businesspeople trying to go about their business, sleeping in airports and barely recovering, even days later, back on to the routes that they wanted to pursue. The day before this calamitous event, the noble Lord’s colleague in the other place, Keir Mather, said in response to a Written Question that all 34 recommendations from the inquiry into the previous NATS calamity in 2023 had been implemented. The very next day, it happened again. Do the Government still have confidence in the management of NATS? When are they going to get a grip?
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I first make it clear that this was an unacceptable event, and I apologise to passengers and others affected. The event was less than a week ago, last Tuesday afternoon, and the Secretary of State, the Aviation Minister and my department were all completely focused on alleviating the effects of this while it was going on—relaxing controls on night flights and so on—while of course making sure that safety was not compromised. The Secretary of State and the Aviation Minister met the chief executives of NATS and the Civil Aviation Authority the following morning, and the Secretary of State has commissioned a report into this event from NATS and asked it to report to her this Wednesday. The noble Lord should think this a very quick response, because the Government, as with everyone else, do not want these things to happen and regard it as unacceptable, but need to understand why it happened and what needs to be done to prevent it again.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, we have had three of these major events in a short period of time. When are we going to get a system to give some compensation to, or look after, those who have been inconvenienced? It is a great way to encourage people to get something right if they have to pay for it when it goes wrong.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I think the noble Lord was not intimately involved with the passage of the civil aviation Bill, which went through this House just a few short sitting weeks ago. On that Bill, there was a discussion, on an amendment principally proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Young, about whether there should be compensation. As the Minister handling the Bill in Committee and on Report, I took great succour from the statements of the noble Lord, Lord Harper, who was the Secretary of State during the last of those events. He said this:
“The conclusion that I came to was that, if you were to change the position so that NATS was responsible for paying compensation, almost half the bill would land on the taxpayer, just over 40% of it would effectively end up on a different group of airlines—not necessarily all the ones hit by it—and a little bit would effectively land on the staff. The conclusion that I reached was that that did not really get you to a significantly better place than the current position, accepting that the current position is suboptimal”.—[Official Report, 16/6/26; col. GC67.]
That is what he said at the time, and that is currently the view of the Government.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I have the deepest respect for my noble friend Lord Harper, but three former Secretaries of State for Transport took a different view from the one the noble Lord has just read out. When NATS makes mistakes, the airlines pick up the tab. Last week, the airlines had pilots in the wrong place, planes in the wrong place and pilots running out of hours. Is it not a manifest injustice that the airlines have to pick up the tab for the failures of NATS, which recently paid a dividend of £171 million?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord is of course echoing the case he made during the passage of the civil aviation Bill, which the Government disagreed with. Of course the event is unacceptable and we need to get to the bottom of it. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said it was another event and of course it is, but it looks, certainly at the moment, as though it is not the same event as in 2023. The Secretary of State and the department are relentlessly focused on finding out what the cause was and on preventing it happening again, which is the way to avoid costs such as the ones the noble Lord referred to being incurred.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
In the absence of any back-up, as I understand it, is it sensible that eight airports were operated by only one system?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble and learned Baroness is certainly right that these systems have to be and should be more resilient than they are. The Secretary of State has recently written to the Civil Aviation Authority with its priorities for the next period of time, and top of the list of priorities for National Air Traffic Services is making it more resilient, for precisely that reason. How it is organised and how many airports it covers is a different question and relates to the geography of the United Kingdom. We have not heard it previously suggested that somehow the geography of what NATS covers ought to be different. It ought to be reliable.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, the Minister knows that I was one of the former Secretaries of State sympathetic to my noble friend Lord Young, and I hope his point will be considered again by the Government. More seriously, has there been anything so far to suggest that the trouble last week could have been caused by an external influence? Even if that proves not to be the case, does the Minister agree that the resilience of our system is exceptionally important? We saw last week what happens if the system breaks down. Will the Government commit to reviewing exactly how resilient it is, in what are somewhat troubled times?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The Secretary of State and the department are assured that there is no evidence at the present time of external influences. Therefore, we are waiting for the immediate report from National Air Traffic Services and the independent review that the Secretary of State commissioned at the same time from the Civil Aviation Authority. For more or less precisely the reasons the noble Lord set out, we need to be assured that this system is absolutely resilient. He is right that we live in troubled times; one of the things that needs to be reviewed is not only the absolute resilience of the system but its resilience against unfriendly actors and third parties.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I used to be a government director of the PPP for NATS. In those days, the airlines made up 51% of the ownership of the operation. Has that changed? Do they still have an interest? Have they been canvassed on the views that have been expressed in the Chamber?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My noble friend is right that the ownership has changed. The airlines and one or two other institutions now account, I think, for around 40% of the shareholding. The work that the Secretary of State commissioned the morning following the incident originated because it was the right thing for a Secretary of State to do—both the immediate report from NATS, due on Wednesday, and the CAA report. I have no doubt that the board of NATS will consider this in due course, but it is right for public accountability that the Secretary of State decided to commission those two reports. I am sure the board and the shareholders of NATS know, but I do not think she asked permission and I do not think that is what the noble Lord is suggesting—but that would not have been right in any event.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
Given that this constituted a major incident, what provision was made to ensure that the airport was cleared of passengers by making transport available to move them out of the airport? Some passengers could not deplane for more than five hours because the airport was over-congested. In a major incident, the usual policy is partly to have the crowd dispersed.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that, in these circumstances, people who are affected, particularly those waiting on planes, should be affected for the least amount of time and enabled to find the best possible care and assistance that they need. That is a responsibility of the airports concerned and of the airlines. Those entitlements are set out in UK law. During the civil aviation Bill, in this Chamber we discussed giving the Civil Aviation Authority stronger powers to take action to ensure that consumers are properly dealt with. I do not know the detail of what the noble Baroness has said, but I will go away and ask.
Representation of the People Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to open this Second Reading debate on the Representation of the People Bill. Noble Lords across the House bring great experience of electoral law, electoral administration and the practical operation of our democracy. I look forward to the contributions that will be made today and to the constructive scrutiny that our House will bring to the Bill.
This Bill renews our democracy for a new generation, opening up participation and strengthening the integrity of our elections. It restores confidence, reinforcing trust with stronger political finance rules and better protections against harassment and intimidation, closing down opportunities for those who would seek to undermine our democracy. But it would be wrong to introduce this debate without acknowledging and reflecting on events of recent times.
When I catch the 6.15 am or the 6.31 am train from Stevenage to London in the mornings, I share the carriages of that train and then the Underground with people whose interests are at the heart of our community: tradespeople, in their steel-toecap boots; public sector workers, including those in blue light services, heading for their early shifts; and small business owners getting an early start to prepare for their day. It is a fundamental principle of our democracy that every one of their votes is exactly equal to the votes of millionaires, crypto bros and industry magnates. It is that which sits front and centre in this Bill.
We must put politics back under public control. We all share concerns about the rise of big money and its ability to dominate public power. At its heart, this Bill is about renewing the foundations of our electoral system so that it remains fair, secure, transparent and accessible in the years ahead. At the Last Night of the Proms on Saturday, the conductor, Sakari Oramo, referred to another version of AI, which was authenticity and integrity. That must sit at the heart of electoral reform, so that we restore the confidence of the 6 am crew that their voice really counts.
Delivering on our manifesto commitment, this Bill extends the franchise to eligible 16 and 17 year-olds for UK parliamentary elections and other reserved and excepted polls. It enables more automated forms of electoral registration, broadens the forms of voter identification that may be used at polling stations, and makes a range of changes to the conduct and administration of elections, referendums and recall petitions. The Bill strengthens the rules on political donations and expenditure, including measures to reduce the risk of foreign money entering our politics. It improves transparency in digital campaigning material, strengthens enforcement and information sharing by the Electoral Commission, and requires tougher sentencing where offences are aggravated by hostility towards candidates, elected officeholders, campaigners or electoral staff.
Opportunities for those who seek to undermine or illicitly influence our democracy must and will be closed down. This Bill responds directly to a changing and increasingly hostile threat environment and takes action to tackle risks by strengthening safeguards, closing loopholes and hardening defences. Taken together, these measures will help deliver a modern, secure and inclusive electoral system. They will support public confidence, protect our democracy from those who would seek to undermine it and open participation to a new generation of voters.
The Bill is ambitious but practical. It addresses the everyday operation of democracy: who can take part, how they register and vote, how campaigns are funded and conducted, and how the rules are enforced. The balance is important. The Government are not seeking reform for their own sake. The measures in the Bill respond to real changes in political campaigning, how people participate in politics and how threats to democratic confidence can arise. Some of these changes are technological, some are administrative and some reflect the need to ensure that our democratic arrangements command confidence across generations. The Bill therefore looks both to the integrity of the system and to the experience of those who use it: voters, candidates, parties, campaigners and electoral administrators.
The Bill is not the totality of our ambition for electoral reform; work will continue. As a first step, the First Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for MHCLG have written to the Electoral Commission to review spending limits, which we believe are too high. We are establishing a cross-government task and finish team to consider threats to UK democracy, including political funding, illegitimate influence and broader threats to political equality.
As noble Lords would expect, the Bill has not remained frozen in aspic since its introduction; it has continued to develop through scrutiny, engagement and the Government’s consideration of how best to give effect to its objectives. During its Commons stages, the Government brought forward both substantive and technical amendments to strengthen the Bill in response to points raised by Members and to ensure it better delivers its policy intent.
For example, the Government brought forward amendments to strengthen the “know your donor” requirements and further tighten the rules relating to donations made by unincorporated associations. Those changes were designed to improve transparency and ensure that the political finance regime keeps pace with the risks it is intended to address. These risks cannot be overstated. The threat to our democracy from foreign influence and hidden sources of political funding are an ever-growing danger—one that we cannot afford to delay tackling.
Responding to further evidence of the threat we face—namely, the conviction of Nathan Gill, as well as cases such as Christine Lee—we commissioned Philip Rycroft to review foreign financial influence and interference in politics. His report was thorough and challenging, and the Government have accepted its recommendations. Safeguarding the integrity, transparency and fairness of our electoral system is a fundamental priority, and the Bill provides an important vehicle for taking that work forward.
A number of recommendations from the Rycroft review were therefore implemented through amendments made to the Bill on Report in the Commons. Those amendments form a significant part of the Government’s wider response to the risks identified by the review. The first of those changes concerns crypto assets. The current political donations framework does not sufficiently reflect the particular risks that crypto assets can present, including the difficulty of identifying the true source of a donation. That creates a risk that malign actors, including state actors, could seek to obscure the origin of the funds. The Bill therefore introduces a ban on the use of crypto assets as a means of making political donations. To support that change, the Government have amended the Bill to clarify the meaning of a donation under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. That will ensure that property, including crypto assets transferred to a party to meet an expense, is treated as a donation, so that the law cannot be circumvented simply because value is transferred through property rather than cash.
The Bill caps donations to registered political parties by overseas electors at £100,000. This also applies to individuals who were formerly resident outside the UK, who are subject to the cap for a minimum of a calendar year after arrival here. That responds to concerns identified by the Rycroft review: first, that the origin of funds from overseas donors can be harder to trace; and, secondly, that democratic fairness may be put at risk if individuals are able to make unlimited donations into the political system while having only a limited connection to public life in the United Kingdom.
Further amendments change the test for company donations so that it is based on profit rather than revenue. That change follows careful consideration of the Rycroft review and engagement with stakeholders. Profit provides a clearer indication of a company’s financial position and helps ensure that donations come from companies undertaking genuine economic activity.
The Bill was also amended to implement the Rycroft recommendation that the Electoral Commission’s information-sharing powers should be extended. This will enable the commission to receive relevant information from relevant public authorities as defined in the Bill, supporting more effective regulation of political finance and a better understanding of emerging risks. The Government also amended the Bill to extend the commission’s powers to require disclosure of information outside a formal investigation, allowing the commission to more proactively monitor compliance, support timely regulation during election periods, and take a more proportionate and effective approach to enforcement.
Beyond the Rycroft recommendations, on Report the Government introduced a targeted regulation-making power into the Bill to allow key political finance restrictions, including those relating to crypto assets, overseas elector donation caps and company donations, to be extended beyond political parties via secondary legislation in the future. This is to ensure that malign actors cannot circumvent the rules by providing to other non-party regulated donees.
While much of the consideration of the Bill so far has been focused on strengthening the political finance provisions, the Government tabled further amendments on Report to extend the maximum duration of longer-term postal and proxy postal voting arrangements from three years to five, and to better align the duration of anonymous elector registration provisions with those changes. These changes will provide greater clarity and consistency while reducing repeated administrative burdens on people who may already be vulnerable.
The Government have also amended the Bill to clarify when an overseas elector may be removed from the electoral register. Overseas electors must satisfy specific eligibility requirements when they register. Although registration lasts for three years, circumstances may change during that period. These amendments ensure that an individual who no longer meets the requirements can be removed, helping electoral registers remain accurate. Taken together, the Commons amendments strengthen the public scrutiny of political finance, reduce avoidable administrative burdens and ensure that the Bill responds sensibly to modern forms of participation, campaigning and donation.
As the Bill has progressed, our desire to engage with all interested parties and our willingness to listen to opposing viewpoints has continued. Following the strength of feeling expressed at Second Reading in the House of Commons, the Government tabled an amendment in Committee to repeal the Government’s powers to designate a strategy and policy statement to which the Electoral Commission must have regard. That repeal supports our manifesto commitment to strengthen democracy and uphold the integrity and independence of the Electoral Commission.
The Government have committed to tabling an amendment during the Bill’s passage through this House to strengthen accessibility at polling stations for voters with disabilities. We will develop that amendment in the spirit of the new clause brought forward on Report in the Commons, working with interested Members of both Houses to ensure that any new provision is proportionate, practical and deliverable.
In addition to introducing a robust regime that ensures that donors contributing above the £100,000 annual cap must demonstrate a genuine and ongoing connection to the United Kingdom, we are considering how we will strengthen the residency requirements, including ensuring that the length of time spent in the UK aligns with broader government policy. We will continue to engage with political parties bilaterally and through the Parliamentary Parties Panel, and we will provide the House with further details in due course. I am keen for that spirit of constructive engagement to continue as the Bill proceeds through this House. I have hosted a drop-in session for all Peers, and I have been pleased to meet a number of noble Lords separately. Throughout the passage of this Bill, my door will remain open to those who wish to discuss any aspect of it with me.
Outside this House, we have worked and will continue to work with bodies such as the Parliamentary Parties Panel and stakeholders across the electoral sector to ensure that the Bill operates effectively for political parties, electors and administrators. We have also engaged with Ministers and officials in the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, recognising that implementation will require continued close working with the devolved Governments and legislative consent in those areas within the responsibility of the devolved legislatures.
I also recognise that successful implementation will matter as much as the legislation itself. Electoral administrators, returning officers and those who support the running of elections locally will be central to making many of these reforms work in practice. The Government will continue to engage closely with them as the Bill progresses and as the necessary secondary legislation, guidance and operational changes are developed. We want reforms that are ambitious but also workable, clear and capable of commanding confidence on the ground.
Democracy is not sustained by institutions and legislation alone. It depends on people believing that their voice matters, that the rules are fair and that the outcome of an election reflects the free choice of the electorate. That confidence must never be taken for granted. This is a substantial and important set of reforms to electoral law. I know that noble Lords will bring expertise, rigour and practical insight to its consideration. I look forward to engaging with those debates in the constructive spirit in which the Bill has been developed. I beg to move.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, it is an understatement to say that this is a constitutionally significant Bill. Particularly at a time when the political landscape is so turbulent, this is where your Lordships’ House proves its worth—with careful, considered scrutiny to improve the Government's legislation as best we can. Indeed, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is driven by the need for this thorough scrutiny, and I thank him. I thank all those who are speaking today; I am sure that a number of very important matters will be raised, and we will be listening to them very closely.
The Bill seeks not only to give children the right to vote in all elections but introduces automatic voter registration, reforms political finance law and tackles foreign interference, while potentially leaving the door open for foreign citizens to vote. I also flag that the Bill was drafted with minimal engagement with other political parties. The Electoral Commission has said that
“any legislative change on elections should be informed by the experience and insight of the electoral community, including electoral administrators, political parties and the wider regulated community”.
There was no consultation with political parties on the 2025 election strategy, nor after the initial Rycroft recommendations. Why did the Government not wait two months until the Rycroft review was completed before proceeding with Second Reading of the Bill in the other place?
If the Government wanted to fast-track their manifesto commitments on the voting age, why could they not separate the election measures from the political finance measures, as indeed the last Labour Government did with the Representation of the People Act 2000 and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000? This is not how election rules should be reformed. As Sir Winston Churchill said at the Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill in 1948:
“It has become a well-established custom that matters affecting the interests of rival parties should not be settled by the imposition of the will of one side over the other, but by an agreement”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/2/1948; cols. 859-60.]
Some of the provisions are indeed deeply troubling and risk setting dangerous precedents. Bills such as these should not be hyper-partisan, particularly in complex areas such as political finance. Even just the perception of partisan, targeted legislation risks breaking down long-standing political conventions and, crucially, trust in the system. We will all have heard the reports this weekend of crypto donations to Reform UK. It is our current understanding that these donations would be caught by the overseas contributors cap, but I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify how this proposed cap would work. Do the cap’s provisions apply to long-standing domestic electors and not just to overseas electors and overseas electors who return to domestic registration?
Can the noble Baroness confirm the requirement for a full calendar year of prior UK residence when making a donation? The legislation commences these provisions retrospectively from March 2026, but the calendar year of UK residence requirement may predate March 2026. If an elector has dual permanent residence at home and abroad, would this class the elector as an overseas contributor? It is important that laws are clear. I would be happy for the Minister to write to me on this matter if she so wishes.
As to the Bill’s other provisions, let me be very clear that we will not stand in the way of the Government’s manifesto commitment to lower the voting age. Noble Lords opposite may see themselves as having a monopoly on progress, but I gently remind them that when the Reform Act 1832 was passed—they know the answer—the Conservatives won the general election in 1841. It was the Conservatives who championed the Reform Act 1867, and we once again defied expectations following the Reform Act 1884, when the Liberals lost their majority in 1885 and the Conservatives returned to power in 1886. When women finally got the vote in the following decades, they were more likely to vote Conservative than men—very sensible. And when the voting age was lowered to 18 in 1969, the Conservatives won the general election the following year. From the days of the Primrose League to our Young Conservatives today, we will never be afraid of making our case to the British people.
However, the Government’s position in this Bill is inconsistent with their policies elsewhere, which raises serious questions. The Government must decide whether they see 16 and 17 year-olds as children, in line with the Children Act and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. If not, then why not 15 year-olds or younger? What exactly is the Government’s rationale? Will they change other laws as a result? Children currently cannot stand for election, be deployed in the Armed Forces or buy alcohol or cigarettes. The Government have raised the age for buying fireworks, vapes and knives or for using sunbeds to 18 and are proposing to raise the age for obtaining a driving licence from 17. Where do the Government draw the line and why?
We are also concerned about automatic voter registration. We believe it is up to individuals to register, to be inspired to register rather than be forced, and to undergo proper checks to protect the system from fraud, which is why individual registration was introduced in the first place. Do we really trust algorithms to keep accurate registers when there may be out-of-date entries on other databases, for example? How will it prevent those with residence but who are ineligible being registered, such as certain second home owners or unqualified Commonwealth and EU voters? So much for tackling foreign interference. Voters’ rights are rightly based on citizenship and not residency. No EU member state allows non-national citizens to vote in its national elections. Can the Minister confirm that eligibility to vote in general elections will remain the preserve of British citizens only?
What is more, the Bill will water down requirements for photographic identification at polling stations, yet we still require photo ID to drive or for under-25s to buy alcohol. Again, what is the rationale? Where is the consistency? Amid the legitimate concerns in the recent Gorton and Denton as well as Birmingham City Council by-elections around family voting, is this really the time to water down safeguards against electoral fraud?
This brings me to the rise of sectarianism in our country. In the other place, the Government, alongside the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, voted against an amendment to ban political campaigning materials in foreign languages. The Government have not said whether any assessment has been made of sectarianism in election campaigning. This is counterproductive to integration and brings into question whether this Government are serious about social cohesion.
There are, of course, some aims in the Bill which we welcome. We support initiatives to safeguard candidates, campaigners and elected representatives from unacceptable acts of abuse, intimidation and violence while protecting the right to robust debate on strongly felt issues. The previous Government took several actions on this and we are happy to build on this work. Similarly, we will be constructive when it comes to election advertising regulation. The Elections Act 2022 introduced imprints for digital material, and the Conservative Party already voluntarily labels digital content which is AI generated.
As I said earlier, the kinds of reforms proposed in the Bill should be based on consensus and cross-party consultation. Clearly, there are areas we agree on, but there are also areas of serious concern, not just about the proposals themselves but about the way in which the Government have introduced them. I would be grateful if the Minister could address the points raised and I look forward to hearing the valuable insights of other noble Lords on this hugely significant and wide-ranging Bill.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, in the light of the mega donations we have heard about to Reform in the past week, I start by emphasising the difference between liberal democracy and popular democracy—or illiberal democracy, as Viktor Orbán and others call it. Liberal or constitutional democracy recognises that democratic processes are open to abuse and require rules and regulations to ensure that all citizens, regardless of background or income, are able to play a positive part. Transparency in campaigning and finance is vital to maintain public trust. Safeguards against foreign interference, the buying of votes or dominance of the media by the wealthy are justified to ensure acceptance of the outcome and to prevent corruption.
Popular democracy dismisses all this. Populist leaders claim that they understand what the people really want and that regulations are there only to protect the establishment. If they spend money from doubtful sources in huge amounts, that is justified by the need to counter the weight of the mainstream media and the power of the established elite. If others question their arguments, they dismiss reasoned argument as fake news.
None of us should take our democracy for granted. In the 2024 election, less than 60% of our citizens turned out, and some 6 million to 8 million citizens were missing from the electoral register. Public disillusion with Westminster politics and with democracy itself is dangerously high in this country. Liberal Democrats argue that everything we put in this Bill must be geared to rebuilding public trust in our democratic institutions and encouraging every citizen to play an active part. Paragraph 84 of the Bill’s Explanatory Notes declares:
“The Government wants as many people as possible to engage in the United Kingdom’s democracy”.
Liberal Democrats share that objective and aim to amend the Bill to go further in pursuing it.
Thankfully, Hungary’s experiment with illiberal democracy, with the massive corruption that went with it, has now been defeated, but we are watching democracy in the USA being undermined by gerrymandering, challenges to voting lists and attacks on the impartiality of election administrators, as well as by enormous flows of money. I hope that most of us in this House share a deep concern about current developments in the US and a commitment to sustain our liberal democracy against the threats it now faces.
In a previous debate, the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, argued that the right to spend money in political campaigning was a part of free speech, repeating the argument the US Supreme Court made in overthrowing congressional limits on campaign funding. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, who will be speaking in this debate, dismissed the Rycroft report as “absurd”, which is to say, “fake news”. Money in politics is vital to political campaigning, but large donations—millions of pounds or dollars—distort and corrupt the democratic process. Commentary on this year’s US congressional elections frequently starts by telling us which candidate has raised the most money, as a key factor in whether they win or lose. We will support extending spending limits of campaigns and imposing clear conditions and limits on donations to prevent our democracy sinking into a similar funding race.
I find it striking that populists who campaign to defend British sovereignty get so much of their money from sunny places abroad: Gibraltar for the Brexit campaign, and Thailand, Hong Kong, Montenegro and beyond for the Reform Party. It is gross hypocrisy to claim to represent the sovereign voice of the British people when they depend on shady money from sunny places.
Some of the changes in this Bill aim to reverse the damage inflicted in the highly partisan 2022 Elections Act. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, has repeated the argument that there was an established convention dating from 1948 that changes in election regulations must be subject to consensus among the parties involved. I was the Liberal Democrat leader in 2022, and I remember no consultation from the Conservatives whatsoever. If there were such an established convention—I asked to see any evidence of this but was told they could find none—the Conservatives decisively broke it during the passage of that Act. I hope we all now behave better than that.
The Conservative Party must own and admit the damage done to our country’s democratic institutions and to public trust under Boris Johnson as Prime Minister. It must own and admit its own shortcomings in allowing Russian money and influence to penetrate deeply into the party. I have just read an article by Dominic Grieve, then chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, on Boris Johnson’s determination to limit the investigation of major donations to the Brexit campaign, as well as to delay publication of the ISC’s Russia report until after the 2019 election and to redact much of the damaging detail. Some of those involved in promoting the Conservative Friends of Russia and cultivating Russian donors now sit in this House.
Rycroft distinguished between money that flowed directly to political parties and efforts to shape “the wider influencing environment”, including
“attempts to create division and distrust among the wider public”.
Direct donations may seem easy to regulate, but I recommend chapter six of George Cottrell’s recent book, How to Launder Money, which lists a variety of ways to donate to a politician or party without being caught: from high speaking fees and book deals to paying travel expenses and funding associated foundations and think tanks. As a fundraiser for the leave campaign and now for Reform, he is an expert in this. Oddly, he does not include paying extraordinarily high fees for TV work in the way that the loss-making GB News subsidises Nigel Farage.
The wider influencing environment is a grey area in political regulation: non-party campaigners are hard to define; political movements that are not parties are not covered; and social media has become a powerful form of influence. Money from abroad is hard to trace. It is not only Russia and China that seek to influence UK campaigning; the Hungarian Government, under Viktor Orbán, reportedly provided almost all the funding for the Roger Scruton Legacy Foundation to support James Orr’s promotion of Christian nationalism. The Times last week reported that Daniel Pipes’ Middle East Forum, a strongly anti-Muslim American organisation, was funding both Tommy Robinson’s movement and Daniel Thomas’s Patriotic Platform that organised the demonstrations in Dover and Portsmouth.
The significant surge of American money into British politics, now also from the Trump Administration itself, threatens to upset the balance of our domestic debate. The Bill may not be able to close all these loopholes, but we must try.
This unregulated flow of money to the fringes of party politics is not entirely new. I recall many years ago a former treasurer of the Conservative Party telling me that when potential donors wanted to remain anonymous, he would suggest they donate to a friendly think tank instead. But it has become a more contentious issue as social media and private polling have opened up more space for unobserved funding to tip the balance of the political debate.
The Rycroft Report’s recommendation on think tanks is clear, and we strongly support it:
“The Government, working with the Charity Commission as appropriate, should ensure it has the capability to monitor the think tank landscape … to make transparent the engagement of foreign-funded think tanks in the policy process”.
I look forward to the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, on this.
Others on these Benches will examine the proposals on regulation of social media, on intimidation and abuse of candidates, on moves towards automatic voter registration and other aspects of the Bill. They will also address the deficiencies of our antiquated voting system, now that we have five to six parties competing in national and local elections. Noble Lords may not be aware of the magnificent Liberal Democrat victory in a recent Cornish by-election, in which the victor won just under 19% of the vote.
Liberal Democrats welcome the extension of voting to 16 year-olds, as a contribution to building participation and trust in our democratic institutions within the younger generation. But it will need to be supported by an expansion of civic education in our schools, well beyond the very limited space provided within our current curriculum. I have talked to a number of secondary schools, and I am shocked by how little they are taught about democracy or our political institutions. We will look to the Minister and others for assurances that changes are now under way.
Effective regulation, I hope we all agree, is a vital part of constitutional democracy. We on these Benches will bring forward amendments to adjust Britain’s structure of regulation to the growing domestic and foreign challenges we face.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, before we move on, I wanted to highlight the five-minute advisory time limit for Back-Bench contributions. I ask all noble Lords to stick closely to that guidance, as it will enable the House to rise at around 10 pm.
Lord Evans of Weardale (CB)
My Lords, I will focus my remarks on Parts 4 and 5 of the Bill, relating to election finance and to the work of the Electoral Commission.
In 2021, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, of which I was then chair, issued a report on the regulation of election finance. The report recommended a number of necessary—albeit modest—changes to election regulation to simplify the rules, increase transparency and reduce the risk of bad actors gaining influence through financial donations. Regrettably, the then Government under Boris Johnson failed to respond to the report and failed to act on the recommendations. The report was effectively buried. One can only speculate as to why. I am therefore delighted that the current Government have revisited this important issue, and I was pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the process of review by Philip Rycroft which underpins many of the measures in the Bill as presented.
The measures in Part 4 of the Bill go a considerable way towards meeting the recommendations that CSPL made in 2021. But if anything, as the Minister said, the need for change in this area is even more urgent now than it was five years ago. Public trust in our political system is under great pressure, the risk of foreign money infiltrating our election system remains, the risk of huge individual donations unbalancing the political process has grown, and hostile states, including, but by no means only, Russia, are energetically seeking to influence our public life and subvert our institutions. We must protect them for our national security and for the health of our democracy.
One of the absolute cornerstones of our democracy is maintaining the integrity of our elections, so that it is clear that they are fair, transparent, independent of government and resilient against improper attempts to influence the outcome. We are fortunate to have an independent Electoral Commission which, broadly speaking, has the confidence of the parties and the public. I am therefore delighted to see that the Bill would abolish the right of the Government to set out a strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission. The Government of the day do not own the electoral system and have no business imposing their own strategy and policy objectives on the Electoral Commission.
I also welcome the measures that reduce the risk of dirty or untraceable money getting into our electoral system. Given the strict demands on the banking sector—with which I was very familiar when I was a non-executive director at HSBC Holdings—and on other parts of the professional services industry to ensure that they know their customers, it is increasingly anomalous that there is so little duty on political parties to know their donors. The Bill requires parties to assess the risk posed by their donors, but without expecting them to do so to such a level of detail that it would be unreasonable in terms of the resources deployed.
Similarly, preventing donations being made from cryptocurrency is only prudent, given the untraceability of crypto assets. There is a reason why cyber criminals normally want their ransom payments made in crypto. The new measures relating to unincorporated associations are also vital. Unincorporated associations currently provide a convenient route to obscure the source of funds going into the election system. That must change.
On the well-rehearsed and, indeed, now very fashionable question of a cap on individual donations other than from overseas contributors, my long-held view is that there should be such a cap and that it should apply to companies, trade unions and other bodies as well as to individuals. I welcome the fact that companies, unions and individuals are willing to donate freely to the political process, but we need some degree of proportionality as to the influence of any particular voice. A donation cap—and I personally would set it at quite a high level—would help to do that, but it is vital that such a cap should not be so designed that it penalises or advantages any one party. So, cross-party consultation on this matter is essential, if we are to have a stable and credible system, and that applies to the other measures in the Bill.
Even if all the measures in the Bill were passed into law, there would still be a need to reform regulation of the election system, which is complex, fragmented and subject to different statutes. As has been argued elsewhere, there is a strong case for a root and branch review of election law. The Bill is not based on such a review, but it does propose some sensible and proportionate improvements that will reduce some of the risks that the current system faces.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield
My Lords, this is an important and timely debate, as any opportunity to re-establish trust in politics is one that we must embrace eagerly. We are sadly familiar with the phrase, “A plague on both your houses”, used in a political context. The word “both” may be rather out of date, but the sentiment expressed encapsulates the frustration that many voters feel with the entire political system, thus overlooking many principled, honest and hard-working MPs, Peers and their staff.
I will mention two points in particular. First, in my visits to prisons, I meet many men with time to think and to think deeply. Most people come to serve their sentence in prison only after a string of failures: personal failures and the failures of services, systems and institutions, including the Church. To have that direct and painful experience of system failure and yet, through disenfranchisement, to have no means to participate in efforts for their correction or renewal, can further erode any sense of civic engagement and belonging. I hope that this House will consider whether votes might be extended to at least some convicted prisoners as one dimension of the penal journey to rehabilitation.
Secondly, I stand here embodying my belief that the Church has much to bring to civic engagement and the search for the common good in which all people can flourish, but I am deeply saddened to see our faith, or any faith or belief, being used to divide, to exclude or to intimidate. Recently, we have seen cases of pictures of church buildings being used in election campaign material without permission, and I fear we may see more images of churches, mosques, synagogues, mandirs, gurdwaras and other places of worship being used improperly. I and my colleagues on these Benches would like to see greater deterrence against this kind of malign misuse. I hope that the Government will see fit to work with the Electoral Commission and with faith leaders to strengthen the guidance given to candidates and to campaign managers in this area.
This is the last time that I shall address your Lordships’ House before I retire at the end of this month. My maiden speech here was in a debate on parliamentary democracy in the UK, introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I spoke then of the contributions that faith communities can make to the flourishing of democracy in our diverse society, an important issue to which we need constantly to return. It has been my privilege since then to make occasional contributions—alas, more infrequent than I might have hoped—to the workings of this House, and it has been an honour to be able to lead your Lordships in prayer. I thank all your Lordships for the quality, the expertise and the civility of your debates, and I thank the staff and the former and present Lord Speakers and their deputies for their unfailing helpfulness and courtesy. I wish your Lordships well in all your deliberations.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure and an honour to follow the right reverend Prelate, and of course we all wish him well in his retirement. We will miss him, and his views on democracy are very well established. I agree with him in relation to prisoners, but that is a personal view.
Democracy is fragile, and too many people have lost faith in our politicians and in our Parliament. We must give citizens confidence that our system is fair, inclusive, transparent and accessible.
I commend the Government for taking action to prevent overseas money influencing our politics, but the influence wielded by domestic mega-donors also threatens our political system. It is a challenge to democracy and corrupts our politics. I welcome the letter from the Housing Secretary and the First Secretary of State to the Electoral Commission asking for an immediate review of political spending caps. This is very urgent. I therefore ask my noble friend whether the Government commit to a timeline for announcing and legislating further measures to cap donations.
As well as deciding what electoral law should be, we must consider stronger penalties for breaches of the law, including confiscation of the entire donation and a substantial fine. It would be good to have the views of my noble friend the Minister.
One important aspect of electoral funding was not properly addressed by Rycroft and is absent from the legislation. The use of think tanks funded by unknown sources and foreign money to influence our politics should concern us all, as it does the Liberal Democrats. Does the Minister agree that think tanks, like charities or political parties, should be required to report and publish information on their donations?
I fervently believe that further work on reforming our electoral law system is crucial and must take place before the election. The Government must review electoral law swiftly and carefully to ensure that it is fit for purpose at every level and then urgently bring forward further legislation. I suggest that perhaps they could do this in the next Session of Parliament to close loopholes, address new issues that have arisen and ensure that our elections are free from undue influence.
I am delighted that the Bill will lower the voting age, but this must be accompanied by education to install political, digital and media literacy. We need this education as soon as the Bill is enacted to ensure that our young people have the information and confidence to participate in the next elections.
I welcome the Bill’s provision to remove the requirement of home addresses to be published on the notice of election agents, and recent changes for candidates to opt out of publishing their home addresses on ballot papers. However, home addresses should be kept private by default. Women candidates are more likely to withhold their addresses than men, which can impact on their ability to prove a local connection. A change to prevent the publication of a candidate’s home address and instead replace geographical location with the constituency, district or ward would put all candidates on an equal footing and ensure both transparency and safety.
As the Electoral Commission’s recent report states, the rising abuse and intimidation of electoral candidates is changing politics. This must not be normalised and requires a change of culture. This Bill is an opportunity to change the culture, so I urge the Minister to take forward five further issues that were not voted on in the Commons: strengthen requirements for running for office by including domestic abuse in the list of offences and disqualification orders, as in Apsana Begum MP’s amendments, which received cross-party support; embed a code of conduct for political campaigning, building on the recommendation from the Speaker’s Conference and the ongoing work of the Electoral Commission, which is engaging parties to create a code; require the Electoral Commission to disseminate candidate safety resources; introduce an elections code of practice for social media platforms; and include an elections advertising code of practice. Claims in non-broadcast election advertising, including social media and targeted digital ads, are currently exempt from the code overseen by the Advertising Standards Authority. Thus, no independent body is responsible for assessing whether factual claims in electoral advertising are accurate. We need to close that gap to ensure fair and factual, robust debate and political expression.
Finally, I will be moving an amendment on compulsory voting, which I believe is a proven method of increasing voter turnout at elections, ensuring that citizens use their vote to influence the shape of our country and empowering them to bring about change.
I end by thanking many organisations for the excellent briefing they have provided, including the Women’s Democracy Group coalition.
Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)
My Lords, I first add my best wishes to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield on his retirement and thank him for the contributions that he has made to this House. It has been said by other speakers, including the right reverend Prelate, that this is an important piece of legislation if we are to restore trust in our democracy, and there are aspects of it with which I agree with the Government. I must confess that I do not agree with the Government on their proposals to extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds. I will say merely this. I think this was introduced with political motivations, but I will just say gently to the Government that I suspect that it may very well backfire on them.
I also welcome any attempts to tighten up the rules on electronic campaigning material, but I just say this to the Government: I fear this is an area where it is going to be difficult for legislation to keep up with developments. I worry about the ability to use AI-generated material, which can put words into the mouths of any candidate, or indeed anybody involved with a political party or an election, which are untrue and have never been said by them. Keeping up with the developments of AI in this field is going to be difficult, and I ask the Government to make sure that they continue to keep a watchful eye on this particular area.
The one aspect of this Bill on which I particularly wanted to comment and to support the Government’s moves is on the use of crypto assets. The Bill describes a crypto asset as
“a cryptographically secured digital representation of value or contractual rights that uses a form of distributed ledger technology and can be transferred, stored or traded electronically”.
I prefer the Bank of England’s statement in its primer on crypto assets:
“A way of storing value electronically outside of centralised systems and away from regulators”.
The Bank of England goes on to say:
“Development is under way to make cryptocurrencies easier to use, but for now they can’t really be considered a legitimate form of money”.
I have to say that I am generally a sceptic about crypto assets and cryptocurrencies, beyond even the aspects in relation to this piece of legislation. I first came across them as Home Secretary when they were the “currency of choice” for criminal gangs. They are a currency of choice for hostile state actors as well as those organised crime gangs. It is absolutely right that the Government are moving to find ways to ensure that crypto assets cannot be used as donations to political parties. But I would simply say this to the Government: I have seen the briefing from the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Anti-Corruption and Responsible Tax, which points out that there are loopholes in what the Government are doing here in this piece of legislation. Crypto assets are banned for donations to political parties but not to candidates. There is not a sufficient attempt to look at how exchanges can be used to turn those crypto assets, supposedly legally, into donations.
I think there is more that the Government should be doing, and I would urge the Government to look at this in particular. Crypto assets are used by people who want to avoid anybody knowing what they are doing, and in terms of our democracy and donations to political parties or candidates, we actually want the transparency of knowing who is making those donations. It is crypto assets in their various forms that will enable people who we do not want to see affecting our politics and affecting our democracies, who do so with evil intent and with intent of foreign interference. I welcome the fact that the Government are acting; I simply ask them to do more.
Baroness Hodge of Barking (Lab)
My Lords, I think Parliament is at its best when we can get up on both sides of the House and say we agree. In that context, we make much better laws. I welcome many measures in the Bill, and my thanks go to Philip Rycroft for his excellent report on countering foreign financial influence and interference in UK politics. I am grateful to the Government for the changes already made that reflect many of his recommendations, such as the proposals to ban crypto asset donations; the call for company donations to be assessed against profits, not revenue; and the proposal to cap foreign donations at £100,000. Similarly, strengthening the Electoral Commission’s powers, improving “know your donor” checks and introducing slightly tougher enforcement are welcome changes.
Our Prime Minister said that the Bill should be seen as the start, not the end, of his ambition. In that spirit, I wish to raise concerns on which I ask the Government to urgently reflect as we consider the Bill—first, the unprecedented announcement that two crypto billionaires donated an astonishing £72 million to one political party in 24 hours. The amount is staggering, but the fact that it happened at all brings into stark focus the frightening threat to the integrity and health of our democracy presented by the growing trend that sees our politics funded by huge donations from a wealthy small elite. Anybody who believes that the donations were made simply to establish a level playing field is frankly both naive and wrong.
The truth is that large individual donations will at best influence and at worst control the policies and actions of political parties. Look at Reform with Farage’s statements on crypto, saying we should unquestionably embrace it, pledging to cut taxes for crypto traders and promising to lift the cap on the ownership of stablecoins. Look at Nathan Gill accepting bribes and then delivering speeches and interviews in support of Russia.
It is not just Reform. Under the Conservatives, large donations bought access to the Prime Minister, meetings with Ministers and even a tennis match with Boris Johnson. My own party also stands accused of undue influence by the trade union barons in our policies and actions. Hovering in the wings is Elon Musk, talking of investing £100 million in UK politics, who might well try to donate to the populist, extreme-right Restore party.
We must not allow money to capture and dictate our politics. We must act now. The Reform donations have created urgency. We cannot allow our democratic politics to be infected by the corrosive influence of money, with rich individuals often donating to secure public policies that bring them private profit. The Government should bring forward amendments to cap donations from individuals, cap the annual campaigning expenditure of parties and bring down the cap on what parties can spend during the election campaign.
Channel 4’s exposure alleged that Reform would be prepared to circumvent the law and accept donations from a foreign donor. Regrettably, other parties are guilty of similar behaviour. During the 2024 election, the Conservative Party sought a donation from Mohamed Amersi, a man exposed in the Pandora papers and by “Panorama”, and who invented the term “access capitalism.”
A journalist got hold of the email exchanges between Amersi and the Conservatives. I have those emails. They contain a plea from the then treasurer, the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, for a donation—an email from a party official saying that because Amersi had not been on the electoral register for long, “We cannot accept a donation from yourself … the donation must come from Nadia’s account”. Nadia is Amersi’s girlfriend. The email continues, “We are incredibly grateful for this magnificent pledge of support.”
I also have a copy of the SWIFT notification confirming the transfer of £200,000 from Amersi’s Swiss bank account to the Tories and an email from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, to Amersi, not his girlfriend, saying, “Thank you, Mohamed”—the Conservatives evading the law to accept a donation from a foreign donor. Shockingly, when I took the evidence to the police, they refused to act.
Loopholes such as that must be closed. Political parties must not be able to use think tanks to evade campaign spending controls. “Know your donor” provisions must be strengthened. Enforcement must be toughened, with harsher sentences and a more appropriate threshold for charging. We must clean up our politics and bring to a halt the growing, corrosive and dangerous influence of money in our precious democracy.
Lord Patten (Con)
My Lords, I do not intend to enter into the rather heated waters of what, if anything, should be done about the allegedly huge sums of money put into our electoral process by individual donors or, indeed, by trade unions. I wish, rather, to concentrate on the sometimes tiny numbers who go to vote, which is another very big issue that demands our attention in the context of the Bill. I have four points to make.
First, I fully support my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley in what she said in opening the debate from this side of the House. It would be otiose to repeat her words, but I greatly enjoyed her sweep of history, back to the Great Reform Act, proving that on every single occasion when anyone in the Palace of Westminster has changed the voting system, the Conservatives always come out best. I hope that this will always continue, and I suspect it will do this time round.
Secondly, I deeply regret the often very small numbers of those already in the UK aged 18 who bother to vote, and I equally regret that the Bill does little to improve the picture—unless the Minister can draw something to my attention to prove that is not the case. After all, not so long ago in this country, brave women and men were prepared to die for the right to vote—a right still denied in many parts of the globe. It seems to me so peculiar that turnout in the 2024 general election was below even that of 2019: just 35% of the vote. Yet people who cannot be bothered to vote can always manage to moan a lot about their lot, and that seems to continue.
Thirdly, I note that the excellent, independent and always accurate Electoral Commission reports a feeling—it is its job to do this—that everyone entitled should be automatically registered to vote. That demands deep interrogation, and it may well be something we need to see. On the other hand, I am equally strongly against compulsory voting, believing in freedom of choice in our free society every time.
Fourthly, it is interesting to see that compulsion is already used in voting in free societies like Australia. The voting age there is already firmly 18. It has been for a while, and you have to vote. That is prefaced by two years from age 16 which help to develop awareness and interest in the political things to come—a sort of democratic apprenticeship. I am very much in favour of looking at what the Australians have done, and done well. Their solution feels about right, as young people move at about 18 into earning and taxpaying in this mobile frontier between age limits that the Labour Party has introduced. I am not in favour of starting registration here at 14. It seems rather pointless. There is no evidence adduced to suggest that this will persuade younger people to vote further on down the electoral line. From all the UK turnout facts I have described, it seems highly unlikely.
I favour a close look at the Australian model in many ways, although not perhaps in its boisterous parliamentary language, its hard-hitting personal attacks and its enjoyable bouts of fisticuffs. I do not think we want to see this in our Chamber or in the other place, where demure behaviour is generally favoured. Australia is a highly valued strategic and economic partner in the Anglosphere. It strongly supports the royal role in the Commonwealth, and I hope Australian representatives will get the chance to have discussions with our representatives in the margins of the forthcoming Heads of Government meeting in Antigua.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, the current controversy over massive donations from crypto billionaires to the limited company known as Reform is a disaster that has been waiting to happen and a danger to democracy. In 2000 the then Labour Government sought to end the party-spending arms race that had been giving an unfair financial advantage to the Conservative Party. They introduced a spending cap of £20 million for political parties in the 12 months before a general election, but there was no cap on the size of donations and no cap on spending for all the years in between general elections. The cap of £20 million was higher than it needed to be and it was a mistake to allow the Secretary of State to increase it without any form of parliamentary approval.
The Conservatives increased this limit from £20 million to £36 million without consultation just before the last general election. This allowed them to receive £20 million in donations from a single source—Frank Hester. During the passage of the legislation in 2000, I moved amendments providing for a maximum cap of £50,000 on the size of donations from any source to political parties. That would be around £110,000 in today’s money. I also warned then that the legislation would backfire, just as it has done, by introducing the concept of national spending which could be targeted at individual constituencies. This destroyed the concept of a level playing field in constituency campaigning that had applied since Gladstone’s Government introduced the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act 1883. We have gone back 150 years. This Bill must be amended to put that right.
It is difficult to make rules apply retrospectively even if actions are taken to subvert the purpose of the legislation, but we can look at the total limits of what can be spent by parties and prevent the targeting of national spending at specific seats. This weekend’s £72 million of donations to Reform could legally be spent in 72 target constituencies over two years, providing for £1 million of national spending in each of them. MPs should take careful note of that; I am not sure that they are aware. In relation to donation caps, they are supporting the proposal for a cap of £100,000 on donations from overseas electors, but the logic of such a cap is that it should also be applied to UK-based electors.
I support allowing young people to vote at the first election after their 16th birthday. That is not surprising, because by the time I was 16 I was the secretary of the Liverpool Wavertree Constituency Liberal Association. I have never suggested that the first thing a 16 year-old will wish to do after opening their birthday cards is to rush down to a polling station and cast a vote, but I know from many political discussions with young people that many sixth-formers are well informed, very interested and as qualified to have a say in the future of their country as many older people. However, we need to do much more to register young people. Processes of automatic voter registration can cut costs and are clearly necessary to include more of the 6 million to 8 million people missing or incorrectly registered.
The Bill brings forward by three days the deadline to apply for a postal vote. Many people do not apply for one until they know the date of the election, so the timetable for the conduct of a general election must also be extended by three days. We also need to do more to assist overseas voters. At present, the time it takes if they vote by post effectively disenfranchises most of them, including members of our Armed Forces serving overseas. We cannot say that their rights as UK citizens are respected when we do not will the means for them to vote.
Lord Wills (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as an unpaid member of the Transparency International advisory council.
There is much that is good about this Bill. We have seen welcome measures strengthening the Electoral Commission and electoral law and improving voter registration processes. However, I shall focus my remarks, as many previous speakers have done, on where the Bill needs to go significantly further: the issue of capping political donations. The recent news about the unprecedentedly large donations to the Reform party has catapulted this into the headlines, but I hope noble Lords will not interpret my remarks as being driven by that; my speech had already been written before that news broke, and what I am about to say should not be interpreted as referring directly to those donations. This is a matter of fundamental principle about our democracy.
Individual wealth and malign state interests have been poisoning our politics for years now, and increasingly in ways that have never been seen before: the firehosing of falsehoods on social media, apparently respectable think tanks purporting to present objective analysis of public policy while actually promoting the special interests that fund them, and toxic networks of lobbyists. Capping political donations is only a start to tackling these challenges to our democracy, but we have to start somewhere and this Bill offers us an opportunity to do so.
Large political donations and the challenges they pose to the health of our democracy have been evident for many years. Research by Transparency International has found that one in 10 political donations originates from an unknown or dubious source, and these risks are exacerbated by the absence of a cap on political donations. In 2015, only 1% of private political donations from individuals and companies were of £1 million or more. By 2024, that was over a third, at 35%.
Significant donors get access to Ministers, including Prime Ministers, to shadow Ministers and to party officials. They buy influence in ways that are denied to the overwhelming majority of voters in this country. This is not how a healthy democracy functions. As a result, the absence of a cap can only feed popular disenchantment with our democracy. This Bill offers a rare opportunity to do something about it and the Government will be judged by how and whether they seize it.
The Government appear to recognise the problem. In the other place, the Minister said that the Government were determined to tackle the UK-based issue of mega-donors in UK politics. She announced that they will be
“working at pace to find a solution without unintended consequences”
and undertook that
“once those solutions have been found, we will want them in force as soon as possible”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/9/26; col. 340.]
As the Bill progresses through your Lordships’ House, I intend to press the Minister to give more specific commitments on what exactly “working at pace” means: in other words, the timescale and deadline for the work and what exactly its remit will be. In the absence of such an explicit commitment, which I hope might be forthcoming at the end of this debate, I will submit amendments seeking to achieve it.
A donation cap is not demanding in policy terms. Other comparable democracies impose them. Canada caps donations to political parties at 1,750 Canadian dollars annually; France caps them at €7,500 annually, or €4,500 for presidential campaigns; and Italy’s cap is €100,000 per person or company annually. The introduction of a donation cap has been recommended by various authorities for many years. The independent Hayden Phillips review, the former Committee on Standards in Public Life and anti-corruption experts have all recommended it, and a cap is supported by a majority of voters across the political spectrum.
There is no good argument against such a cap. There is no reason, for example, why it should require additional public funding for parties, as is sometimes alleged. Transparency International has modelled the potential impact of donation caps on party-political finances to demonstrate how a donation cap of, for example, £50,000 a year would significantly reduce the risk of the mega-rich buying political access and influence while allowing political parties to campaign effectively without any need for additional public funds. Nor would a cap on donations mean breaking the historic link between the Labour Party and the trade unions, as their political donations could be treated as bundled contributions from members. If the Minister believes that a cap on donations would mean either public funding for political parties or breaking that historic link between the Labour Party and the trade unions, I would be grateful if she could explain why.
In conclusion, I hope the Minister will be able to reassure your Lordships’ House that the Government will use this rare opportunity to do significantly more than they have already undertaken to do to clean up the malign influence of money on our democracy.
Lord Brady of Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead spoke about the dangers of crypto assets hiding the identity of people making donations to political parties. It is a very important point and it does beg a question that I hope the Minister can answer later and perhaps bring more clarity to in Committee: at what point do non-crypto assets that are derived from crypto assets become acceptable and where will the legislation bite in that regard? I do not have any clear idea of that now and I hope we will gain some clarity later on.
The only other point I will make about the funding of political parties in relation to the Bill is to raise a concern about the application of retrospective restrictions. I echo my noble friend Lady O’Neill in my concern about this: especially, as she said, if it might be seen to be targeting a particular political party—and especially, I might add, a particular political party that enjoys building a narrative of victimhood and wanting to suggest that the establishment is constantly out to get it. There is a serious danger in that approach.
I want to register my strong opposition to the extension of the vote to certain children: 16 and 17 year-olds. My noble friend earlier made the point that there is no demand, and participation is already very low among 18 to 25 year-olds; I think it is about 20% lower than in the population as a whole. It is not as though people at these very young ages are clamouring to be given the vote.
My concern, though, is about the growing inconsistency in our approach as a country and in the Government’s approach to ages of majority. At what point are people considered to be adult citizens able to make their own decisions and choices in life? We already think that 16 and 17 year-olds are too young to be allowed to decide that they want to leave school. They are too young to be allowed to serve in our Armed Forces. Perhaps the most egregious inconsistency of all came in the Tobacco and Vapes Act that we recently passed, where we even moved to the point of raising the age at which people are allowed to buy tobacco by a year every year, which is a wholly novel approach to these matters. Smoking tobacco now with the restrictions already in place is harmful mostly to the smoker; voting can damage the interests of everyone.
The choice of a voting age is necessarily arbitrary, but I would argue strongly that it should be consistent. Wherever we fix the age, it should be that point where people are considered able to exercise their own judgment. There are many different points where you could fix the age. We know that the human brain is not fully developed until about the age of 25, so maybe that would be a sensible place to do it, but I suppose it would be a very significant reduction in the existing franchise. The age of 18 has been accepted for a long time. It is a reasonable compromise, and it is a point where people are likely to be able to exercise their judgment as necessary.
I fully accept the point from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. Many of us were quite politically engaged at the age of 16—I suspect that we were slightly odd—but it is a minority of people of the age of 16 or 17 who are that politically engaged, that interested and that keen to exercise their democratic franchise. I think it is a big mistake to go down that route. We should look again to establish a single point where we consider a citizen as an adult able to make their own choices and decide their own future. At the moment, we seem to be diverging in all sorts of directions on this issue. I do not think it serves well to assault the very concept of an adult citizen.
Lord Macintosh of Eastwood (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
I thank the Lord Speaker and Members across the Chamber for the warmth and generosity of their welcome. Only today, the Electoral Commission published a warning about the increasing levels of hostility and violence in our politics, and the contrast of the civility, reasonableness and friendship that all sides have offered me has been a real tonic. I thank all Members for that and for reminding me of the importance of practising, as well as protecting, our democratic values.
It gives me great pleasure to make my first contribution in this debate on the Representation of the People Bill. Before I do, I hope Members will allow me to say a few words of thanks, beginning with to the Clerk of the Parliaments, her staff, Black Rod and his team. I have been here only a few days, and already I have been rescued from marching the fellow newbie, the noble Lord, Lord Singh, into the wrong committee room; I have been steered politely out of the Palace kitchens, and I was gently prevented from walking into the Commons during a Division, so I will be very grateful if that level of support continues.
I particularly thank my two supporters, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and the noble Baroness, Lady MacLeod of Camusdarach. I have not taken a similarly Gaelic placename, but it is a great pleasure when I am occasionally referred to as a Sgitheanach—someone from the Isle of Skye. My family on my father’s side come from Skye, and I am very proud of them and that my roots are in the Highlands and Islands. I should add that my politics mostly come from my mother, who, at 90, is as sharp, principled and, dare I say it, left wing as ever. When I broke the news of my appointment to the House of Lords, I think she was genuinely torn between her motherly pride and her embarrassment that her son would take a title. She does not regard me so much as red Ken as perhaps ochre or salmon pink.
Without turning this into an Oscar acceptance speech, I also thank my wife, Claire. I am sure Members who have the valuable support of a partner will know how much it matters and how little you achieve without it. I thank her and my children and wider family for keeping my feet on the ground. Claire and I first met when I was still working for the BBC—an organisation whose future is uncertain and to which I hope we will come back at some point. I went on to be elected to the Scottish Parliament in 1999 and was fortunate enough to serve there for 22 years, so Members will not be surprised to hear how much weight I put on the importance of parliamentary democracy and standing up for the rights of the people we serve. The Bill before us introduces a number of reforms that I believe will strengthen those democratic rights.
From my own experience, I want to reflect on just one proposal around which I have already heard expressions of unease. Those Members familiar with the Scottish Parliament will know that we introduced votes for 16 year-olds some 10 years ago. Then, as now, we were concerned about falling participation rates among our young people, and I for one hoped that such a move would encourage young people to exercise their democratic rights. The evidence collected since then would suggest that that is exactly what happened. One University of Edinburgh study, for example, showed that voter turnout among young people who first vote at the ages of 16 and 17 is greater than among those who were not offered that opportunity. Further studies that look internationally confirm that finding and suggest that the fear that young people will, for example, be drawn to populism or electoral stupidity is not borne out—in fact, quite the reverse. What happens is that young people who use their votes at the ages of 16 and 17 have greater confidence that their vote will make a difference and shape their future and our society. So it is very much to be encouraged and is an important aspect of the Bill.
I believe that the Bill will make a huge difference to our country, but, in an increasingly hostile world, what matters is what we do with our democratic rights: the houses that we build, the social care that we transform and the economic opportunities that we offer our young people. What matters today, though, is that we demonstrate that electoral reform and using your democratic mandate does make a difference—that we do not believe in the strongman approach to politics, countering aggression with aggression, or that money can buy you power. We need to show that understanding and empathy are what works, and that collaboration and co-operation make a difference. I believe the Bill will do exactly that. I am hugely encouraged by the attitude of your Lordships across this House, which shows that we can practise politics with kindness and compassion too.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is a great privilege and a real pleasure to be the first to congratulate my noble friend on his powerful, eloquent and witty speech. I should not be surprised, however. I have known him for decades. I kent his faither, as we say in Scotland. His father was a very distinguished rector of the Royal High School, as well as a great Gaelic expert, and his mother, who was here when he was introduced—I had the great privilege of discussing with her politics—is a wonderful lady. She was also a head teacher of one of our schools in Edinburgh. He comes from that great background.
My noble friend’s own experience qualifies him well to be a Member of this House. He was a very distinguished Member of the Scottish Parliament and he was a great Presiding Officer—that is Speaker for those who do not exactly understand our system. He was very good at it. I think, not just from what we have heard today but from what I know of his past, that he will speak again on many occasions and contribute greatly on the Floor of this House. I think he will contribute to this House in many other ways, and we look forward very much to every part of his contribution. I thank him very much.
And now to the Bill. We have been talking a lot about these two crypto billionaires and their donations. I do not want to go into that, but this is not new: we have been worried about the huge amount of money coming into our political system from outside the United Kingdom for some time, in particular from the United States and in particular to people, policies and parties on the far right. We must be very careful. It is not new.
That is why I endorse everything that was said by my noble friend Lady Royall, the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Wills, and others. We need to impose limits, not just on overseas donations but on domestic donations, and not just to political parties but, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said, to think tanks, which have a subtle but insidious influence.
I hope that, in the Minister’s reply, she will acknowledge that a lot of views have been expressed by a lot of Members of this House on all sides and say that she will discuss this with her colleagues and see whether we can bring forward legislation faster and more strongly to deal with the way money is being funnelled in and to prosecute vigorously where this is carried out improperly.
That brings me to one or two other provisions of this Bill. I am strongly in favour of automatic voter registration. I listened carefully to the opposition spokesperson and others, and I can find no reasonable arguments for not having automatic voter registration. We want to encourage as many people to vote as possible, and that would certainly help. I am also in favour of votes at 16. As my noble friend Lord Macintosh pointed out, we have had it in Scotland for 10 years now. When we first introduced it, I went to talk to the 16 and 17 year-old pupils at Portobello High School. They understood the political issues better than most of the adults that I have spoken to about them. In fact, as my noble friend said, there was a 75% turnout in the referendum among people of that generation, compared with a much lower percentage of older people.
I am in favour of compulsory voting. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, spoke about Australia. Australia, Belgium and a number of countries in South America have it and the huge increase in participation from compulsory voting is astonishing. For those who do not like any of the candidates, we could put in the option, as they do in Nevada and one or two other places, “None of the above”. If voters do not like any of the candidates, they can choose that.
Finally, I say to the Liberal Democrats in particular, be very wary about changing the voting system. I know they keep going on about proportional representation, but look at some of the examples. Look at what happened in Scotland with the voting system we had there. It is so perverse. I got elected by mistake. I had to serve four years in the Scottish Parliament because I put my name on the list, having been told I would never get elected—and I got elected. I did not have a speech; I did not have any meetings; I did not put out any leaflets—and I got elected. Then a Green MSP got elected on this list, and they have not had any surgeries during the whole four-year period. So, be very careful before you change the voting system, and understand exactly what is going to happen.
I support this Bill, and I would go further. I say this to the Minister: there are a lot of people on this side—and indeed on other sides as well—who would prefer the Government to go even further and faster.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. I join him in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Macintosh, on his maiden speech. I thank him for the research he put into it and, indeed, the way in which it was delivered.
I too want to welcome this important legislation, with some caveats. I do not support lowering the age of voting to 16 for various reasons, not least that I am not so old that I do not remember what I was like when I was 16. But I have to accept that it will become a reality because it is a commitment in the last Labour manifesto. However, I associate myself with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Brady, on the inconsistency around the age of a child. When is a child not a child? When it comes to voting, apparently.
In the short time available to me, I want to focus on those elements I agree with and those that I feel need to be augmented. I welcome the elements of this Bill that deal with the Northern Ireland canvass. The current regime requires a register to be recreated from scratch every 10 years and specifies that electors must re-register as part of that canvass to remain on the register. Those who do not respond to the canvass—sometimes for entirely understandable reasons— are removed from the register, despite the fact that the chief electoral officer holds data to show that they remain eligible. Therefore, significant numbers can be lost on the register for no good reason. The changes in this Bill allow the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland to retain those electors if they are satisfied that they are still resident. That protects the integrity of the register and brings Northern Ireland into closer alignment with Great Britain.
There are also changes on late registration, which I know, as a former elected MLA, is a very frustrating process because it is often a case of “computer says no” and people are left without a vote for no obvious reason. I welcome those changes as well. I understand the reasons behind the strictness—some political parties were very adept at registering 16 people at one address for voting—but the measures that were introduced also hit genuine voters who, for myriad reasons, were registering late, having moved house, for example.
The Bill also amends requirements that were very onerous. For example, the chief electoral officer will ask for additional supporting documentation only if routine data checks do not provide a clear identity match and a clear address. I welcome the change to electoral ID cards in Northern Ireland, but I am concerned about the widening of IDs accepted at polling stations in Great Britain. I am worried that the use of bank cards for ID purposes will lead to abuse. No doubt we will discuss this in Committee. I know it does not apply to Northern Ireland—and I am very relieved it does not.
I very much welcome the development regarding calling out electors’ names at polling stations. I agree with the Government that this is an unnecessary practice, and I am glad we are moving into line with the rest of the UK. It will also be a great relief to those in Northern Ireland with embarrassing second names that used to reverberate around the polling station.
I also join the Government in condemning the harassment and intimidation of candidates, and in removing the requirement for candidates to publish their home address. I welcome any move which supports wider participation in our political process. I well remember that when I approached various talented and intelligent women in Northern Ireland to run for office, they would say to me, “But I couldn’t put up with the amount of abuse you have to endure”. It is incumbent on those of us who have been involved in political elections to enable those who come after us to do the same.
Finally, I want to say a few words about foreign interference in our democratic system, after the weekend we have had. We had attempted interference by the leader of the United States, trying to override the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland and our self-determination, which is protected by domestic and international law.
There are many ways in which malign influences can come to bear—we saw an effort at the weekend, which, to be fair, had limited impact—including in the form of channelling money through different mechanisms. For years, Sinn Féin has used the United States as a place they can go to raise money to distort politics in my part of the United Kingdom. That should be of concern to everybody in this Chamber. The money comes through Friends of Sinn Féin, and it is used to advocate for the destruction of the United Kingdom. I hope to put down an amendment to deal with that issue in Committee.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Representation of the People Bill and the Government’s determination to protect British democracy from any foreign or illicit interference. I support the Bill’s ambition to extend the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds, having joined the Wembley South Young Socialists when I was 17. I particularly support the modification of the voter registration system so that eligible citizens are not left off the electoral register due to mere administrative oversight.
Alongside strengthening the Electoral Commission’s enforcement powers, these measures will make our elections much more secure and inclusive. I particularly welcome the provisions on political donations. The cap of £100,000 a year on donations from overseas electors, and the moratorium on donations via crypto assets—of which I have very few, yet I worry about this all the time—are vital and respond directly to risks identified by the Rycroft review. I welcome all the points made in the review. These tackle the practical difficulties of tracing true ownership of crypto assets, donations and the routes through which foreign money might otherwise reach our political system and influence our country, without proper scrutiny.
There is also the issue of tighter scrutiny of company donations. Company donations should go to the board regardless of the size of the company. They should be agreed by the board, and the chair of the risk committee should also be involved. We should look in particular at global boards to see whether the money is coming from Britain PLC or from other countries. We need much tighter scrutiny of company donations.
I turn to think tanks and campaigning organisations, both of which I have been involved in over the years. Think tanks which seek to influence and develop public policy and campaign for changes in the law should be required to record and publish the amount and source of all the donations received, on the same basis as political parties. This is vital because, as I know, money comes in to think tanks from various sources. We are always grateful to those individual donors and foundation donors, but at the same time we have to be much tougher on that. Single-source donations of more than £11,180 per calendar year to a think tank should be reported to the Electoral Commission, and that information would then be published on the website.
We also need to look more clearly at campaigning organisations, in which all of us in this Chamber have worked and will continue to work. You are not necessarily required to show your accounts or where your funding comes from; you are just running a short campaign, you say—but where do the funds come from to keep us all working? Even if you do not employ anybody, where do the funds come from for the telephones, the media and so on? We need to look at campaigning organisations as well.
This is one aspect of electoral funding ultimately left unaddressed by Rycroft and by this legislation. The use of think tanks funded, as I have said, by unknown sources and foreign money to influence our politics should concern us all. Does the Minister agree that think tanks and charities, like political parties, should be required to report and publish information on their donations? I would add campaigning organisations to that.
The provisions making hostility towards candidates and election staff an aggravating factor in sentencing are particularly welcome. Women in public life continue to face disproportionate abuse and intimidation online and in person, which deters many talented women from standing at all. Any strengthening of protection here is strengthening our democracy. This is vital. Also, why are people scared of women? I really find this terrible and I hope that one day we will find out what their fear of us really is about.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest: I have been advising the charity Spotlight on Corruption on these issues. This is a good Bill, in my view, and the Government deserve credit for it, but as ever the question is whether it goes far enough. The noble Lord, Lord Macintosh, in an excellent maiden speech, said that money cannot buy you power but the question in my mind is whether there is a risk that, actually, currently it can. A central objective of the Bill, therefore, must be protecting the integrity of our electoral system against wealthy individuals, whether here or abroad, donating vast sums to a political party and giving it a game-changing advantage during elections. It is a particular problem in the case of illicit foreign money. Electoral success should not be significantly determined by financial power, since that diminishes our democracy and enables a handful of individuals to subvert political discourse and policy-making.
In the case of money from abroad, the Government have proposed a cap on donations from overseas donors because they recognise, in their words,
“the inherent complexity in tracing the true source of political donations made by overseas electors due to the very nature of their overseas residence”.
Yet they are doing nothing to mitigate the risks of money from impermissible donors abroad—that is, people abroad who are not electors but who make ostensibly legitimate donations via permissible donors in the United Kingdom; in other words, they are dealing with only one part of the foreign money problem, and not the main one at that. Although it is currently an offence to make a donation on behalf of an unlawful donor, such as a foreign national overseas, for the offence to apply, the money needs to be given to the donor with an agreement it will be donated. Crucially, without evidence of that agreement, it is not possible to prove that the donor was just a conduit and in breach of the law. There rarely is such evidence.
The Government will no doubt point to the commencement of Section 54A of the 2000 Act, which has never been commenced, as dealing with this problem. This will require donors to declare whether they have received money from another individual in connection with their donation, and parties will be prohibited from accepting any donation without such a declaration. But its wording is vague and too easy to circumvent in 2026. It prohibits money given to the UK donor
“with a view to, or otherwise in connection with, the making of the donation”.
However, the UK donor might have received the money from a person abroad who was not on the electoral roll and who purported to give it for a different purpose in circumstances where it was obvious to each of them, but no one else, that it was intended as a political donation.
The clearest way to address this loophole, as well as to mitigate the influence of wealthy donors based in the UK, is a wider donation cap than the one currently proposed only for overseas electors. This point has been made by several noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Evans, Lord Rennard and Lord Wills. This proposal was the subject of at least eight amendments in the other place, none of which was accepted. The Government instead propose a cross-government task and finish group which would work at pace to look at this issue, but it is unclear how it could finish anything if it reports after this Bill has been enacted. Would it not be sensible to insert a wide enabling power in the Bill so that there is no need for more primary legislation to create a wider donation cap, if that is what the group recommends?
Finally, I would, in addition or alternatively, impose a tighter cap on campaign spending. After the 80% increase in the spending limit in 2023, both main parties increased their campaign spending by tens of millions. Set at the right level, spending limits promote fairness by preventing wealthier parties massively outspending others. I am encouraged by the Government’s letter of 29 August to the Electoral Commission, seeking its views on limiting the spend on campaigning, but why has the commission been given a July 2027 deadline? Surely it does not take that long to consider what lower level of spending is appropriate.
To conclude, election Bills do not come round often. The Government are addressing some issues in their Bill but not going far enough. They need to take this rare opportunity to finish the job, with a wider donation cap and spending limits, since these two measures combined would create a more level playing field and prevent the abuses currently taking place.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Macintosh of Eastwood, on his excellent maiden speech. To reassure him, I continue to get lost after four years, and I think most Members of this House do. The doorkeepers in the other place are very keen to tell us where to go when we are in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I declare an interest: I spent far too much of my adult life raising money for the Conservative Party. I do a lot less of it now, so I do not think I am conflicted. I found I ran out of friends—people were crossing the road to avoid me when I asked them for cash. But when I look at the Bill, I am afraid I see very little to celebrate. At best, it is performative politics. At worst, I am afraid, and I say this with sensitivity for some of the excellent speeches we have heard from the Benches opposite, it is old-fashioned, grubby, party-political gerrymandering.
Giving 16 year-olds the vote is a fantastic idea but, as my noble friend Lady May said, this has been done, as far as I can see, for political reasons. After talking to my children, who will be given the vote for the first time, as people aged under 18, probably at the next election, I assure noble Lords that this will probably—almost certainly—backfire. As my noble friend said in her introduction, we won every election after the franchise was extended, and I am sure we will do the same again.
I am delighted that we are seeing a more rational approach to civil penalties when it comes to people trying to raise money through the local village tombola, or whatever it is. This is proportionate, and I congratulate the Electoral Commission on the work it has done there. However, in other areas, such as social media, I think we are being left far behind. Another of my noble friends rightly raised the issue that AI will allow videos to be created containing deepfakes which will confuse the electorate significantly. There is really nothing in the Bill to cover that.
There is a lot of complicated legislation being proposed around watermarks. As a politician who posts on social media, whether you like it or not—noble Lords are welcome to follow me @LordJohnson_—I know how complicated it can be. Will the Minister address this in a bit more detail? If I repost something, will I have to put a watermark on? Who will be responsible for putting their own watermark on? How will we make sure that we do not limit the free speech of individuals?
I do, however, draw attention and caution to the extra checks that are proposed, and what I think is quite a complex and overbearing regime when it comes to corporate and personal donations. The fact is that we are all very fearful, as treasurers of any political party, about raising money in an inappropriate fashion. It denigrates politics and it reduces the reputation of the Conservative Party if we get the wrong type of donor in the wrong way, and we go to great lengths to make sure that we follow the law. All these laws are already in place. I think that what this does, and I am worried that there is an ulterior motive, is make it harder for the Conservative Party and other parties to raise money legitimately from their existing traditional donor base. As has been raised many times in the debate already, trying to be too cute with electoral law, with party fundraising or other systems always backfires, and I am concerned that this talk about donor caps will add fuel to a potential future Government playing even more dirty politics with electoral reform. There must be a consensus that we should all do the right thing, and it behoves this Government to make sure that they do.
I am slightly surprised that no one has mentioned in enough detail the unions, because the biggest donor in British history is not some crypto billionaire living in Thailand, it is Unite the Union, which has, so far, since 2001, given £52 million to the Labour Party. It appears that the Government do not mind large donations; they just do not like large donations to insurgent parties that challenge their worldview.
Also, in the workers’ rights legislation, which I read with interest ahead of this debate, if you are a member of a union, you now have to opt out of giving to a political party; you used to have to opt in. But it is not as simple as that. You cannot opt out whenever you like—you can opt out only on 1 January. It is the most bizarre, byzantine system to ensure that people who are members of unions, in effect, must donate to the union. Do any noble Lords know how frequently the union must remind this kind donor that they are giving to the Labour Party? The Prime Minister’s first act was to complain about Netflix and other streaming media having to remind subscribers every six months. In this legislation, it is not one year; it is not five years; it is 10 years that the union has to remind the poor sucker that they are giving money to the Labour Party year after year. Will the Minister look at that, considering it is the Prime Minister’s most important priority?
My last point, which has been raised before, is that there is not enough about voter fraud. In fact, we are going to make it worse. We are switching photo ID for an old credit card. There is nothing on family voting. There is nothing on sectarian voting, which is a terrifying cancer in our democracy. There is nothing on the issue of Commonwealth voters in this country. When we talk about overseas voters, we should also address that. In my view, there is nothing to address the appalling violence that our candidates and representatives face. This violence culminated in the tragic bludgeoning to death of an 80 year-old woman over the summer, simply because she was a member of a legitimate political party. I hope the Government will answer those questions in their response.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I want to make one rather simple point about the Bill: we should keep big money out of politics. Over the weekend, we learned of the formerly Thailand-based Christopher Harborne’s £36 million, plus another £36 million from the late-of-Hong Kong Ben Delo, a man convicted over AML but pardoned by Trump. That is £72 million, made abroad and donated to Reform, which makes its £5 million issue seem rather small fry. That money apparently was legal, but it was distasteful, because we have rich men, plus Fiona Cottrell, enabling one party to out-campaign all others—a couple of individuals owning a party.
More than that, even if—as people have called for—we cap the amount that UK residents can donate and even if we put checks on the source of such money, this would be near impossible to enforce in the case of expat voters who are not registered here for tax and may not have lived here for many years, decades even, or have any intention of returning. They pay no council tax or VAT. They do not use any of our services, walk down our streets or suffer one jot if our police services are cut, if the NHS is underfunded, if education is poor or if our rivers are polluted.
Taxation without representation caused a revolution, but we should now say: no representation without taxation. Even if my noble friend the Minister disagrees with that, I ask whether the Government have considered the challenge of trying to verify the bona fides of those living, for example, in China, Russia or some war-torn country. They might be absconders from our jails or simply on the run from justice. Overseas registered voters, and therefore permitted donors, could have another country’s citizenship, as I am sure George Blake had after he left the Scrubs. They could even sit in another country’s Parliament but still be able to channel serious money to a UK party. They could be employed by that host Government or even one of their agencies. They could be money launderers. They could be in prison. They could even be dead; we ask them to verify they are alive only every three years.
In this country, we ask for ID at voting stations, even though they are only a quarter of a mile from our house and the person voting is probably well known. But a voter abroad has no need to prove to anybody that they are alive and voting freely. As to the source of that donation: it might be their own, but how was it obtained, in a country that has no checks on such things? Or it could, of course, if it is not their own, be passed over from a friend, company, foreign Government or anyone else. I welcome very much what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said about this. He is on the money there—wrong phrase.
Pretending that the British receiving party could undertake “know your donor” due diligence of overseas voters is as fanciful as thinking that money buys no favours. I am glad to say that Rycroft proposed a cap on overseas donations, which I think means he accepted the arguments I am making, but frankly, £100,000 a year is £1 million in a Parliament for a couple, and that does not hit the target. Anyway, why on earth should somebody with no skin in the game be allowed to advantage one of our political parties when no scrutiny by party, police or the press is realistically possible?
I hope the Minister will agree to look again at the proposed cap—half a million pounds per person per Parliament—and consider the amendments that I will table to restrict donations from those overseas to a limit of £10,000 a year, unless they are registered for tax here. Without such changes, donors in tax havens could bankroll political parties indefinitely; I doubt that is really what we want.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, this is a very wide-ranging Bill—almost too wide-ranging—but it has some sensible proposals on electoral administration. It also has a number of proposals for which, as other noble Lords have said, there will probably be unintended consequences, and we need to go into the detail.
I want to deal with what the Government themselves said: that the Bill is all about restoring trust in our democracy. There has never been a time, as we all know, when we need to restore trust in our democracy more. Until 2020, UK democracy was very stable and secure, in that it did not matter where you lived in the United Kingdom because everyone had an equal vote. But in January 2021, we had an assault on the core of universal suffrage. Before that date, it did not matter where you lived; everyone had the same basic democratic right to elect a fellow citizen to make all the laws to which they were subject, or to stand for election for themselves, in devolution to MLAs, or to MPs. But the imposition of the protocol/Windsor Framework meant that while UK citizens can still stand for election to make all the laws to which they are subject in England, Wales and Scotland, UK citizens in Northern Ireland have had their democratic rights truncated, such that 300 areas of law—not just 300 laws but 300 areas of law—are simply imposed on us by a foreign Administration.
In the context of the political union that is the United Kingdom, this is not just an attack on democracy in one part of the country but surely an attack on the integrity of democracy across the whole country. What is more important is that it has also constituted a very specific and insensitive attack on the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. That agreement was for the purpose of trying to persuade terrorists to give up the bomb for the ballot box, so special stress was placed in it on protecting democracy. Specifically, it contained the unique commitment that the people of Northern Ireland should have
“the right to pursue democratically national and political aspirations”.
Far from being upheld by the Windsor Framework, this has been subject to a full-frontal assault, in that the right to pursue democratically national and political aspirations in relation to all the laws to which they are subject was taken from them.
There has never been a better example of a Bill whose purpose is to restore democracy being in complete denial about the existential threat to democracy that the country faces. Rather than giving votes to 16 and 17 year-olds, the Government had the opportunity to restore the full value of the vote to all UK citizens. Yet the Bill does precisely nothing to put that right. This was an opportunity. Indeed, it makes things worse by introducing discrimination where it currently does not exist. At present, the law treats 16 and 17 year-olds the same way across the whole country—except, of course, in Scotland where 16 and 17 year-olds can vote.
However, going forward, the Bill is going to tell 16 and 17 year-olds in England, Wales and Scotland that they are worthy of the right to elect a fellow citizen to make all their laws, but it tells 16 and 17 year-olds in Northern Ireland that they are worthy only of the right to elect a fellow citizen to make some of the laws to which they are subject. They are to be denied the right that this Bill extends to their peers in GB. We are seeing this at the moment with the number of statutory instruments coming through this House. There is no consultation and no say on them, just a dictated imposition. Can noble Lords imagine if this was being done to Cornwall or Yorkshire?
It also creates the absurd situation that a 16 year-old in Great Britain who has never paid any tax or put their life on the line for their country will be afforded more rights when it comes to electing a fellow citizen than a Falklands or Gulf War veteran living in Northern Ireland who has paid tax all their life and put their life on the line for their country. That just cannot be right. This Bill was an opportunity to look at it. The Minister said it was really important that people had to believe that their vote mattered and could be counted. I am afraid that is not happening in Northern Ireland.
I will add one further thing that I know noble Lords will not like. We have gone on about and attacked Reform UK so much today, but if we really care about genuine democracy we should have Reform UK Lords in this place. It is a party that actually has a possibility of being in government—who knows—and there is not a single member of Reform UK in this place. I think that is wrong.
Baroness Leaman (LD)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Macintosh of Eastwood, on his maiden speech, and I welcome him to his place. I also thank the Minister for opening this debate; I am glad to speak in support of the principles behind this Bill today.
This is a significant piece of legislation and, on the whole, a very welcome one. Extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds is a long-held Liberal Democrat ambition, and I am pleased to see it finally becoming law. Modernising our creaking registration system, tightening the rules around political donations and strengthening protections against intimidation for candidates and campaigners are all reforms that these Benches have long called for. I also welcome the Government’s decision to give up their power to direct the Electoral Commission through a strategy and policy statement. It is a small clause but an important signal that the referee of our elections should remain independent of the players.
My own daughter is 13 years old. If this Parliament runs its full course, she will be old enough to vote at the next general election. I asked her what she made of the argument that she cannot be trusted with a ballot paper until she can be trusted with a beer. She said she had never needed a pint to form an opinion and does not see why anyone would think she would. More seriously, her enfranchisement brings home something I first learned working for Save the Children: how early young people grasp the stakes of decisions made or not made on their behalf. Giving 16 and 17 year-olds a vote is a recognition that young people already live with the consequences of what this Parliament decides, and it is right that they should have a say in it.
My principal purpose today is to speak about who gets to stand for office, not only who gets to vote. In the House of Commons, my honourable friend Zöe Franklin has argued tirelessly for the reinstatement of the access to elected office fund for England, and I want to put on the record my strong support for that work; I hope that this House will help finish what she has started. The facts are stark. Around a quarter of the population is disabled yet fewer than 1 in 50 MPs declare a disability, and local government is estimated to be around 700 councillors short of fair representation. A fund of exactly this kind existed in England until it was scrapped in 2020, and equivalent schemes continue to operate today in both Wales and Scotland. We are not being asked to invent something new; we are being asked to restore something that worked and that England alone among the UK nations now lacks.
In six years as chief of staff to Ed Davey, I met a great many people with real ability and commitment to public service who were held back from standing for elected office, not by lack of talent but by the practical costs of disability: transport, communication support and personal assistance, to name a few. Warm words about inclusion do not meet these costs; a statutory fund does. I hope the Minister will use this Bill to close that gap once and for all, rather than leaving disabled candidates to wait on a working group that has already run for well over a year now.
The scale of the barriers facing disabled candidates was underlined again this morning when the Electoral Commission published its review of May’s mayoral and local elections and found abuse of candidates rising sharply. Some 40% of those who stood reported harassment, intimidation or threats—up from 34% last year—while disabled candidates were hit hardest of all, with almost half reporting personal abuse. A third of all candidates said it made them consider not standing again. The barrier to standing is not only financial; a second, uglier obstacle sits behind it, falling disproportionately on the people an access to elected office fund would bring in.
It is also why bringing Section 106 of the Equality Act into force matters so much. At present we cannot say whether the people who put themselves forward for office reflect the country they seek to represent, less still whether that is improving. Requiring political parties to publish transparent, comparable data on the diversity of their candidates would let us see whether measures, including the ones in this Bill, are working. For today, I simply welcome this Bill and look forward to working with the Minister and colleagues across this place as the Bill moves through this House.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, there is so much in this Bill to debate and take issue with, so it is a little disappointing to have so little time at Second Reading for each of us. But rest assured that the Bill needs and will receive detailed scrutiny from us all at later stages. Although it is not a disclosable interest, I remind the House that—unlike my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston, who seems to have escaped—I am still a senior treasurer of the Conservative Party.
It is a very disappointing Bill and, frankly, follows much of the direction of travel established in the Employment Rights Act, which itself interferes with the established system of politics in the UK. As my noble friend has said, the Act enabled trade unions to take money from their members in a way that would be considered completely unethical and breaches best consumer practices in terms of fundraising. Even more importantly, it allows unions not to publish the accounts of the political fund, so we do not know how their donations are made.
It is disappointing that in respect of this Bill there was no consultation after the general election, despite Labour Ministers promising this. They did have the grace to admit this in the Commons on 3 March 2025. This Government have clearly risked breaking long-standing convention that the Government of the day do not unilaterally impose measures directly affecting political parties. By contrast, the previous Conservative Government, and the previous Labour Government before that, consulted the Parliamentary Parties Panel for major parties—I am sorry if the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, was not a member, but that is recognised on the Electoral Commission website.
I will spend most of my time and my remarks focusing on donations. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, forgot to mention Michael Brown; he did not make a donation because it was not permissible, but his company—5th Avenue Partners—did at £2.4 million, and the creditors are still waiting for a refund.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
In fine tradition.
Before I carry on talking about donations, I must address the remarks by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge. It is disappointing that she did not have the courtesy to discuss with me in advance what she planned to say. If she had done so, I would have pointed out to her that both Mr Amersi and his partner have been on the electoral roll since 2017. She selectively quotes from emails that he must have given her, and it is disappointing that she chooses to rely on Mr Amersi, who has been extensively discussed in the other place. I categorically state that neither I nor any member of the Conservative Party canvassed funds from Mr Amersi in respect of the 2024 election. I look forward to those remarks being withdrawn in due course. Perhaps the noble Baroness would like to disclose fully to the House that my family helped finance her elections in Barking to defeat the BNP.
As it happens, most donations to parties are from individuals, but some companies do donate, and the rules proposed are simply not manageable by a regular volunteer treasurer of a local association. The pages and pages of risk assessment requirements—I do not know whether noble Lords have read them yet—are just not practical and are a classic example of red tape imposed on people wanting to help society by those who simply do not have the same experience. In particular, the real-time aggregation rules in respect of pre-donation checking will be impossible to put into effect. Too little thought has gone into this in the rush to produce 250 pages of legislation. These proposals have clearly been made by someone who has never actually been involved in local or national political fundraising and has not had the courtesy to talk to those who have.
Then there is the profit test for corporate donations; however well intentioned, it is a nonsense. It fails to understand that companies can be in a loss in accounting terms for very many years but can still be cash generative. If a company loses money for years and subsequently makes a one-off profit, it would seem not to be caught. So, what is the purpose of this? I remind the Minister that Ecotricity is one of Labour’s biggest donors. In 2023-24, the group made a loss of £5.6 million. In the same year, it gave £2.8 million to the Labour Party. One would hope the party does the decent thing and returns the money.
There are much better ways to achieve the objectives of the Bill, and we will be spending considerable time exploring them in later stages. Why are foreign-owned companies being denied the right to sponsor conferences and the like in the UK? They employ huge numbers of people in the UK and should not be denied the same rights as British companies to openly advertise and market.
I have not had time to remark on the plan to give children the vote. Yes, they are children, by any and every definition. Weirdly, if the party they vote for is successful, they are not allowed to go out celebrating in the pub with the rest of us, and Labour Ministers have refused to lower the drinking age to 16 on the grounds of “protecting children”. I thank the Minister for her letter to me seeking to answer my concerns that teachers will have undue influence on children, with whom they interact daily, at the time of elections. I note her points, but I do not see how this is going to be monitored. What guarantees are in place that no abuse will happen?
Lord Evans of Sealand (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support the Bill and many of the powerful contributions noble Lords have made, which I do not propose to repeat, not least those of the noble Lord, Lord Macintosh. I look forward to his observations on the procedures of this House and how they compare with those of the Scottish Parliament. I am not going to repeat what has already been said, but will do something a little bit different. I want to address the larger question behind the Bill, why it is not enough and why we must look to ourselves to do more and to do better. Parliamentary democracy faces an existential threat from populism, of the left and the right.
I spent much of my working life in the Labour Party, including as its general secretary, so let me make an unfashionable defence of mainstream political parties. Democracies cannot function without them. Parties provide essential choice for democracy. Their expertise is sometimes viewed with scepticism, even suspicion, but that expertise is essential to the fabric of our democracy and we need to speak up for ourselves more than we do.
Of course we should regulate parties. We should insist on transparency and punish cheating. But we should not regard political parties themselves as the problem. In fact, they need a helping hand, because we are far from perfect. When people stop believing democratic politics can improve their lives, simple answers to complex problems become attractive. We should be careful who we blame for that. When voters abandon mainstream parties, our first question should not be, “What is wrong with them?”, as it often is. It should be: “What did we do—or fail to do—that has caused them to lose faith in us?”
Politics is the art of competitive storytelling, and we must confront an uncomfortable truth: for many voters, the populists are currently telling a more compelling story than we are. Former MP Shaun Woodward, who served on both sides of the other place, was a good storyteller. He had been a producer on “That’s Life!”, a highly successful consumer programme. He once told me that pinned up in the production office was the slogan: “Always assume minimum information and maximum intelligence”. That should be a watchword for political parties. People may not know the detail of policy, but they know whether they can pay their bills, whether they feel safe and whether their children have opportunities.
I applaud the work of the Electoral Commission, but I worry that its centre of gravity, generated by us, is more about stopping political parties cheating than maximising participation in our civic life. Stopping cheats is essential, but registration is not participation, and participation is not trust. For that reason, I believe removing the strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission is a backwards step, not an improvement. I strongly support operational independence, but independence should not mean isolation. Parliament should be able to transparently identify priorities for our democratic system, not least increasing participation.
For example, when I was interrailing, nearly 50 years ago, as an 18 year-old, I was the only person in my school year to be a member of a political party. I was stunned to meet a group of young Swedes who were all members of different political parties. The reason was that they were encouraged and rewarded with points towards university entry for joining a party. It is simple. We need creativity and an entrepreneurial spirit like that to strengthen our democracy.
I join others in asking my noble friend the Minister to consider requiring think tanks to report and publish information about their donations. It seems an obvious loophole. Of course, the recent £72 million donation to Reform should concern us, and it has been mentioned, but we must not mistake the symptom for the disease. Money can amplify populism and social media can accelerate it, but neither creates the original grievance. Like the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, I would like to quote Churchill. He famously described democracy as
“the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/11/1947; col. 207.]
The deeper threat to that democracy is the distance mainstream parties have allowed to grow between us and the people we represent. If politics is competitive storytelling, we must tell a better story and make that story true in people’s lives. Just as we need a national conversation about defence, we need one about democracy. It is that serious. Like the Prime Minister, I hope this Bill can be the start of it. We cannot regulate our way out of a trust crisis. The responsibility for restoring that trust does not lie with voters. It belongs to us.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a trustee of Democratys, a charity focused on educating the public about threats to our democracy.
There are three areas of the Bill that I want to focus on in the short time available. The first is votes at 16, which is one of those changes that had been a long time coming and was absolutely inevitable once 16 and 17 year-olds gained the vote in Scotland and Wales. I note the comments in the excellent maiden speech given by the noble Lord, Lord Macintosh, about the seriousness with which 16 and 17 year-olds in Scotland approach the vote, and I think we would see that elsewhere.
The second issue is online abuse in elections. The Bill currently does not mention online abuse once. Elections are high-risk periods for our democracy, and the Speaker’s Conference inquiry into the security of MPs concluded that online abuse presents a serious threat to democratic participation. As has been mentioned, the Electoral Commission report today on this year’s local and mayoral elections showed that such abuse is absolutely rife. That is before we get to the threat posed by deepfake technology, which is also a rapidly growing threat to our elections. I fully support the calls by the Women’s Democracy Group and the Online Safety Network, mentioned by others, for a code of practice in making tech firms accountable for taking steps during election periods to address the risks of online abuse of candidates, particularly women. I speak from some limited personal experience, because it has unfortunately got a lot worse for those standing in elections now. The Minister should certainly expect an amendment on that issue.
I want to focus particularly on crypto asset donations. I note that the Government introduced Clause 61 in the House of Commons, but it is not clear whether it is a moratorium or a ban. The Explanatory Notes carefully say that it is a restriction. At the moment, the clause is unclear as to what it is truly trying to achieve, which should be, as we have heard, a safer and more resilient democracy free of foreign interference. There are three key reasons why a moratorium would do the job that I think a majority in this House seems to want.
First, without a clear route to a workable system, we are left with a ban which simply pushes the risk upstream rather than addressing it. Crypto donations would not be made safer or more traceable and the Electoral Commission and other bodies would still lack the powers and skills needed to supervise the system properly. Of course, a future Government could reverse a ban. Building a trusted, functioning system makes it harder to dismantle than a simple ban. Secondly, the tools to build a workable system exist. There is the incoming regime for crypto service financial providers which would offer the opportunity to align that with the political finance regime, so that third-party providers could conduct anti-money laundering and “know your donor” checks on behalf of political parties. Thirdly, there should be a role enshrined for the Electoral Commission and, most importantly, both Houses of Parliament in lifting that moratorium when we are confident that such donations could be permissible.
Sir Philip Rycroft recommended that the Bill legislate for a moratorium and
“a power to end the moratorium only once Parliament and the Electoral Commission are assured that relevant regulation is effective”.
The Government accepted this recommendation, but the new clause currently lacks clarity on the conditions and process for ending it. That leaves a gap between what has been said and what has been drafted. If the Government do not revise this clause, amendments will be laid to ensure that foreign interference in our democracy via crypto donations or any similar thing—meme coins are included as well—is properly identified and stamped out.
I leave the Minister with three questions, which I hope that she might answer today, but if not, I would be delighted if she would write to me. First, what are the Government’s plans for developing and testing the future regulatory system on crypto asset and other kinds of related donations? Secondly, what additional resources, expertise and enforcement powers will be provided to the Electoral Commission, and how will they be provided? Thirdly, will she commit that both Houses of Parliament would be required to approve any decision to lift such a prohibition?
Baroness Paul of Shepherd’s Bush (Lab)
My Lords, like others in this Chamber, I have had the honour of acting as an agent in both local and parliamentary elections. Anyone who has had the opportunity to carry out this task will know that it leaves you with a lifelong and slightly nervous interest in how to run elections.
I will do something unfashionable and speak in favour of our system, not because I am some kind of parliamentary Pollyanna, but because talking it down plays into the hands of those who seek to undermine political trust in our country—those who say that the system is corrupt, that we are all the same, that voting does not change anything and that the system is rigged for one particular outcome or another. This is the kind of talk that is a prerequisite for breeding unrest and for undermining our way of life. It is dangerous, it is not true and we should make it very difficult for others to say so.
I seek to draw attention, indeed praise, how almost every Thursday, somewhere across the United Kingdom, small but significant elections take place. They are professionally administered, supported by dedicated officials and fuelled by party activists who care deeply about the places they live in and the direction of travel for our country. It is a system that works quietly, reliably and with an ease that is too easy to overlook precisely because it functions so well. We enjoy a level of public trust that we should seek to build upon, not diminish, in our conversations and our actions.
Of course, change is important, and we need to keep abreast of change and, in particular, those who seek to undermine us. We must also defend what is good about our system, so I approach the Bill with open questions: do the measures before us strengthen and build on trust, and are they fit for the challenges of our modern age? It is a large Bill, so I will focus on the measures that are intended to increase participation and bring people into democratic processes, because this is the key to democratic confidence.
I note the commitment to the vote at 16 and that this has been accompanied by an amplified emphasis on citizenship and democratic education. Intergenerational fairness is an issue for our times, so this is important.
I welcome the introduction of automated registration updates. This is an important and sensible reform. Public expectations have changed, and people rightly expect government bodies to make better use of information that they share with us, rather than repeatedly requiring the same information to be provided over and over again. This is particularly important for those who experience the greatest churn in their personal circumstances. Anything that helps people connected to the democratic process should be welcomed, but let us make it clear that making it on to an electoral register does not mean that all other rules and eligibility criteria have been ignored; it is that we have worked smartly to improve participation.
The same principle can be applied to the expansion of acceptable forms of voter ID, including the use of bank cards. The purpose of this change is straightforward. The current list of accepted identification excludes some voters who do not hold passports or a driving licence. We know that those affected are disproportionately younger, disabled and those whose circumstances are less secure. From my experience, and to my surprise, on the doorstep I have come across many older voters who do not have access to these forms of ID and who are rightly distressed that they have been excluded from elections. When you think about where they are in their time of life, this makes sense. I therefore support the decision to add bank cards to the list of acceptable voter ID, as a way of seriously widening participation. With appropriate safeguards and clear guidance for polling staff, this is a practical and proportionate way of reducing barriers to voting.
The introduction of voter identification requirements by the previous Government was, in my view, a heavy-handed response to a problem that was never shown to be significant or widespread. Where that does exist, it is illegal, and there are measures in place to deal with it. This very idea was borrowed from America, and the Americanisation of our politics is something that we must resist, particularly in the way our elections are governed. Electoral integrity matters enormously, but we must be careful that measures introduced in its name do not have the unintended consequence of excluding legitimate voters from the democratic process.
We should also be very clear about where some of the more serious challenges to our democracy now lie. They come not from ordinary voters turning up at polling stations to exercise their democratic rights but from deliberate foreign interference, disinformation, deepfakes, inappropriate candidate selection, lack of compliance or intentional disregard by some of electoral law and practice and, of course, the very real potential for the exercise of undue influence through large or foreign-linked political donations.
This is the challenge of the Bill: to take on the vested and foreign interests that seek to undermine our democracy and the voices that want to amplify that, while increasing the participation of our everyday citizens who have the right to take part. Together, we have the capacity to make the changes that are required, as the Bill moves through the House, to balance those two requirements.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, the Bill asks us to strengthen public confidence in democracy and tighten the rules governing political donations, particularly money coming from overseas. Those are worthy objectives, but if that is the principle—that large donations may not purchase political influence—why does the Government’s scrutiny appear to stop at the water?
In the run-up to the 2024 general election, trade unions contributed approximately £5.6 million to the Labour Party. Separately, the Labour Party’s own records show that £4.9 million was received in affiliation income in 2024. Labour itself lists 11 affiliated unions. This financial relationship is not one-way. The latest Cabinet Office returns record nearly £90 million in public sector facility time costs during 2024-25. That is the cost of public employees receiving paid time to undertake trade union activities. It is not a direct government grant to the unions, as much of the work may well be legitimate and constructive. Nevertheless, it represents a substantial taxpayer-funded resource and belongs in the transparency debate.
We therefore have a curious circle: the trade unions help finance the Labour Party, the Labour Party forms the Government, the Government negotiate public sector pay and employment rights with those unions, and public bodies fund the facility time supporting those unions’ activities. What safeguards govern this relationship? What access do affiliated unions have to Ministers and officials? Are their meetings, representations and policy demands disclosed? Why should individual overseas donors face a £100,000 limit, while a domestic institutional donor can contribute millions and occupy a formal place within the governing party structure? Unions represent millions of workers and should be heard, but a Bill that claims to defend democratic integrity must apply one consistent principle: money must not buy privileged access, whoever provides the money.
On the vote for under-18s, 16 year-olds are at a point in their life that is very busy. They have family and school expectations, and they are trying to form a life and a personality. So, we need to think very carefully about putting the vote on top of that. NHS figures show that almost a quarter of 17 year-olds and 18 year-olds are dealing with some kind of mental distress.
Of course, being allowed to vote does not cause you mental distress. I would not try to suggest that; it would be irresponsible. But putting our children in a politically charged schooling system could. It will add to that pressure. For a very long time, teachers have been reluctant to teach civic and political goings-on for fear of being accused of indoctrinating young people. If that happens now, when every single political party has a stake in the outcome of that conversation, you will turn that professional anxiety into a full-on electoral scandal. There will be lots of complaining from all sides of this House about what goes on in schools.
We also have to bear in mind that those young people would now be in an educational system that would be asking their teachers to answer questions about politics. It would put pressure on them to not say the wrong thing, and there would be peer pressure to make sure they are in the right group. It could pull teachers into conversations that they do not really want to have, because there would be no way of answering without coming down on somebody’s side politically.
So we should not rush to change the rules to vote at 16, telling ourselves that we know that young people can have a political view. Of course they can: I have been a youth and community worker for over 35 years and I have worked with many young people who definitely have the wherewithal to have a political view. That is not the question. The question here is: is it right to pass on a solemn civic duty to children at a time when they are desperately trying to form who they will be going forward? I think it is the wrong thing to do.
The evidence internationally is very weak to suggest that it boosts participation anyway. Before we leap to that, we should probably have a check. If this is going to happen, the Government need to make sure that whoever provides this education has strong and visible safeguards and that there is a consensus about the civic education we give to those young people, or we will just make sure that any organisation involved in that conversation will now be exposed to the full force of our politics. I do not know whether your Lordships have met anybody in politics, but they can be rather insistent about the fact that they are right.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I will concentrate on two issues: the importance of civic and democratic education, particularly for those who will acquire the franchise at the age of 16, and the ease of voter registration.
In his review, Philip Rycroft said:
“Many of those I have spoken to during this review have emphasised the importance of voter education as a way of diminishing the influence of mis and disinformation. The public must be allowed to make their own judgements about what they see online. However, there is a role for the state in supporting them to do this effectively”.
He further noted
“the government’s recent policy proposals on improving media literacy, as set out in the recent publication ‘Protecting What Matters’”,
and argued that they should be implemented “as soon as possible”.
Indeed, the Government have said that they will:
“Mandate that citizenship is taught in both primary and secondary schools to highlight the relevance of the democratic process and constitutional principles”.
It would be helpful to know what progress the Government have made in this regard.
Although the Bill has the potential to significantly improve the electoral system, the broader role of civic education and the ability to skilfully navigate social media and AI are fundamental if we are to realise the full potential of what is proposed in the Bill. If it is not done, we will get greater clamour for more regulations and codes and, if we want to avoid regulation creep, we need to embrace civic and media literacy education urgently to empower citizens.
The Government’s proposal to lower the voting age to 16, which will also bring consistency to the voting age for all statutory elections across the UK, is welcome. However, this raises two issues for me. First, there is the need to ensure that all those who are eligible to vote in elections should be able to do so freely and without barriers. The priority therefore should be to ensure that all newly enfranchised voters know how to register and exercise the right to vote. According to the Electoral Commission, voter registration rates of attainers—16 and 17 year-olds—have fallen steadily since the current system of individual electoral registration was introduced in 2014, and research from Manchester University shows that Britain has one of the most difficult voter registration processes among liberal democracies.
Automated voter registration is now the norm and has been proven to lead to more accurate and complete electoral registers. It is also cheaper, simpler for voters, and simpler for election administrators to use. So, will the Government commit to a timeline which sees automated voter registration introduced to support voters by the next general election?
The second issue is the need for access to education material through schools, colleges and communities to support the electoral community to deliver these franchise changes. The importance of equipping young people with the confidence to participate in elections, equipping them with skills and knowledge so they are not manipulated by fake news, misinformation and disinformation, is crucial.
Everything must be done to equip all young people with civic and democratic knowledge and the specific media skills required in the digital age. So, for the purposes of the Bill, we need a provision that requires the Electoral Commission to run education programmes for young people ahead of being eligible to vote, and training for educators in providing such information.
Finally, I am pleased that the Government have accepted all the recommendations of the Rycroft review. There is a powerful case, as we have heard, for cleaning up our funding system and, of course, restoring the integrity of our electoral system if we are to ensure that we do not become what I describe as a “poundocracy” instead of a democracy, where influence can be bought by large donations. The guiding principle should be that a diverse and transparent base is healthy for a robust democracy because it will ensure wider participation and give more people agency and a stake in society. It is important to regard that principle in terms of diverse funding as an urgent issue.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, my five minutes segue neatly and very nicely from what the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, has just said.
If the Bill is about renewing our democracy, it should be not simply about widening participation, which it is appearing to do very well, but about deepening democracy, which is why I strongly support extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds. I enjoyed the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Macintosh of Eastwood; I agree with much of what he said and welcome him to this House.
Before entering politics, I was an assistant head teacher of a large comprehensive with what now would be called PSHE. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, that teachers are asked to deal with far more controversial issues than why they have the values they have in joining a democratic political party.
As noble Lords can imagine, I got to know 15 and 16 year-olds rather well. I spent years trying to persuade teenagers that turning up on time was a good idea, that deadlines were not merely advisory and that adults occasionally knew what they were talking about. I regret to say that the results were mixed.
What I learned was that young people are curious, questioning and far more interested in the world around them than we often assume from their grunts from underneath their headphones. So, yes, let us give them the vote, but—and it is a big but from me—if we are extending democratic rights, we must also think seriously about democratic education, which has been mentioned by a few noble Lords. Citizenship education has been treated as an optional extra when it should be regarded as essential democratic infrastructure, and teachers are, as the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, said, often quite nervous about teaching about politics.
Young people should leave school understanding not only how to vote but how Parliament works, how local government works, how decisions are made, and, very importantly, how they can influence them. Yet, from my experience, I fear we approach such civic education with a certain nervousness.
During my years in politics, like many noble Lords, I was invited to speak to sixth-formers about my role. Almost invariably, before I began, someone would quietly whisper in my ear and say, “Don’t be too party political”, as if it is somehow a dirty secret that you are “a Liberal Democrat!” I understood the intention—schools should never be seen to promote a particular party—but there is a huge difference between party-political advocacy and teaching young people about politics itself. What I found quite excited me. They invariably wanted to talk about politics; they wanted to understand why we disagreed and why we reached different conclusions, and how different values and priorities shaped political policy. They also wanted to know what I earned—that was a common question. In other words, they wanted to understand democracy.
If we want young people to become active citizens, we should not sanitise politics; we should help them to understand it. Political parties competing in ideas, honest disagreement and freedom of speech are not embarrassing by-products of democratic life; they are its lifeblood.
My second point concerns representation. For all the progress we have made in politics, it remains a difficult environment, for some people more than others. Women know this only too well. Over the years, I have had the joy of rubbish dumped on my doorstep, lights smashed on my car and all manner of unpleasant things sent through the letterbox. I was even given the rather charming nickname of #wickedwitchofwestwatford. I was grateful it was not the whole of Watford.
Most women in public life have such stories of their own. We laugh about them and treat them as part of the job, but perhaps we should stop and ask why. Representation is not simply about whether people have the legal right to stand for office; it is about whether they feel able to do so. Every time I have spied a talented woman and they decided not to stand for election because “It’s not really for me”, and every time an elected representative leaves public life because the personal costs have become too high, our democracy loses talent, experience and perspective. Issues such as candidate safety, intimidation and abuse are therefore not peripheral concerns: they go to the heart of our democratic constitution.
I welcome the Bill and I give the Minister notice that I expect to bring forward amendments on citizenship, political literacy and the barriers that can still prevent full participation in public life.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, first, I welcome the Government’s decision to extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds. Young people already contribute to our society and have a direct stake in the future, shaped by political decisions made today. Expanding the franchise strengthens our democracy by ensuring that more people have a voice.
Through the Learn with the Lords programme, I regularly visit schools and am consistently impressed by the level of engagement that I encounter. One of my favourite visits was to a primary school, where we discussed how Parliament works and how people can influence political decision-making. Afterwards, around 150 pupils wrote to the then Prime Minister about the winter fuel allowance. It started with one pupil asking me what it was and what had happened. The pupils listened, formed their own views about the issue and wanted their voices heard. The problem is often not a lack of interest from young people but a lack of opportunities for them to participate, and a lack of them being asked questions at all.
I also agree with the Minister’s opening remarks that we must put politics back in public control and respond to real changes in how people participate in politics. My remarks focus on three themes: modernising our democracy, ensuring the safety of candidates and strengthening transparency. First, on modernising democracy, having worked in the European Parliament, the Senedd and Westminster, I have often been struck by how many of our political structures remain rooted in assumptions about who can participate in public life. Job sharing and caring responsibilities are now a normal part of life for many people, yet our democratic institutions have been slower to adapt. Have the Government considered the merits that job-sharing arrangements could bring to elected office and the diversity of people able to serve?
At the same time, although this is the Representation of the People Bill, it does not address one of the most significant questions of representation itself: our electoral system. We live in an increasingly multiparty political environment, where vote share and seat share can diverge significantly. First past the post is increasingly difficult to justify if our objective is genuine representation. Do the Government have any plans to review the electoral system?
My second theme is safety of candidates. I welcome efforts to make democratic participation safer. In particular, I support the cross-party proposal put forward in the other place relating to domestic abuse offenders. Public office is a privilege, and the public rightly expects high standards from those who seek it. I am also persuaded by the case for removing the requirement for candidates and election agents to publish their full residential address.
However, one notable omission remains, as we have heard from a number of Members: online abuse. Social media platforms have become a significant enabler of intimidation and harassment of candidates, campaigners and elected representatives, with women disproportionately affected. If people decide not to stand for public office because of the abuse they expect to receive online, democracy itself is diminished. Can the Minister explain why no provisions have been included in the Bill to address online abuse and whether the Government will consider requiring Ofcom to produce an election-specific code of practice, as we have heard from a range of Members today?
My final theme is transparency. Public trust is the foundation of any healthy democracy. If people are to have confidence in our political system, they must be confident that influence cannot be bought, that elections are conducted fairly and that democratic institutions are protected from improper influence. As a Welsh Member of your Lordships’ House, I listened carefully to the Minister’s reference to Nathan Gill. His convictions serve as a reminder that foreign interference in democratic processes is not an abstract concern. That is why transparency around political donations remains so important. The Government have announced a task and finish group to examine potential reforms, but there remains little clarity about its remit, membership or timetable. Can the Minister tell the House how this work will proceed and when Parliament can expect to see its conclusions?
There is much in this Bill to welcome, particularly its efforts to broaden participation and strengthen public confidence in our democratic system. However, important questions remain about representation, candidate safety and transparency in our democracy. If we are serious about renewing public trust in politics, we must be prepared to address those issues. I look forward to the Minister’s response and to working constructively with colleagues across the House to strengthen the Bill in the next stage.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, before I turn to the Bill, I thank the Minister for the action that she has taken in relation to another matter. I spoke on the duty of candour in relation to the Hillsborough Bill and I had been pursuing for three years the briefing given to the Minister by officials. At no stage was anybody willing to allow me to discuss it with either the Minister or officials. Within one week of me raising it on the Floor of this House, the Minister has taken the action and I have had a conversation with officials. I would like to put on record my appreciation to the Minister for the action that she has taken. Whether we agree in the end or not is another matter. I also take the opportunity to thank the Minister for her involvement with many Members of this House. In my case, she rang me yesterday for a discussion about aspects of the Bill and I greatly appreciate that.
There are two broad comments I will make about the Bill. One is, I am afraid, that it is far too long. I made the point previously that legislation on electoral law should have been consolidated years ago, and it should be consolidated now. This is a missed opportunity.
That leads me on to my second point about the general debate. I am not talking here about disagreements in relation to policy: ages of voting or whatever it may happen to be. There have been a number of contributions this afternoon where people have said, “We’ll need to change this urgently, next year or the year after”. They have come from all sides of the House. My criticism of this Bill is that it has come at the wrong time, because many aspects of donations or other matters have not been carefully enough considered to encompass the whole range of issues, whether it be donations, subscriptions, access through cryptocurrencies or the like. Those are two broad comments.
I will now touch on two questions of detail. There are elements in the Bill which, to be honest, are utterly unnecessary. They appear to have been drafted because returning officers and councils have come to disagreements, and I will, solely at this point, identify one classic case. I am referring to Clause 32(3)(a), which says
“for ‘an officer’ substitute ‘a senior officer’”.
Now, I ask your Lordships: is that an indication that officials in a council could not agree? You should knock their heads together—it should not be whole clauses in a Bill. There are other more substantial examples that I could give and will give in Committee.
The other aspect to which I think there has been virtually no reference today is the impact assessment. It is a very lengthy document. To be honest, it is a statement of every reason why you should support the Government’s decision. It does not consider alternatives. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and I will disagree on many things in relation to registration, but it does not address the alternatives which are available. It just says, “We have decided this, and this is how we are going to do it”.
Associated with that, many of the costings in the impact assessment are barely credible. I will draw attention to just two. One is on page 59. The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, made reference to the need to educate people and communicate well. The Electoral Commission has put its costs at £39.8 million as a central estimate on an annual basis. The rest of the national costs are supposed to be just over £40 million. Is it credible that if the Electoral Commission reckoned its costs are going to be a figure, the cost to the whole of the rest of the nation is going to be almost exactly the same figure? The reason I have doubts about that example—but I could cite any number of them because I was sad enough to spend the Summer Recess reading the impact assessment—is paragraph 174 on page 61, which says:
“There is also an additional resource implication arising from the collaborative development of this policy, with staff time from other government departments, principally DfE ... There is also a potential impact on education staff. However, these contributions are not considered significant in cost terms and have therefore not been monetised”.
Anybody who believes that they cannot be monetised and should not be monetised is stretching credibility beyond belief.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, in the 1990s, when the Labour Party, via the Plant commission, looked at the age of voting, we were very sceptical about lowering it to 16. I have tracked what has happened in Scotland’s local government in the last decade, but, above all, what has really convinced me is my work on Learn with the Lords. When I and 70-odd other Peers tour the colleges and schools of England, the reactions we get from 16 and 17 year-olds are remarkable, and it is completely different from what it used to be. I will take the rest of my time on the commitment Motion.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, I had not anticipated to be on my feet quite so quickly. I have been watching proceedings for the period that I have not been in the Chamber this afternoon, and there seems to have been a lot of—I would not quite call it hysteria—grave concern about financing. Of course, that is important, but I would rather concentrate on franchise—what elections are for, who can do it and how they do it. That has been very much opened up as a point that we can discuss within the Bill because of the attempt to reduce age of the franchise to 16. I agree wholeheartedly with the concerns of my noble friends Lady May and Lord Brady about 16, not least because we need to determine what is an age of attainment. If one at age 16 cannot use a sunbed, it is rather strange that one can suddenly vote, but that is a wider debate for when we are in Committee.
I would like to examine postal voting. The postal voting franchise was massively widened in 2001 by the Blair Government, who were, I think, concerned that the volume and numbers of people voting had been on a steady decline. I have to say that the state we are in is not better than where we once were. In the old days, postal voting was available if one was unwell, going on holiday, or had a degree of frailty. I do not know about anybody else in this House, but I find it not that difficult to go down to the Co-op or a convenience store in the evening, so I find it hard to believe that on election day, given that there are 15 hours to do it, one cannot find the time to go and vote.
The opportunities for fraud and for postal vote harvesting are very well known, I am afraid. We have grave concerns about what happens in the actual polling booth, whether that is family assistance and all the rest of it. I do not have grave concerns about that, but I have grave concerns about what is happening behind doors where nobody can see. But that is a wider discussion, and I will probably lay amendments to that effect.
While we are on the issue of franchise, I ask: why do we have such a wide franchise? We have a number of states of attachment and relationship with the United Kingdom. We have British Crown dependencies, and we are familiar with those: the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. We have British Overseas Territories such as Gibraltar and the British Virgin Islands—those types of very close relationships. We have a slight oddity with former Hong Kong citizens of the right age. They are all fairly small numbers, particularly in the British Overseas Territories, where there is a close relationship, and we still have governors and there is close working with the FCDO. But I looked rather more closely at which of those countries allow voting by British citizens who happen to be there: “very few” is the answer. Gibraltar does. Turks and Caicos most certainly does not; you have to attain an islander status before you are allowed to vote.
They are fairly small numbers, and I am not overly concerned. But I am very concerned about the Commonwealth—a Commonwealth of 2.7 billion people, a third of the entire global population. It includes places that, frankly, until I looked at this, I was not entirely sure existed. I am not entirely sure that I know where in Africa Eswatini is. I think my geography is pretty good, but I am not entirely sure where that is, or Vanuatu. Then there are very large populations such as India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, and medium populations such as Australia and Canada. As long as one has a right to come to the country for work and has a visa, any of these people can vote in a UK election, parliamentary and local.
When we were in the European Union, we restricted the franchise to local elections. Arguably, because the powers that be at the time—they have been blunted, of course—were on the road to making us a single country of Europe, one could have argued, rather more closely, that European citizens should have had the franchise in the UK for all elections. But the franchise of the Commonwealth is a little quaint, in my view. Let us have it, by all means, as long as there is a reciprocation. I have looked a little closer. Ghana, under its 1992 constitution, does not allow British citizens to vote. Australia severed the link, particularly with the Australia Act 1986. Therefore, a British citizen who may be there for a long period, for all intents living there for ever, cannot vote. In Canada, that franchise was lost many decades ago.
We have opened the Pandora’s box on franchise. We are talking about 16 year-olds. I shall open Pandora’s box to talk about the franchise of Commonwealth citizens. I think the time has come for a new thought on this.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay, I make no apologies for returning to the subject of political funding, because, of course, we are conducting this debate under the shadow of one number, £72 million, or rather one sum—two times £36 million. This has led to far more attention being paid to the issue of political funding. Your Lordships’ House very often is facing the Government Benches and saying, “You’re heading in the right direction, but you need to go further”. Well, now there is a very clear direction from the country that we need to see this Bill going far further in capping donations to political parties wherever they come from.
There is another factor that I am sure the country does not know about. If it did, it would ask us to please cut the amount of spending that is allowed on elections—particularly given the fact that it was massively increased under the last Government at very little notice, very late in the Bill, with very little attention.
There are specific factors that influence the issue of political funding. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady May, and share her scepticism about cryptocurrencies. They are good—no, great—for fraudsters and criminals, but there is no evidence that they in any way contribute to the public good. The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Weardale, said, as I have heard him say on many occasions, that we have invited into this country corruption from around the world over many years—from Russia, China and other countries, and we are now seeing money from very dubious sources in the US coming into our UK politics. We need to take action on these issues.
Those two contributions help me make the point that this is not, however, a new problem. Political funding has been a huge issue in British politics for decades. We have had big money choosing what kind of politics we get. We get the politics it has paid for. Where does it come from? It comes from financiers, the City, gambling companies, property developers, fossil fuel companies and other giant oligarchic companies from around the world. This has to stop if we are going to restore trust in our politics.
One specific point that I will raise, as my honourable friend Ellie Chowns did in the other place, is the issue of donations from companies. I rely here on analysis from the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation. Almost £1 in every £10 donated by companies comes indirectly from individuals who are likely to be ineligible to donate directly. Around a quarter of donor companies are opaque, meaning it is not possible to identify who controls them. Currently, the tax system provides an implicit subsidy of up to 39% for political donations routed through companies. It is very easy to get around what the Bill is supposed to be trying to do. So why not ban political donations from companies altogether? The Bill accepts that a company’s right to donate depends on the rights of its individual owners. If they can donate directly, why are we allowing corporate donations at all?
I want to pick up a couple of other points from the debate. It rather stuck in my craw when the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, complained about a lack of consultation, given the way in which the last Government’s Elections Act was railroaded through. I was disappointed and surprised that she repeated totally debunked, clearly politically motivated allegations about family voting from Gorton and Denton. I refer your Lordships’ House to the Manchester Police press release of 27 March, which found
“no evidence of any intent to influence or refrain any person from voting”.
We need to stop undermining our own system when there is no reason to do so.
We have heard many powerful testimonies, particularly from the Learn with the Lords programme, about why we should have votes at 16. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, asked why not 15 or younger, and that is a good question. I very much agree with the many contributions saying that we need more political education. However, having visited schools and colleges with Learn with the Lords, I have found that 16 year-olds are, on average, as well-informed about politics as 60-year-olds. That is not to say that both groups do not need a great deal more political education, understanding and help with critical thinking in our current media age.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, there are many ways to describe the Bill. Top of my list at the moment is simply “timely”.
I point out to the representatives of the Conservative Party here, with their slightly selective memories of election history, that, in 1928, the Conservative Government extended the franchise so that women were able to vote on the same principle as men. What happened in the 1929 election? The Conservative Party lost its majority. I was originally a historian, so I do check these things out.
I will comment on four different areas: voting for 16 year-olds, caps on political donations, deepfakes and misinformation during elections, and the need for greater regulation and transparency in political advertising.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I have done a lot of work with Learn With The Lords. When we discuss potential voting for 16 year-olds, which I always raise, I typically say that we adults have made such a mess of the world that they are going to inherit that the sooner we give them skin in the game, particularly on issues such as climate change, the better.
The noble Lord, Lord Patten, referred briefly to Australia’s compulsory voting scheme. I just did a bit of historical homework. Believe it or not, that is now 102 years old. It was brought in after the 1922 election, which achieved a 60% voter turnout. In 1925, in the election after compulsory voting was brought in, turnout jumped up to 91%. To this day, the average voter turnout in general elections in Australia is between 88% and 92%, which slightly puts us to shame.
On caps on political donations, when I heard over the weekend of the two donations to Reform, my mind went back to my great-grandfather, in 1931, who was being pressed very strongly by two Conservative press Lords to change government policy. He made quite a well-known speech in which he accused them of having power without responsibility. There are echoes of that in the situation we are in today.
I put on the record my genuine thanks to Christopher Harborne and Ben Delo for bringing this subject into such sharp focus—conveniently, just in time for Second Reading. I am grateful for that, because one of the problems with what has happened was referred to by Mr Harborne himself, when he said he was prompted to put in his additional bid by his competitive instincts. That way lies an arms race, which is the last thing we want.
Should the Bill be retrospective? Actually, I am relaxed about that, because, based on current and recent experience of the particular party to which the money has gone, it will almost certainly fritter it away and waste it. In fact, the party may even make its situation worse rather than better. The history of most disruptor political parties around the world, particularly those that are focused on a charismatic leader who formed it, is that once that leader is out of the way or starts losing his or her faculties, the party fades away fairly quickly. I suspect that this may be the case with that party.
As far as Mr Harborne’s statement of his own priorities and why he gave money to Reform, he said that we face
“three existential threats … nuclear war, AI and climate change”.
If he thinks Mr Farage will solve any of those, let alone all three, I think he has rather wasted his £36 million.
I turn now to deepfakes and misinformation. Misinformation is not mentioned in the Bill at all. Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 covers only “personal character or conduct”, not political claims.
On greater regulation and transparency in political advertising, there should be a public repository for all paid-for digital advertising. We need to establish a clear, enforceable code of practice to prevent misinformation and disinformation. We need to restrict overseas spending on political advertising at all times, not just at elections. We should give the Electoral Commission the power to obtain information at speed from online platforms at the moment that these things happen, not waiting for a formal investigation, which is what is currently proposed. We will have a busy Committee.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, as usual I declare that I am a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. There are positive aspects to this Bill, as outlined by my noble friend Lady O’Neill at the start. However, there are also many deficiencies, and I thank the many noble Lords who have raised such issues as the age of maturity, representation of British citizens abroad, the lack of true engagement, not addressing social media and the risk of bias in these donation rules. There is not time for me to debate all these issues today, so I am going to focus on some of the Bill’s contradictions.
The Minister has said the Bill will address loopholes in donations. However, it fails to address one of the most glaring loopholes. As confirmed by the Minister in a Written Answer, Chinese, Iranian and Russian citizens on the electoral roll in Scotland and Wales can make uncapped donations, whereas in England foreign nationals cannot donate, other than certain EU and Commonwealth citizens who are not entitled to vote. Is it right to limit the amount British nationals can donate while allowing Chinese, Iranian and Russian nationals living in Scotland and Wales on a temporary basis to make donations?
The Bill seeks to address unregistered voters through auto-enrolment and a modified reduced threshold. Have the Government truly thought through the implications of this? In an increasingly mobile society, the scope for errors is significant and the bureaucracy involved potentially huge. There is already an obligation for everyone contacted by an ERO to respond and verify their eligibility. Now we have the reverse situation. They will be on the electoral roll unless they prove that they are not eligible. Students or contractors who frequently move address could end up with multiple registrations and in many instances may not even be aware. You may say that this does not matter, but it does. The robustness of the electoral roll is fundamental to election integrity. The electoral roll is also used for other purposes, such as credit and fraud checks. The Bill is also not clear on what an ERO needs to do to find all these potential new voters, and I would appreciate the Minister giving clarity on this matter.
The Bill will also water down the integrity of voting. Photo ID is working. Why do we need to introduce a less secure form of ID? A bank card is not a secure form of ID, as the Electoral Commission has made clear. By way of an example, my father and I share the same name. How will a poll clerk differentiate us? Yet even the mildest scrutiny of a driving licence would establish that we are different people. In fact, there are an estimated 2,000 J Jamiesons in the UK. The Minister is not here at the moment, but she is even more popular than me, with an estimated 12,000 S Taylors in the UK. I would appreciate the Minister explaining how this improves integrity of voting.
Finally, I will address two issues this Bill is not addressing. First, the fragmented nature of electoral law causes significant issues of operation and interpretation, as my noble friend Lord Hayward has said today and previously many times. It is overly complex and conflicting. Do we really need another Bill that adds to that complexity? Secondly, according to the Electoral Commission, as has been mentioned by one or two other noble Lords, two-thirds of candidates faced abuse at this year’s local elections, which I can attest to from personal experience. We support robust debate, but if good people are unwilling to stand, if candidates are restricted in campaigning, if politicians are constrained in what they say from fear of abuse, it fundamentally undermines democracy and harms our country. We support the measures in this Bill to protect election officials and candidates, but much more needs to be done. In particular, why is online abuse and misuse of AI not a greater priority?
Baroness Linforth (Lab)
My Lords, I will address my remarks to the provisions of the Bill that aim to improve voter participation. In one of my roles in my previous job working for Labour, I was a member of the elections team. This was the early 1990s. I am another one of those nerds that my noble friend Lady Paul referred to. We wanted to maximise the possibility of Labour winning elections, and we provided guidance, advice and leadership to the various Labour Party units led by brilliant professional staff and driven by great volunteers. When I look back on those days, I cringe at some of the things we had to do because government bodies and local authorities were not doing them. We asked our volunteers to look through electoral registers to identify properties that did not appear, and then we visited them to see if we could register the occupants. It was hugely labour-intensive, and I take this opportunity to thank those volunteers for doing this, but we had to, because participation in the democratic process—being able to vote—is possibly the greatest right any citizen has. Back then the Government of the day were lax in compiling the register of electors. It should not have been left to volunteers to make sure the electoral register was up to date.
That is why I welcome the provisions in this Bill allowing for electoral registration officers to register individuals directly, and enabling new methods of voter registration for parliamentary electors and local government electors in England and Northern Ireland to be piloted. I believe that the move to individual electoral registration in 2014 was a retrograde step. I must admit that I find it slightly amusing that we are now proposing making an electoral registration officer a quasi “head of household”. It seems to me that it is a tacit admission that the move to individual electoral registration was a failure. I understand that close to 8 million people are currently missing from the electoral register. That is around 15% of all those aged over 18 in the UK. That is not good enough. We thus need to be able to compare all databases created whenever a citizen interacts with the Government and local authorities, and then use them to plug the gaps in registration. That could be, for example, driving licences, passport applications or council tax data, et cetera. I would also encourage a legal duty for the electoral register to be compared with datasets held by credit reference agencies. These companies often hold information about people not on the electoral register who should be on it. The register of electors should be first among equals. It should be of a gold standard.
If we are going to move to votes for 16 year-olds, I would encourage the Government to link the issuance of a national insurance number at that age to being registered to vote. I favour that a citizen be registered automatically but offered an opportunity to opt out at the point of registration. In this regard, I welcome the proposal to end the presumption that citizens are placed on the open register, and that any citizen would have to opt in to that register. I do not support compulsory voting, but I do want everyone to vote. In these days of highly partisan party politics, that might be a little controversial, but I truly believe that the higher the turnout, the better, whoever a voter chooses to vote for. Political parties should work hard to earn votes, and the institutions of government should remove barriers to voting.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this Bill because the integrity of our democracy is increasingly under threat, not only from foreign money and misinformation, but from politicians who deliberately seek to divide people by race, religion and immigration status. I want to concentrate on that wider democratic culture.
I am particularly concerned about the direction in which Reform UK under Mr Nigel Farage is seeking to take our political debate. Mr Farage is perfectly entitled to argue for lower immigration and stronger borders. Those are legitimate subjects for a democratic debate. But there is a profound difference between debating immigration and repeatedly presenting immigrants and ethnic minorities as the explanation for everything that is wrong with our country. We saw a disturbing example of this in Southampton. Following the horrific murder of Henry Nowak, Mr Farage called upon British people to respond with what he described as “pure, cold rage”. He spoke of a two-tier culture and anti-white prejudice. Within hours there was serious disorder in Southampton, and some police officers were injured.
Compare that rhetoric with the recent terrible tragedy near Middlesbrough. Seven people died: five young men travelling in a stolen car and two serving police officers. Every one of those deaths was a tragedy, and my heart goes out to all of their families. Imagine, though: had those five young men been from minority communities, Mr Farage’s reaction would have been very different—but he said nothing. Why? Because it did not fit his political narrative of demonising ethnic minority communities. Social media would have been flooded with claims about immigration, integration and the supposed failure of multicultural Britain.
Crimes must be condemned whoever commits them and victims deserve justice regardless of their colour, but political outrage must not be switched on when the alleged offender belongs to one community and switched off when the circumstances do not fit a political story. That is not responsible leadership. History teaches us that democracy is rarely destroyed overnight but is weakened gradually. When minority communities become convenient scapegoats, when independent institutions are treated with contempt, when misinformation becomes the norm and when political leaders persuade voters that their neighbours are responsible for all their problems, then the foundation of democracy begins to decay.
I make, with caution, a historical comparison: the language used by Reform’s leadership reminds me of the Europe of the 1930s. Racialised language is in danger of becoming normalised in our country. Social media has made the danger even greater. One provocative tweet from the world’s richest man can do untold damage to our community cohesion.
That is why the Bill’s provision on political finance and electronic campaign material matters. Foreign money must not be allowed to buy British political influence. The Electoral Commission must be strengthened. Political parties must be required to know where their donations ultimately originate from.
Immigrants and ethnic minorities are listening to this debate and some are asking themselves: if this rhetoric one day translated into government, what would happen to them? They are our neighbours, doctors, nurses and so on. Britain is their home. We must therefore defend not merely the machinery of democracy but its values: fairness, tolerance, truth and equality before the law. That is why I support the Bill and why I believe this House must remain vigilant against any politics that seeks electoral advantage by turning one group of British people against another.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, my starting point is very simple. The minimum voting age should match the minimum age for standing for an election, and I believe both of those should be 18. Yet, through this Bill, Ministers would be allowing a 16 year-old to elect a Member of Parliament while continuing to prevent that very same young person from becoming one. It is for Ministers to explain to your Lordships’ House why their judgment is sufficient for one purpose but not the other.
My greater concern, however, is whether dependent 16 and 17 year-olds would genuinely exercise a fully independent choice at the ballot box. We know that family voting—or let us be frank and call it what it is: electoral fraud—is becoming increasingly common in this country. A report from Democracy Volunteers recently identified breaches of ballot secrecy in more than one in five polling stations that they observed during the 2024 general election. These findings should concern us all, as they raise serious questions about the privacy and independence of voting, including the risk of one family member directing another’s ballot.
If observers identify breaches inside our polling stations, Ministers should explain how they will protect a dependent teenager completing a postal ballot at home. After all, there is no polling officer at the kitchen table. A young person may face a demand to show their ballot, surrender it or complete it under supervision. Before extending the franchise, Ministers should publish before the House what assessment they have made of this risk and what additional safeguards they are going to implement to prevent the coercion that may inevitably occur. What the Bill fails to ensure is that a parent is not acquiring an additional vote simply because their child becomes eligible, or that a husband does not cast his wife’s vote. Every voting adult should have the confidence of being able to cast their vote in secrecy, and this should be the main concern and priority of the Government.
On voter identification, it is entirely wrong to assume that the possession of a bank card is enough to establish the identity of an individual. This is an area where I intend to move amendments, as it is beyond farcical that, after all the work that local authorities have put into training staff around photographic identification and the issuing of a voter authority certificate, this Bill should now be allowed to undo that work and weaken the integrity of the ballot.
Moving on to the issue of political donations, I welcome tighter controls, but Parliament must test whether they work and how far they actually go in protecting the integrity of our elections. A British company’s address must not legitimise money supplied by a non-permissible donor. Parties must establish the true source of funds, not simply record the name on the transfer. Restrictions must withstand attempts to route money through companies, associations, loans, third-party campaigns and so on. If a party cannot establish that a donation is lawful, then it simply should not be able to accept it.
Deliberate evasion of these rules should and must bring serious consequences, and these standards must apply equally to every party. However, we should be wary of retrospective changes to the law. People should be able to rely on the law as it stands at the time. Reaching back and changing the consequences afterwards is a dangerous precedent and risks serious overreach by the state.
We must not confuse foreign interference with British citizens who happen to live overseas. They are not foreigners and should not be treated as such. If they have the right to vote in our elections, their lawful participation in our democracy by making transparent donations should not automatically be treated with suspicion. For the integrity of our democracy, it is the validation of the source of the donation made that the Government should turn their attention to.
Like others in this Room, I have stood as a candidate in a great number of elections and observed many counts over my lifetime. I do not support measures that risk weakening the very fairness and secrecy upon which public confidence depends. For those reasons, I actually urge noble Lords to reject the Bill.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this Bill, which should help strengthen our democracy at a time when it is under some strain. The extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds, following Scotland and Wales, represents an important step in recognising the contribution many of them already make as citizens and in enabling them to contribute to political decisions that will help determine their futures. However, as I know from my own earlier research as an academic, some young people do not feel prepared for this new responsibility.
The Select Committee on Citizenship and Civic Engagement, of which I was a member, emphasised citizenship education’s
“crucial role to play in helping to build active citizens”.
It deplored the way in which the previous Government had allowed it
“to degrade to a parlous state”
and expressed concern that, in emphasising individual character, it was failing to develop much-needed political literacy. It is welcome that the Government will make citizenship education mandatory in primary as well as secondary schools, but the Association for Citizenship Teaching has warned that some of the proposed curriculum changes risk weakening the contribution it can make to
“preparing young people for participation in democratic life”.
I therefore encourage my noble friend the Minister, if she has not already done so, to read the very useful recent report from the APPG for Schools, Learning and Assessment Empowering Students as Democratic Citizens: How Schools and Colleges Can Prepare Young People for Votes at 16. The report cites studies which demonstrate that
“effective democratic education in schools can positively impact young people’s intended political engagement as well as perceptions of political efficacy, confidence, interest and trust in politics—all important factors associated with voting in elections”.
Yet access to such education is generally poor and inconsistent, with more marginalised groups likely to lose out. A year 8 student who gave evidence said:
“Equipping us with political education is … a democratic necessity”.
The Bill’s provision for automatic voter registration is of particular importance to young people—and to private renters—but it needs strengthening so that it becomes a duty and has a clear, speedy timeline.
The Women’s Democracy Group emphasises the need to improve the diversity of political candidates, including through the implementation of Section 106 of the Equality Act, which would require parties to publish data on the protected characteristics of candidates standing for national elections. The Government are committed to commencing Section 106, but have refused to provide any kind of timeline for doing so or for the prior consultation process. Centenary Action argues that Section 106 is a vital tool for helping to move the dial on diversity of representation by bringing greater transparency, and that it is essential that it is enacted as soon as possible in time for preparation for the next election, which could well occur during the centenary year of equal franchise. Can my noble friend give us some idea of when action will be taken on this?
If we are to come into line with Scotland and Wales, we should also extend the franchise to foreign residents, as argued by my honourable friend James Naish MP, drawing on the work of the Migrant Democracy Project, which I met earlier this year. The project argues rightly that
“democracy works best when it is inclusive for all who it serves. All those who call the UK their home have vested political and social interest in how their communities and country are governed”.
Back in 2022, the now Justice Secretary, Alex Norris MP, tabled an amendment which would have achieved just that. Surely an inclusive Representation of the People Bill should not exclude this particular group of people. I therefore ask my noble friend whether she will look at the case for their inclusion.
In conclusion, I support those arguing for stronger limits on political donations and for the establishment of a commission for electoral reform. The widely supported amendment on the latter was deemed out of scope in the Commons, with Minister Eshalomi arguing that
“it is premature to legislate now for one approach”—[Official Report, Commons, 2/9/26; col. 342.]
to electoral reform. But the whole point of a commission is to examine a range of approaches, ideally drawing on the wisdom of a citizens’ assembly. That said, I welcome her willingness to discuss next steps and hope that my noble friend will say the same; in her opening remarks, she implied that she was open to discussing anything with Members of this House. Of course, a commission does not require legislation, but it would mark an important step towards what my noble friend Lord Kinnock recently described as a “profound act of democratisation”.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. As I was re-elected as a councillor in May, I have a direct interest in the formation of electoral law. As such, it will perhaps be no surprise that I will focus my remarks on some really practical issues.
First, voter registration is currently significantly incomplete, despite the best efforts of elections officers. The Electoral Commission estimates that 8 million people are not registered to vote. In my constituency of Spen Valley, that is estimated to mean 10,000 potential voters unable to vote because they are not registered. This has impacts on our democracy; lack of registration is heavily skewed to those who rent and those who move home regularly. This demographic is also likely to be less well off than the average. The further impact is on the boundaries of constituencies, which are based on numbers of registered electors. The reasons for not registering are many, but they include people not wanting others to know where they live and not trusting the opt-out from the open register to safeguard them from, for instance, a violent ex-partner. The move to an opt-in register is therefore a positive move. Automatic voter registration is welcome, but the practical implementation leaves much to be desired. Where is the timetable for action? Where are the proposed pilots, which are essential if there is to be a move to automatic registration? Can the Minister provide those details before its widescale introduction, and will that occur before the next general election?
The other issues I want to raise are small but important. The first is that of postal votes. Currently, there is no specified timetable for elections officers to send postal ballots to Royal Mail for delivery. Given that, in some local elections, those voting by post may constitute a significant portion of votes cast—between a third and a half, depending on turnout—naming a postal vote day or days will aid both voters and campaigners. Voters will get information on candidates and campaigners can get the information to them in time. Then there is the abuse of election spending limits, for local elections in particular. Literature from a national political party that does not name a local candidate, specific local issues or the party in the locality is not counted towards local election expense limits. In a recent local by-election in Kirklees, where I am a councillor, approximately £4,000-worth of such literature from one political party arrived on voters’ doormats. This is more than double the enforceable election expense limit for that election. It is making a nonsense of spending limits, and I urge the Minister to consider with the Electoral Commission changes to those regulations.
Finally, I will raise a concern about the relative sizes of electorates in local wards—not within a council district, as that is well governed by the local boundary commission. This Bill seeks to improve the representation of people, yet in Birmingham, for instance, the councillor to voter ratio is one to 7,000. In my own area of Kirklees, it is one to 4,700; in Manchester, it is about one to 3,500; and for London boroughs the ratio is about one to 2,500. So in one part of the country the ratio is three times greater than in others. There are serious implications of this disparity. The larger ratio comes with a growing loss of real local representation and the remoteness of those elected in making local decisions. I hope the Minister will reflect on these disparities and how they can be addressed.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, this Bill does not end the power of the rich to hijack democracy. Corporations and the super-rich do not donate; they invest and get a return for themselves and their class. Numerous laws are bent to advance their interests. The result is that 1% own more wealth than the bottom 70% of the population combined. Private equity bosses are taxed at lower rates than wage earners. No one is prosecuted for the Post Office, Grenfell or other scandals. Frauds at HBOS remain uninvestigated. Government contracts are showered on donors with little transparency. The Autonomy Institute reported that, for every £1 of donations since 2000, public contracts worth £1,294 have been given to the same set of companies. No party really wants to end the political auction that people see every day.
The £100,000 cap on donations by an overseas voter does not dismantle the political bazaars. It can be bypassed through donations by connected persons. There is no way of knowing whether the money came from Musk or Mafia. Thailand-based Christopher Harborne has handed £61 million to Reform since 2019. He was named in the Panama Papers. Ben Delo has handed £44 million to Reform and has a criminal conviction in the US. He was sentenced to 30 months on probation and fined $10 million. Will the Government ensure that individuals with criminal convictions cannot fund political parties?
The Government have promised to implement the Rycroft review proposals on corporate donations, but they will not curb regulatory games. I will give just one example. Some years ago, £5,137,785 was donated to the Conservative Party by Lord Ashcroft, its one-time Treasurer and a Treasurer with a non-dom status. The money originated from Stargate Holdings, a company controlled by Lord Ashcroft and registered in Belize. Complex transactions were used to conceal the origins of the money. The money passed through a series of UK companies—Astraporta UK Ltd and Bearwood Holdings Ltd—and was then paid to the Conservative Party by Bearwood Corporate Services Ltd; none had sufficient profits to cover donations. The small companies used in this chain did not have to publish full sets of accounts, thereby making it difficult for anyone to carry out what we now call “know your donor” checks.
The Rycroft review has now recommended that corporate donations should be based on post-tax profits. This is also highly problematic, as there is no statutory definition of profit. Profits for accounting, tax and management purposes are not identical. Accounting rules are malleable, and scandals show that profit can be manufactured through intra-group transactions. That happened at Carillion and is happening at water companies. Companies can have profits but be cash poor. Does that mean they will borrow money to make political donations? That is what this legislation will result in.
Currently, the Government are consulting on deregulation of corporate reporting, which will make it impossible for anyone to carry out the “know your donor” checks. I hope that someone in the Government will connect the dots.
Finally, there are two ways of cleaning up UK politics, which has to be the ultimate aim of the Bill in front of us. We need a ban on political donations, with parties funded by modest membership fees and possible state money to help them—they are already getting some Short money—or all donations must go to a central fund administered by the Electoral Commission. The money would then be divided in accordance with the share of votes secured by a party. This way, corporations and the super-rich could not directly fund a political party and buy political influence, and we would finally be free of the iron grip of corporations and the super-rich on our politics.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, though I must say I think I have heard some of those arguments before.
This is a big Bill, but it misses the big point. Instead of strengthening democracy, it fiddles around the edges. I fought many elections in a career in local government. I often have to remind people that, to become the leader of the council, as I was for nearly 20 years, you have to win three elections very quickly: once in your ward, once among your political friends and the other among the whole council. You have to learn how to count. But the rules are pretty clear; in order to win, you just get more ballots than the next person. The candidate with the most votes win. You can explain that to anyone in a few seconds: plain and simple, done and dusted.
Yet, as I survey the state of democracy in our nation, I see so many complex and contradictory voting systems. There is first past the post, then the supplementary vote for PCCs and mayors in England. We have the single transferable vote in Northern Ireland, although that is also open to EU citizens. There is a hybrid proportional scheme with additional member top-ups of party chums in Scotland. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is not in his place, but he entertained us with his accidental election earlier in this debate. There is a closed-loop system in Wales, where only the chums can win. Thank goodness the voters rejected the alternative vote in May 2011 in that referendum, but somehow that method persists with the Scottish Crofting Commission elections—apparently.
They are not the only differences. Anyone can vote in Wales or Scotland, regardless of nationality, as long as they live there, but not in England. Then we get all-outs or thirds for councils, and single or double or multimember wards, and four or five-year terms in some councils but not others. In London—I echo the points made by the noble Baroness, Baroness Pinnock—it takes 3,108 electors on average across the whole of London to choose a councillor, but it takes 15,000 in parts of Essex. There are more councillors within the M25 than in the entirety of all the county councils of England. We heard from my noble friend Lord Mackinlay, who is not in his place, about overseas territories. With all this complication, are you still with me?
I remember the case a few years ago in Cambridgeshire. On the same day, there were elections for five different layers of local government, with three separate voting systems. No wonder people were confused. We are meant to be a United Kingdom, but in terms of the electoral system, there is more that divides us than brings us together.
Given a choice in 2011 in a referendum, voters expressed a clear preference for first past the post. The problem is that, when you depart from the simplicity and purity of the principle of the person with the most votes winning, you end up with funny business—and nothing is more harmful to faith in democracy, the legitimacy of politicians and trust in our institutions than funny business.
But this Bill does nothing to address that or the abuses. Recently, we had the unseemly rush to pass the supplementary vote regulations in the Manchester mayoral elections in June. There was the attempted cancellation of local government elections last year. Thank goodness that has been unwound for next May. Thanks to the Government’s screaming U-turn, handbrake turn, on LGR last week, we have all been spared the unseemly debate relating to the gerrymandering of Labour councillors in the formerly proposed Lincoln unitary, where there would be three councillors per ward in the city of Lincoln but only one in the rural hinterland around. That scheme would have betrayed and disgraced a banana republic. How the Labour Party considers itself fit to pass this piece of partisan legislation, I do not know.
There are other omissions in this Bill. Where are the guardrails referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for equality in the value of votes? I am entirely with my noble friend Lord Jamieson that a bank card can just be picked up from the sideboard: there is no security there.
The Bill introduces new jeopardies in the classroom, bringing divisions between teachers and children and among the children themselves. Back in 2018—I am thinking of unincorporated institutions here—the Minister and I together put the Local Government Association on a proper footing. It was previously an unincorporated body. There are plenty of others, such as the Ipswich Suffolk Business Club, a monthly dining club that henceforth would be prohibited from engaging in politics. How many other organisations, clubs and charities would be caught in this crossfire? I do not stand for Reform, but retrospection is clearly wrong in principle.
The Bill puts tinkering before simplicity. It is a missed opportunity that fails to reinforce confidence in the voting system, and it fails to call out the funny business that disavows the principle that you win the election fair and square when you get one more vote than the next man. This Bill should correct it but does not.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to make a short contribution to this debate. I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Macintosh of Eastwood on his excellent and engaging maiden speech. I declare an interest that, decades ago, I used to organise an annual meeting with the Scottish Parliament on science, to which the noble Lord made contributions. He was a very distinguished Presiding Officer of the Parliament, and I am sure the House will want to hear from him on many more occasions in the future.
I am the 45th listed speaker in this debate; I feel as though I fall into the dinner-break category. I am not the only person to remark upon the exquisite timing of today’s debate. At the weekend, we all heard that two almost incredibly wealthy people had decided to give £36 million each to the same political party. Without a doubt, these are the greatest proposed individual financial gifts ever bestowed upon any political party in British history, and they raise some fundamental challenges to our political system and democracy that we would pass over at our peril. Do we want our democratic politics to be reduced to a fundraising race to the bottom? We can look across the Atlantic and see the divisive impact of big money and big donors in America.
The Bill proposes a limit of £100,000 for political donations made in a calendar year by an overseas contributor, and I am beginning to think that that figure ought to be reviewed. We should also extend the moratorium—I would prefer a ban—on the donation of crypto assets to registered political parties. Crypto assets, almost by definition, make it hard or impossible to be sure that the donation is not tainted in any way by illegal activity and unknown malign actors. Further, there is a bigger question about the appropriate limits on individual donations. The two donors in question have claimed not to want anything in return for their £36 million. If you believe that, then I have got news for you: you will believe anything. There are huge questions to be raised about transparency and accountability. How is their relationship going to be monitored? We cannot have undercover reporters at every single drinks party to let us know what is going on.
I turn to other areas in the Bill. This is an important Bill that seeks to implement manifesto commitments. Many Members in this Chamber have contested elections at local and constituency level. I am one of those who rather wishes that the Bill was a consolidated Bill, but we are where we are. I am interested in some of the comments made about extending the franchise and its political effect—please do not tempt me, as I will run out of time—and I support the right of 16 and 17 year-olds to vote. When I speak to young people in schools—or, as other noble Lords have mentioned, at Learn with the Lords events—I am struck by the fact that they know they have the greatest stake in the future. They are hungry to know and understand the system, and we should do a great deal more than we do even now to help with their education. Forgive me, but, to my generation, the words “tick tock” refer to a grandfather clock or the passage of time; however, to the new generation, TikTok is how they get the news and video clips that shape their view of the world. I therefore strongly support the proposals in Clause 15 for local authorities to have a duty to raise awareness among young people.
On voter registration, I strongly support the spirit of Part 2. In the late 1970s, I was an agent. In the constituency of Kensington North, where I lived, grew up and first voted, I conducted an exercise in voter registration in a ward in the north of the constituency. I was astonished to find that there were 371 people who should have been on that register, so I strongly support what the Bill is seeking to do. But I want to make one point to the Minister: the Electoral Commission will be an increasingly important guardrail for protecting our democracy. Things such as the imprint rules, which have been referred to, and the use of deepfakes can damage trust in our democracy. When she winds up, can my noble friend the Minister assure the House that the Electoral Commission will have adequate resources to do the expanded role it is expected to carry out?
Finally, there is one issue I want to raise with my noble friend that noble Lords might consider very esoteric: the demise of the Crown and its impact on elections. Does the Bill guard against the possibility, however unlikely, that a general election at the very end of a five-year Parliament could be put at risk by the demise of the Crown? To be precise, could there be rare circumstances that cause the postponement of a general election for 14 days beyond the statutory five-year Parliament limit?
My time is up. I hope we can get as much consensus as possible on some of these areas in the Bill, because it will help preserve the stability of our democracy and the representation of the people upon which it rests.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, the Bill is concerned with fair voting and its extension. Why, then, are Peers—us—still not included in a system that is almost universal? The exclusion of Peers from participating in general elections is an outdated democratic anomaly that has no place in a modern society. Sitting Members of the House of Lords are taxpayers, they are subject to the law, and they are as profoundly affected as any other sector of society by the laws made by the House of Commons—which, in the last resort, they cannot defy. Denying them—us—the fundamental democratic right to vote and classing them as persons with “legal incapacity” unnecessarily strips them of their basic civic voice. Granting Peers the right to vote in parliamentary elections would not diminish the primacy of the Commons; rather, it would align our electoral system with universal suffrage principles, ensuring that every adult citizen can participate in choosing the government that shapes their daily life.
Our wise and well-informed heads cannot vote, but 16 year-olds will be enfranchised. The mandate committed the Government to this. This age limit adds to our muddled approach to maturity. Those 16 year-olds cannot yet buy alcohol, gamble, sign a tenancy agreement, get credit or marry. If they are mature enough to vote, then, sooner or later, those other age limits will have to align. As it stands, 16 year-olds will need to be protected from family voting, coercion, undue influence by their peers and family, and impersonation. They are particularly subject to pressure because they probably still are financially dependent on their parents, live at home, remain in education and have little privacy.
Very soon, young people will be barred from accessing Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Snapchat, Facebook and Twitter, so where are they going to get the necessary information that makes their vote meaningful? They do not read newspapers or even books. A survey by Statista in 2025 showed that only 18.7% of teens read something daily. Newspaper consumption is even lower: only 14% of under-16s read a paper. Where are they to get the information and experience they need to cast an intelligent vote? At 15 years and 51 weeks, they will not be allowed to access relevant media, but the next day they can vote, based on who knows what information. Are school teachers equipped to teach about political participation without straying into party politics?
This takes me to the Bill’s provisions on bank card ID. A 16 year-old can apply for a bank card, but they would have to do so quickly if an election was imminent. I cannot see that bank cards will prevent impersonation. A bank card has a name on it, but no link to the person carrying it. What principle are the Government adopting to ensure that identity is proven and impersonation prevented? What steps will the Government take to prevent fraud and impersonation and ensure that bank cards are secure enough?
Finally, I turn to donations that may be made to political parties. The Bill rightly seeks to prevent foreign money influencing the system, but what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. British activists and NGOs have a long history of trying to influence American elections and policies—not through money but by lobbying; and American strategists, think tanks, and corporations with UK subsidiaries have influenced British elections.
The position is not wholly consistent because trade union members still have to opt out from, rather than opt in to, funding the Labour Party. There should be individual consent to one’s money being taken to fund the party. Trade union donations are transparent, if forced, and are 100% donations to one party. Moreover, there is no cap on individual donations. If criminal convictions disqualify a person from donating, each trade union member will need scrutiny. There is a law against promising an honour, such as a peerage, in return for a political donation, but sadly this law is too narrow and hard to enforce. We should be on the lookout for cash for honours. This Bill, in all, does little on ensuring the integrity of the voting booth, the knowledge and identity needed to be a voter, and influential donations.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I was sad to hear from the right reverend Prelate that this was his last contribution in the House and that he is retiring at the end of the month. I served with him on the Council for Christians and Jews—he was a chairman and I was a Christian vice-chairman—and I was thankful for his leadership, wisdom and kindness. I wish him well in his retirement.
I will speak mainly against plans to lower the voting age to 16, on three grounds: evidence of brain development; the confusion they bring to our policy approach to maturity; and their reinforcement of shopper politics, where building the good society matters less than giving ever more stuff to voters. Young people face an array of wicked policy problems, and successfully tackling just one of these would make a far more tangible difference to their outcomes.
I am concerned about registering 14 year-olds as attainers, given the extra layers of safeguarding required for those at confidential addresses who have fled domestic abuse or other threats. This will intensify bureaucratic burdens without guaranteeing safety. The more systems in which an address is recorded and the more people who may lawfully access it, the greater the potential for error or unauthorised disclosure. The Government consider such data to be sensitive enough to require the special non-disclosure regime laid out in Clauses 7 to 14, but can the Minister explain why they should collect and maintain electoral registration data on children two years before they can vote, putting an additional younger birth cohort at risk?
In Committee in the Commons, the Minister pleaded consistency with current arrangements where 16 and 17 year-old attainers are on the register—yet lowering the voting age is profoundly inconsistent with other policy areas. Staff I meet across the youth custody estate punctiliously refer to 16 and 17 year-olds as children, precisely because of their relative immaturity. Practitioners who support 16 and 17 year-olds’ mental health tell me that they have so many other life issues that they are trying to come to terms with. Military recruitment of under-18s demonstrates that they are not fully autonomous adults but require special protection. They need parental permission, are not sent into combat and are still considered to be in secondary education. Lowering the voting age increases the risk that young people, especially young women in some communities, are pressurised to vote in a family bloc, as we have heard elsewhere.
During Commons stages debates about reducing the voting age, one supporter pointed to young carers having already carried onerous familial responsibilities for over a decade. But what has that got to do with it? Their exceptional hardships are, thankfully, not typical. Neither are the under-18 youth mayors, held up as exemplars for giving all 16 and 17 year-olds the vote. Worthy anecdotes are not evidence of cohort-wide maturity.
Ironically, neuroscience has heightened awareness, as never before, of how very much more maturing the brain still needs to do at 16. World-renowned developmental psychologist Professor Laurence Steinberg found that the sweet spot for resistance to peer influences is 18. By this point, the majority have developed the capacity to stand up for what they believe and withstand peer pressure to do otherwise. Other studies show that the brain’s control system or executive functions that help young people manage their thoughts, behaviour and decisions in pursuit of a goal grow rapidly from late childhood to mid-teens, stabilising to adult levels only in late adolescence, at 18 to 20 years old.
Executive functions govern how effectively a person can regulate their emotional reactions—perhaps to a TikTok video, as we have heard—evaluate the effects of different influences and decide independently. Voting at 18 means that as many as possible are able, as far as possible, to make independent judgments, hold competing arguments in mind, resist others’ views and consider longer-term consequences. The noble Lord, Lord Macintosh of Eastwood, in his commendable maiden speech, highlighted the higher turnout in Scotland, but many 16 to 18 year-olds are still embedded in families and schools where peer pressures can be considerably amplified.
The Commons Minister said that the voting age should be lowered simply because young people are “our nation’s future”. That argument is simply unsustainable. We invest in the first 1,001 days of a child’s life because infants are also our nation’s future. Lowering the voting age means taking an evidentially indefensible step in terms of child protection, requiring a complex legislative and bureaucratic underpinning, perhaps solely for political advantage. More feel-good shopper politics will not solve the problems facing this country, and especially our young people.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Macintosh on his maiden speech, even though I was unable to be here for it, for which I hope he has forgiven me. As he has not walked out before my speech starts, there is a chance that he might have. I am delighted to contribute to this debate, as part of the process whereby an important manifesto commitment is transferred into legislation. What makes this Bill so important is that it strengthens and future-proofs our democracy at a time when, as in too many countries today, democracy itself is under threat.
I have called on many occasions for the voting age in England to be brought into line with Scotland, where votes at 16 were introduced in 2015. Five years later, Wales made the same change. So there is inescapable logic in extending that to cover the entire UK and applying it to elections at all levels. Votes at 16 is an important democratic development, expanding the electorate and bringing new voices and perspectives into the political process—the comments just now by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, notwithstanding. But the full benefits of lowering the voting age will not be felt if that right is introduced in a vacuum.
That is why the All-Party Group for Schools, Learning and Assessment, of which I am a member, undertook an inquiry into how the building blocks can be put in place to ensure that young people are prepared for being democratically empowered. The inquiry was concerned with education that supports young people in preparing to vote, but it went beyond that to examine how schools and colleges can foster the democratic skills and knowledge that underpin using the vote and support young people to participate in broader democratic society as critical, engaged and active citizens.
The report was published in July and, as my noble friend Lady Lister said, it stressed the importance of citizenship education in providing the building blocks for young people to understand and develop an appreciation of democratic engagement. Among its recommendations was a call for the Government to ensure that upcoming changes in response to the curriculum and assessment review create a “core curriculum entitlement” to citizenship and that teachers are given the support to enable them to navigate this new aspect of citizenship education with confidence.
If implemented effectively, there is a particular strength in young people registering to vote while still in an educational setting, with schools and colleges able to support them through that process. The Association of Colleges says in its briefing for this debate that colleges are keen to explore the scope for integrating college and school enrolment with voter registration, as has already occurred at several universities. Clause 3 stipulates the entitlement to be registered at 14, signalling an opportunity for schools to embed registration for 14 and 15 year-olds and thus enhance initial citizenship and political literacy education.
I want to highlight the very welcome toughening of rules on political donations and campaign financing in Part 4 of the Bill. The initial provisions were strengthened in another place by the Government adding recommendations by the Rycroft review into countering foreign influence. The restriction being placed on the amount which can be given to a political party during a calendar year by an individual who is a non-UK resident has been set at £100,000, which is appropriate and one that I think the average voter will see as reasonable—unlike the outrageous amounts paid to a political party last week, the timing of which was simply to evade this legislation. As my noble friend Lord Sikka said: these are not donations, they are investments.
That said, I cannot agree with those who called for retrospective legislation to deal with those payments. First, retrospective law is, I believe, fundamentally undemocratic. Secondly, such a move would play into the hands of those who claim this Bill is specifically aimed at one party in particular. It is not, of course, but that argument could quite easily be used against Labour unless the Government tread carefully.
There is also an issue with domestic political campaign donations. At Third Reading in another place, Minister Eshalomi made a commitment on domestic political finance reform, saying that a new cross-government task and finish team will be working at pace to find a solution to the issue of mega donors in UK politics. I ask my noble friend the Minister to expand on the remit of this task and finish team and tell us whether the Government will commit to the introduction of a donation cap and reduce the national campaign spending limit before the next general election.
Time does not allow me to cover the questions of electoral reform, the Electoral Commission and hostility towards candidates. All of those will need to await Committee, to which I look forward.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, for reasons of time, I wish to advance two proposals that can also be read across to other Bills. The first is on commencement. As the Delegated Powers Committee notes, the commencement clause, Clause 90, is a standard provision. Some provisions take effect on the day the Bill is passed and others on a day appointed by regulation by the Secretary of State. Such a distinction is usual and, as the committee notes, justified, given that:
“A franchise change will need considerable implementation and preparation in advance of the provisions taking effect”.
The problem is one of uncertainty. The fact that clauses are approved—they become part of the statute—does not mean that they will be enacted. Until they are commenced, they are deemed by the courts to be law in abeyance, or what I have termed “law but not law”. Given the sheer number of provisions in the Bill, not least those that amend existing law, we could end up with a patchwork quilt of provisions commenced and others still in abeyance, creating problems for those who administer election law in knowing what law is in effect.
At the very least, we need greater clarity. The Explanatory Notes include a useful table in Annex A adumbrating how the provisions have territorial application in the UK. Could we not have something similar for commencement provisions, or Keeling-like schedules, with colour coding for changes taking immediate effect and those awaiting commencement? More substantively, there is a case for having sunset provisions. That concentrates minds—it provides a useful discipline and lets those who are affected know that there will not be continuing uncertainty. We have in the statute book already a large body of uncommenced legislation. This is not a satisfactory situation. Will the Minister at least give some guidance as to when provisions not given immediate effect are expected to be commenced? I realise she will not commit to sunset provisions, but that is something we may need to consider.
The second proposal is around consolidation. My noble friend Lord Hayward has raised the need for a consolidation measure. Consolidation is highly desirable, but the chances of a Government providing the necessary resources, not least time, to get such a measure on the statute book are slim.
Given that, there is an alternative—a rather modest one, but at least an achievable one—and that is making provision in the Bill for post-legislative scrutiny. Such a provision qualifies under the criteria I have previously adumbrated for putting a provision for post-legislative scrutiny in a Bill—namely, that it is large, complex, makes substantial changes to the law, is contested, and has not been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. This Bill fulfils those criteria. I think it would provide some reassurance to all those affected by the Bill to know that it will be subject to review. Once enacted, it will qualify for post-legislative review, in any event, three to five years after enactment. Unfortunately, not all departments are rigorous in carrying out such reviews; implementation is somewhat variable. Given that, putting it beyond doubt that its effects will be reviewed is both desirable and achievable. The Government have nothing to lose by making such a provision and a great deal to gain in determining that the law has achieved what it is intended to achieve.
I appreciate I have focused on detail, but, as we know, the devil is usually in the detail. We need to know what will take effect and when, and whether it does what it is intended to do. The Government will argue that getting something on the statute book is necessary. My point is that it is not sufficient.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, back in 1970, I was very grateful that I had been born in March, because the 1970 general election was the first time that 18 year-olds could vote in general elections, and I had been born 18 years before, in March. I had the excitement of not having to wait until I was 23, five years later or whatever; I was able to vote three months after I attained the age of 18.
More than that, the London Borough of Redbridge, where I lived at the time, had had a “Welcome to Citizenship” event one evening that I had been to, and I was all revved up to exercise my democratic duty on 18 June 1970 in the constituency of Wanstead and Woodford, where Winston Churchill was once MP. So, I turned up, cast my secret ballot and felt I had done my citizenship duty. The rub was that it was a completely wasted vote, because Wanstead and Woodford was a two-party race and my vote counted for nothing whatever in the constituency or even nationally. That was, if you like, a lesson to me, although I only thought about it afterwards when I was fairly incredulous about the results and realised that reform was needed.
If I think back just two years now, to 2024, of course we had the most unequal election that we have ever had in this country, with a Labour Party in government with 411 Members of Parliament, a majority of 172, on an astounding proportion of one-third of the vote. Not only that, in that election we had 8 million people who had not bothered to register and 40% of the remaining electorate who did not even bother to turn out; we had 12,000 people rejected at the polling stations because they did not turn up with their ID; and even of the 60% who voted, at least one-quarter had to vote tactically rather than for the candidate they actually wanted. That is what is wrong.
I was incredibly impressed by the opening address of the Minister, who emphasised, very early on, the equality of votes: that one vote should not be worth any more than that of a millionaire, or perhaps we should say of any other elector. That is clearly the biggest vacant area of this Bill. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, that we should have one way in which we vote in this country, but clearly we disagree, in that we need to make sure that people’s votes count. At the moment, they do not, and the Bill is completely blank in that area.
We need rejuvenation in our democracy and I will make one other small point, which is around the voting age. I absolutely welcome 16 and 17 year-olds voting. As has been said before, it has been shown, particularly in Scotland and also, I believe, in Wales, that people of that age range vote more than the 18 to 20 or 18 to 24 year-olds, and that, once they have voted, they continue to vote far more than the cohort that was not able to vote at that age. To me, that rejuvenates democracy. What I would say to the Minister and to this House is, please make sure that the votes of those 16 and 17 year-old electors who enter the polling station at our next general election, unlike mine back in Wanstead and Woodford in 1970, are not wasted.
Lord Markham (Con)
There have been over four hours of debate at this stage, with many views, and I shall speak briefly on what I think are two larger, overriding points to consider. First, this Bill is central to the legitimacy of our democracy and, as such, any rules that we set under the Bill must be fair, unbiased and consistent.
I accept that that the acronym FUC is probably not the wisest acronym I have ever come up with, but I hope we can all agree that fairness, unbias and consistency need to be the bedrock of everything we consider here. Otherwise, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Paul, said, we are in danger of seeing the Americanisation of our politics. I think anyone who has seen, in the American example, the way that states and districts have been gerrymandered, or the way that politically aligned district attorneys and judges from one party or another subvert the law in favour of one party or another, will accept that that is not a path any of us would want to go down, or the kind of democracy I believe any of us want.
The second overriding point I want us to think about in our democracy is that we must not feed the narrative that this is an establishment stitch-up to somehow disadvantage Reform. We need only look at the recent AfD vote in east Germany or National Rally in France to see the inherent dangers of something being seen as an establishment stitch-up. We need to make sure that this is not an opportunity for Reform to cast this as somehow the establishment versus the people. That will only be to our detriment and we need to make sure that the Bill does not add fuel to that fire. With that in mind and with the principles of fairness, unbias and consistency, I will talk about some of the inconsistencies and the things that I think that the Bill sets against these.
My noble friend Lord Jamieson set this out very clearly when he asked: why would we have a proposal that seeks to decrease voter security by moving away from voter ID, unless we were trying to make it easier for a certain segment of the population to vote than another, perhaps to disproportionately favour one party?
Around the electoral age, I would say that, if we believe that 16 year-olds should be allowed to vote, we must give them the ability to inform themselves properly as well, and, like it or not, social media is the platform that is now the major forum for political views and exchanges. Yet at the same time we are restricting social media feeds and personalisation, which is the main way that 16 and 17 year-olds will receive political information. Surely, if we consider a 16 year-old old enough to choose a Government, we must accept that they are old enough to hear the arguments on all the media platforms without government restrictions.
The second principle that I will take to Committee is that any rules on donations are fair and unbiased. Anything that we do which specifically rules in or out particular groups to the benefit of one party or another, such as the rules on union funding mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, will again put this Bill under the spotlight. If rules are seen to enable unfettered large union donations to Labour, while at the same time restricting large individual donations to Reform, including even retrospectively, I am afraid that there is a danger that we will feed the Reform narrative that this is an anti-establishment stitch-up, which will do much greater damage to our democracy. I believe and worry that this will give much more succour to their argument.
I will finish by saying that as we go through Committee, the criteria I will be looking to test each measure on are fairness, unbias and consistency. I will probably try to come up with a better acronym, as I say, but those are the rules that I will be applying in Committee.
Lord Janvrin (CB)
My Lords, I find myself in agreement with the introductory two points from the noble Lord, Lord Markham. I shall try to be brief. My particular interest in the Bill is in the changes proposed to our electoral registration system. This stems from being, six years ago, a member of a committee which undertook post-legislative scrutiny of the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013. The committee drew attention to the obvious fact that large numbers of eligible voters are missing from our electoral registers, and we recommended at that time that improving the accuracy and completeness of the registers should be given government priority. Six years later, the problem is only much worse.
As others have drawn attention to, the Electoral Commission research suggests that a staggering 8 million people across the United Kingdom are not registered to vote. Like others, I therefore welcome the intent, as recommended by our committee six years ago, to pilot new and automated methods of voter registration to remove barriers and make it easier to register. These systems are in widespread use in other countries; the technology exists. I ask the Minister about a timetable for moving forward on this. It is an urgent problem, but solutions can be found if the will is there.
Let me turn briefly—and I will try to be brief—to some of the other provisions in the Bill. On political donations, I welcome the Government’s intention to tighten the rules, and I look forward to the extensive discussion, as is evidenced by this debate, on how best to do this and to take account of the Rycroft review. I add that I support the intention in the Bill to strengthen the independence and effectiveness of the Electoral Commission. It has a vital role to play, and I ask the Minister whether she is satisfied that the commission has the resources to carry out effectively the many tasks now assigned to it.
I have doubts on lowering the voting age, but it is a manifesto commitment, and I can see that a case can be made to improve democratic engagement in this way. Those still in education can more readily be taught about why voting matters, and a commitment adopted early in life may stick. But this can only possibly make sense, as many others have said, if sufficient real resources are made available to schools and colleges to accompany this change.
I welcome the fact that the Bill recognises that electoral interference from hostile overseas actors remains a real threat. I was a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which produced a Russia report in 2019. This murky domain is constantly evolving, and we are right to take it very seriously.
As other noble Lords have said, we live at a time of unprecedented uncertainty, when democracy and the rule of law are in retreat around the world. We in this country are reminded daily that public trust in our ancient, hard-won and precious democratic construct is at a low ebb. As others have said, this is a real challenge of our times. Ensuring that electoral processes are free, fair and fit for purpose is one necessary way of addressing this challenge. I welcome the Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford
My Lords, I join a number of noble Lords who have raised the issue of deepfakes in electoral campaigning. I am pleased to be supported in this by my right reverend friend the Bishop of Leicester, who is, unfortunately, unable to be here today. It is regrettable that the Bill does not address the growing challenge to our democracy posed by deepfakes. Democracy depends not only upon the integrity of our electoral processes but upon the integrity of the information environment in which those processes operate, as the noble Lord, Lord Sahota, powerfully reminded us. Voters must be able to know when political content has been generated or materially altered by artificial intelligence. Without that assurance, it becomes harder for citizens to distinguish truth from fabrication, and easier for bad actors to manipulate democratic debate.
Deepfakes pose a distinct challenge to our democracy because they erode the trust on which democratic life depends. They diminish confidence in what voters see and hear, weakening our shared basis for public deliberative discourse. Ofcom research from 2024 found that 57% of respondents were concerned about the impact of deepfakes during the general election; almost half reported that they did not know if they had seen one in the previous week, and a quarter reported that they had.
The Christian and Jewish scriptures forbid the bearing of false witness against one’s neighbour, and we have already seen this played out within our own politics. In 2025, a deepfake falsely depicting George Freeman MP defecting to Reform UK circulated widely online yet reportedly did not meet the threshold for any criminal offence. Noble Members of this House have also been subject to deepfake imagery calling their character into question in a most disgraceful way. It is imperative that the law prohibits the creation or distribution of content that falsely purports to be a candidate or to speak on their behalf with the intention of deceiving voters, while of course at the same time the law must continue to safeguard satire, parody and legitimate political expression.
All AI-generated content should therefore carry clear imprints indicating that it is synthetic media. However, we should go further. AI-generated political content should be ineligible for monetisation, and platforms should be required to provide regular reports to Ofcom detailing monetised political content and enforcement actions taken against offenders. We should also take seriously the recommendation of the Communications and Digital Committee in 2025 to establish a levy on UK profits from online platforms to provide sustainable funding for media literacy initiatives.
As I close, I wish to add my thanks to my right reverend friend the Bishop of Lichfield for his contributions both today and in his time in this House. He has a gift for offering understated but remarkably shrewd insights to our deliberations here, and has ministered faithfully in this place through his pastoral relationship with staff across the House. He will be greatly missed, and not least for his example of taking significantly less than the speech limit in this debate. It is fitting that my right reverend friend has ended his time in the Chamber as he began, advocating for the importance of strong British democracy.
The omission of any consideration of deepfakes in this Bill is a missed opportunity to safeguard and strengthen this democracy further.
Lord Shamash (Lab)
My Lords, first of all I congratulate my noble friend Lord Macintosh on his maiden speech. I also wish the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield very well in his retirement; I hope he has planned it properly so he will have a lot of fun.
The message I want to convey is the issue about underregistration, which people have discussed during the course of this debate. Before I do that, I decided I would get a printed copy of the Representation of the People Act—something I have lived with for many years—and it is that thick. There are 536 pages in this bit of legislation—536.
I remember in 2001, when I was a young lawyer, going to a meeting about the creation of the Electoral Commission. That was 25 years ago. One of the issues we discussed was consolidation, which is a matter I have raised with my noble friend the Minister. It is desperately called for. It is a nonsense that we have been through this—25 years and we are still waiting for consolidation. I do not think I will live to see it, the way we are going. It is quite extraordinary. What a way of carrying on, frankly.
We have had the figure of 8 million people not on the register. Just think of it this way: that is every single person in London. That is the population of London. That is 8 million people who are not on the register who should be.
I wish to address underregistration, covered by Clauses 17 to 24 and Schedule 2, which set out the mechanisms for automatic voter registration—AVR—without an application. Clause 20 goes on to set out the provisions for a pilot scheme. I urge the Minister to take speedy action to implement the pilot in as short a time as possible, so that the scheme will be ready for the next general election, not the one after.
The measures seek to introduce more automated forms of voter registration and could help enfranchise the millions of private renters, and other underrepresented groups, who face barriers to both registering to vote and remaining registered when they move home, for example. Datasets could lead to more than nine in 10 private renters being registered to vote. Of the 9.41 million private renters over 16 in England and Wales at the 2021 census, 8.5 million lived in households likely to interact with the council for council tax, HMRC for self-assessment tax returns, DVLA for driving licences, and DWP for universal credit, state pensions or other means-tested benefits. Automatic registration would update electoral records when people update their address with trusted public services such as local authorities for council tax, et cetera.
Research has found that AVR could increase private renter registration from 65% to 90%—a dramatic increase—by removing these key barriers to registration. However, the Bill currently contains no clear legal duty or timeline for the nationwide rollout of automatic voter registration. Without this, there is a risk that this reform will be fully effective only for a general election in the 2030s, rather than the next one. The Government should commit to laying regulations by a specific date and to ensuring adequate resourcing and equality impact monitoring.
My view is that to deal with this now is very urgent if we are serious about getting our electoral law into some sort of proper shape. Therefore, will my noble friend the Minister give a clear indication that the AVR system, via the pilot, will be implemented quickly, as set out in the Bill?
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the director of the Free Speech Union.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said earlier that he was looking forward to my remarks, seemingly under the impression that the Free Speech Union would be within scope of the new regulations in the Bill. But the Free Speech Union is not a think tank; nor is it regulated by the Charity Commission. So, unless there is an amendment in the flurry of government amendments we are anticipating which somehow brings campaigning membership organisations within scope but nevertheless exempts trade unions, I think the Free Speech Union is probably safe. I share the reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, about that practice, and I will be voting for his amendment shortly.
I note that the party of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, received a £2.4 million donation in 2005 from a company called 5th Avenue Partners, owned by Michael Brown, who was based in Spain at the time and was later convicted of fraud. So while I do not think the Bill will affect donations to the Free Speech Union, it may well affect donations to the Liberal Democrats.
I want to talk about the impact that lowering the voting age to 16 will have on the regulations that are due to be brought before both Houses by the Secretary of State for DCMS later this year, restricting or preventing children from accessing social media. I share the same concerns as those articulated by my noble friend Lord Markham. If you are going to lower the voting age to 16, it makes a blanket ban on under-16s accessing social media less sensible. According to Ofcom, among 12 to 15 year-olds, individual social media platforms are the most used single news sources. To impose a blanket ban on under-16s accessing social media in the forthcoming regulations would make it much harder for children—when they reach the age of 16, they cannot access social media platforms before that point—to make informed decisions about who to vote for.
There is an obvious solution to this problem, which is not to restrict access for under-16s to content of democratic importance, news publisher content and journalistic content. There are duties in the Online Safety Act that require social media companies and other providers designated as category 1 providers to protect all three types of content, set out in Sections 17 to 19 of the Act. But these duties have not yet been activated, despite assurances from Ofcom that they would be activated this summer. It perhaps will not surprise noble Lords to discover that all the take-down duties in the Online Safety Act have been activated, but some of the keep-up duties—the duties inserted to safeguard freedom of expression—have not yet been activated, including the duties to protect content of democratic importance, news publisher content and journalistic content. My question to the Minister is: will she assure the House that, when those duties are activated, under-16s will not be restricted from accessing the kind of information they will need if they are going to make informed choices about who to vote for when they reach the new, lower voting age?
There is another, related concern: what content social media platforms are obliged to age-gate, because the content is supposedly harmful to children. These child safety duties in the Online Safety Act kicked in in July 2025, meaning that in order to access supposedly harmful content, you needed to be able to prove that you were 18 or over. But some of the content that was age-gated included a speech by Katie Lam in the House of Commons about the grooming gangs, footage of anti-immigration protests outside asylum hotels and, ironically enough, a video made by Spiked about online censorship. I ask the Minister whether she will make it clear to Ofcom that it should no longer insist that social media companies age-gate this type of content to those aged 18 and above, if the voting age is going to be lowered to 16. That is precisely the kind of content covered by Sections 17 to 19, so the simplest remedy would be to not restrict children’s access to those types of content. If that is a step too far for the Government, will the Minister at least assure the House that speeches made in here and the other place will not be restricted for 16 and 17 year-olds, as some of them are at present? To paraphrase Robert Lowe in the context of the Reform Act 1867: we must educate our masters.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for opening such a long and detailed debate, one that has shown the broad range of expertise in this House, including that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield, whose presence we will certainly miss. Even if it is not quite a one-for-one swap, it was very welcome to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Macintosh, and I am sure he will contribute much to the Bill and other topics in the future.
As someone with a PhD in the Great Reform Act, I am tempted by the reference made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, to digress deep into the 19th century but, mindful of the time, I should perhaps rather concentrate on some of the common themes we have heard in the debate: the need to strengthen and protect our democracy, so that it is the voice of the ordinary citizen that is dominant, not that of the billionaire or the foreign Government and so that the necessary bureaucracy of elections serves the citizen and helps them exercise their democratic say, rather than obstructs or frustrates them.
There are important measures to welcome in the Bill, such as the introduction of votes at 16, the progress on automatic voter registration and the strengthened independence for the Electoral Commission. But there are other areas where the Bill as it currently stands falls short, where it leaves too many loopholes or even creates some new ones, and where there will therefore be much to test out in Committee—when, let us hope, the Government will be open to persuasion.
The Government themselves have acknowledged the need to do more. They tabled a very large number of amendments late in the House of Commons process for the Bill—a subject to which I suspect the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, may return shortly. The Government have also talked of the need for further amendments to help implement the Rycroft review, as well as requesting that the Electoral Commission review spending limits, and made that late commitment given by the Minister in the House of Commons to a new task and finish group looking at mega donors. Clearly, there is much more still to do.
So often, reviews, proposals and good intentions run into the sand of “when legislative time will allow”, but we have a primary legislation vehicle available here and now, so it will be crucial that we make full use of Committee and Report to polish, fix and improve the Bill. There is a certain urgency about it as well, given the dangers and strains that our existing systems face. There are dangers from abroad, as set out by the new chief of MI6 in her first public speech just before Christmas, and those set out by the director-general of MI5 when briefing political parties earlier this year. There is also the unprecedented concentration of donations to political parties from just a handful of the super-rich, a trend accelerated in the last few days but present before then too. For example, more than 80% of all the declared donations ever received by Nigel Farage’s party have come from just two people.
It goes wider than that. For example, as the noble Lord, Lord Wills, mentioned earlier, Transparency International has shown that the proportion of donations coming from those giving £1 million or more has surged thirtyfivefold in under a decade—and those figures are even before last week. We are moving rapidly from a broad-based, democratic system of financing parties to one of unprecedented sums coming from a tiny number of people.
There is no one magic solution to solve that. Action on multiple fronts is required, which is why we need this Bill but also an improved version of it. For example, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall and Lady Goudie, and others have mentioned, there is a question about the breadth of donations that need capturing by rules covering transparency.
There are also some important loopholes in what the Bill proposes. I have mentioned before the Donald Trump loophole, as one could call it: the ability for him to split ownership of one of his firms with several members of his family, thus bringing each of them individually underneath the threshold at which the protections in the Bill in terms of foreign ownership of firms would kick in. The threshold set in the Bill is a much more generous one than the threshold set for controlling foreign ownership in our newspaper sector. I am not clear why our democracy should deserve lower protection than our media landscape. Although the measure to add transparency to donations direct to candidates is very welcome, it also creates a new loophole as the Government are not planning aggregation rules—so one large donation could be, completely legally, split into multiple small donations to candidates and kept secret.
We will have to explore these and other examples further in Committee, along with toughening up the proposed corporate donation limits, where in particular the Electoral Commission has quite rightly warned that there is again scope to split multiple donations among multiple people and therefore have them become acceptable because they are not aggregated. But such closing of loopholes can get us only so far, and that is why we on these Benches welcome the many suggestions in the Commons, including from the Labour Benches, for progress towards a donor cap so that a small number of very rich people cannot drown out the democratic voices of millions of ordinary citizens.
I hope the principle of protecting our democracy as one in which every individual gets their fair voice—but also, perhaps, the strong support we have heard from so many in the Labour Party in this debate today, as well as the support from many other parts of this House, including from the noble Lords, Lord Evans and Lord Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, as well as many on the Labour Benches—will encourage the Government to have a very open mind on this topic as the Bill progresses.
That, though, is just the “money in” part. We also need to do much better at regulating the “money out” part, as there are significant gaps in the controls on campaigning expenditure. The Government’s letter to the Electoral Commission asking it to review certain cap levels is certainly welcome, but we also need to move away from the Government being in the driving seat on setting the limits that will apply for their own re-election bid. It should be an independent regulator that is in the driving seat.
We need to recognise that political campaigning is not a part-time activity. As we all know very well, it happens all year round, year after year. Yet expense limits are part-time. They do not apply all year round, year after year. That leaves a huge gap in our democratic defences, one that needs closing with year-round spending controls. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned, we also need to close that gap because we are now in a world where national mailshots at local election time, unless it is near to a general election when the general election limits apply, are in fact a completely uncapped, unlimited form of campaigning that can completely drown out the campaigning that takes place at a local level.
I would not want to disappoint noble Lords by not mentioning the merits of electoral reform. First past the post is designed for a two-party system, yet we now have five and six-party systems around the country. While I commend the modesty of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, in feeling that an election system that results in his own election is flawed, it is possible to take a different view of that. So often, supporters of first past the post have talked about the stability and the clear mandates that it provides. I humbly suggest that the evidence of the last few years suggests that perhaps now is the time to look again, so I very much hope that talk of a national commission to draw up proposals to change our electoral system will turn into action.
I turn to an area of much greater cross-party agreement: the need to tackle abuse and intimidation of those taking part in a democratic system. It is a topic that I know the Minister is committed to and that has rightly been mentioned as an important issue in this debate by the noble Baronesses, Lady Leaman, Lady Morgan and Lady Smith, and others. There are undoubtedly some welcome moves in the Bill on that topic, but they are pretty limited compared with the number of excellent reports and recommendations such as from the recent Speaker’s Conference or those set out by the Jo Cox Foundation or the Online Safety Network. There has been very little movement, in particular, in the online aspects of those problems, so I very much hope that is an area where we can make progress in Committee.
I have one final area to mention. There is of course that question of electoral consolidation, as mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Hayward, Lord Norton and Lord Shamash, and indeed by many other Peers in the other recent debate that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, held in this House. The statute book is an overcomplicated mess; reviews and experts have consistently concluded that for decades, but the situation keeps on getting worse. That is a problem for returning officers and for the public sector staff working at the front line to try to make our elections function. It is a problem because of the risks of foreign influence that it opens us up to, as the Rycroft review has set out. It is bad for the ordinary citizen and for civil society because, far too often, to work out how you can use your democratic rights, you need to call on a lawyer. Lawyers are wonderful people in many ways, but the need to call on them should be safely limited.
To give just one illustration of the complexity of election law, the Explanatory Notes to the Bill point out that it refers to and amends 20 Acts and 19 statutory instruments. To be fair, there is a very welcome piece of what one could call mini-consolidation in the heart of the Bill on the rules to do with election forms, and those would certainly help us avoid situations such as the ludicrously long 72-page statutory instrument that was required simply to add the veteran card as an acceptable form of ID. Having tempted the Government to one step of tidying up election law in this Bill, I hope that in Committee we may be able to tempt the Government to a little more. Why, for example, are the Parliamentary Elections Act 1695 and the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1993 not fully repealed? I give those as two simple examples of how there is tidying up that could be done that would make things clearer and would clear the road to full consolidation in due course.
Our democracy is a precious thing. We have warnings from other countries of how quickly democracy can decay if it is not properly nurtured and protected. Much of the Bill is welcome, but much of it needs improvement to go further. There is an urgency about those improvements, because in legislative time the next general election is already near. What we do not fix in the Bill, we may well not be able to fix before the next election. I look forward to the Government continuing to engage with other parties and outside experts, and to Peers working collaboratively across the House so that the Bill ends up being a major milestone to improve our democracy rather than a missed opportunity that we all regret.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, this has been a long and thoughtful debate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Macintosh of Eastwood, not only on being a long-standing friend of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, but on a witty and erudite maiden speech. I wish the right reverend Prelate a long and healthy retirement.
Having listened to today’s debate, it is hard to escape the conclusion that this legislation is both rushed and ill thought through, with a lack of proper consultation. However, I thank the Minister for taking the time to meet last week to discuss our concerns. As the Bill progresses, I will work with my noble friends Lady O’Neill of Bexley and Lord Jamieson to provide scrutiny from our Front Bench, focusing on Part 4 on campaigns and political expenditure and Part 5 on enforcement and the Electoral Commission.
Before I turn to the details of the debate and the measures we will pursue, I wish to address two matters of principle. First, changes to the rules by which political parties compete should command the widest possible confidence, as my noble friend Lord Markham made clear. Some of the Bill has been consulted on and some of it is welcome, but its most consequential political finance provisions were added late in the Commons, after the Rycroft review, without the cross-party agreement that should accompany changes capable of altering the competitive balance always present in how political parties finance their operations. Even a well-intentioned Government should proceed by consensus wherever they can.
The Rycroft review, published on 25 March, recommended an annual cap on donations from British voters living abroad. The Government chose a £100,000 cap and announced that it would apply to donations made from that day. On 6 July, the Government announced a further minimum residence rule. An overseas elector returning to the United Kingdom would remain subject to the cap until he or she had been resident here for a full calendar year, a rule which would apply retrospectively from 25 March. A modified cap, running from 6 July, was also proposed for people moving here who had not been registered as overseas electors. The Government said that those provisions were needed to remove opportunities to circumvent the strengthened regime.
The Government are the temporary custodian of state power. They should not use that power to frustrate the finances of their political opponents. The best safeguard against a future Government doing the same to any one of us is a body of electoral law made, wherever possible, by agreement.
That brings me to the second principle. Retrospective legislation is an extraordinary measure and demands the most compelling justification. Under these provisions, donations that are today permissible may suddenly become unlawful after their commencement. The Government point to a time-critical risk of evasion, but this House must test whether that claim justifies such an exceptional course and whether adequate safeguards have been provided. It is important to draw a distinction between retrospective measures that apply from the point of a government announcement and those that apply before any formal announcement. If the Reform party has accepted dubious donations in full knowledge of what the Labour Government already laid as amendments in July, that would be unwise of it.
Whatever Ministers’ present intentions, they must understand that conventions can break down when there is rushed, retrospective legislation without proper consultation or cross-party engagement. One side cannot resist the temptation to act unilaterally, the next retaliates, and the rules of democratic competition become another instrument of partisan power. We should not begin that race to the bottom.
As I said, this has been an interesting and considered debate with excellent contributions, not least from a former Prime Minister, my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead, who spoke powerfully on crypto assets. It has demonstrated both the depth of concern and the wisdom of subjecting these late and complex provisions to full scrutiny in your Lordships’ House. We have heard important questions on everything from the rationale and consistency of the proposal to give 16 and 17 year-olds the vote, from my noble friends Lord Brady of Altrincham, Lord Bailey of Paddington, Lord Young of Acton and Lord Farmer, to the rights of Commonwealth citizens to vote, from my noble friend Lord Mackinlay of Richborough, and the abuse of candidates, from the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan of Cotes and Lady Smith of Llanfaes.
I digress momentarily to say to the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, that he is absolutely right that the great Stanley Baldwin sadly did not lead the Conservative Party to victory in the 1929 election, but he did lead the party to an historic victory two years later in 1931, with more women than men believed to have chosen the Conservatives at that election.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to all the concerns raised in this debate, but we should also acknowledge the areas where there is scope for agreement. We support measures that protect candidates, campaigners and elected representatives from abuse, intimidation and violence while preserving robust political debate. We will also engage constructively on the regulation of election advertising, including the challenges posed by AI-generated material. There are other measures, such as the consolidation of electoral law, which many noble Lords have mentioned, that can command broad support. That only reinforces the case for proceeding by consensus wherever possible.
This is a wide-ranging Bill that will require scrutiny and amendment across many areas. I draw attention to a few matters that we intend to pursue during its passage. We have concerns about the proposed £100,000 annual cap on donations from overseas electors. Overseas electors are British citizens. It is a significant departure to say that a citizen may help to elect the Government but may support a political party only up to a limit that does not apply to a citizen resident here. We do not believe that difference in treatment has been objectively tested by the Government.
Protecting politics from foreign and illicit money requires parties to know the identity of a donor and the true source of the funds. Existing permissibility and reporting rules are not by themselves an answer to every modern risk, so we support proportionate risk-based due diligence duties. As my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston pointed out, we go to a great deal of trouble to ensure that we avoid the wrong type of donor. A residence-based cap is a potentially blunt proxy. The Electoral Commission has warned that the new overseas donation rules are complex. We will test their proportionality, workability and transitional effects in Committee.
There is, however, one related area where for now we support a clear prohibition. That is for donations made in cryptocurrency. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, made a compelling case for a moratorium rather than an outright ban. If we cannot know with confidence where the money funding a donation has originated, we cannot know whether it ultimately came from a permissible source, and that is a fundamentally different issue from restricting a lawful donation from an identifiable British citizen simply because that citizen lives overseas. Where the origin of the funds cannot be reliably ascertained, protecting the integrity of our political system must come first.
We also oppose the Bill’s proposal to restrict a company’s political donation by reference to its post-tax profits over the relevant five-year period. My noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley spoke eloquently on this issue. There are many legitimate reasons why a company may record little or no profit. A start-up may take years to become profitable, while an established business may reinvest its earnings in growth. Neither circumstance is inherently suspicious. Company directors must act within their legal duties, and political donations or expenditure exceeding £5,000 in aggregate over 12 months generally requires prior shareholder authorisation. The Government can target shell companies, foreign control and pass-through funding directly without excluding genuine British businesses merely because of their accounting position.
The interaction between the Bill and the Electoral Commission’s revised sponsorship guidance creates another risk. The guidance was published on 27 August and is due to apply from 1 January 2027. It explains that a payment may be sponsorship even when made on commercial terms if it helps a party to meet the costs of an event. Branding on banners, literature, lanyards or videos may therefore fall within the donations regime. The position is more nuanced than the present draft suggests. The conference stands supplied within the commission’s maximum rates, and genuine services for an external fringe event bought at market value, may remain commercial transactions, but parties and businesses need a clear and predictable boundary. When the Bill’s new corporate profit and control tests are layered on top, ordinary exhibitors may become impermissible or may simply withdraw, rather than risk being treated as political donors. Party conferences are important forums in public life and businesses commonly engage with more than one party. We will seek a clear statutory protection for genuine commercial transactions while ensuring that disguised donations remain fully regulated.
A related problem concerns party-linked property companies. Political parties have long been associated with social and political clubs whose land or buildings may sit in a legally separate company. If an asset-rich but non-trading company winds up and transfers property to the connected party, the new profit test could prevent the party accepting the transfer even though it is not the mischief at which the rule is aimed. If the profit test remains, we will seek a tightly drawn exemption for long-standing party-connected companies incorporated before a fixed date, with suitable anti-avoidance safeguards. The transitional treatment of certain exempt trusts under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 provides a model for protecting historic arrangements without opening a route for new shell companies.
The Elections Act 2022 created a power for the Government, subject to parliamentary approval, to designate a strategy and policy statement to which the Electoral Commission must have regard. The current statement expressly preserves the commission’s operational independence. Clause 78 would repeal the power and the associated duties. We oppose the repeal because the statement puts proper weight on practical protections against electoral fraud and interference. The 2015 Tower Hamlets election showed why vigilance matters. Despite the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and as my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister highlighted, more recently Democracy Volunteers reported possible family voting across 15 of the 22 polling stations that it observed at the Gorton and Denton by-election, and there is evidence that it occurred in Birmingham in May 2026. Clear national guidance, training and reporting are essential. Repealing the statement without demonstrating how those safeguards will be maintained risks sending the wrong signal.
I turn finally to a point raised by my noble friend Lord Jamieson. Devolved franchise rules in Wales and Scotland allow qualifying foreign nationals who are lawfully resident, including some people with limited leave to remain, to register for devolved and local elections. Once registered, they are permissible donors under the current United Kingdom political finance rules, and no general cap applies to individual donations. The Rycroft review said that it had not been provided with evidence that this route had been used to channel foreign money, and I make no allegation that it has, but it identified a potential vulnerability requiring monitoring. If the Government’s case is that the political finance rules must be coherent against foreign influence, they should explain why they are retrospectively capping British overseas electors while leaving this route unaddressed.
Electoral law belongs to the whole country. It is not the private preserve of the Government of the day. Ministers should legislate as though every power and precedent they create may one day be used against them. We will support measures that genuinely protect the ballot, but we will resist provisions that weaken confidence that the rules are being made in a non-partisan manner. The Government should think again before the temporary possession of power becomes a permanent invitation to partisan retaliation.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to what has been a thoughtful, wide-ranging and characteristically well-informed debate. I have particularly enjoyed some of the history lessons we have heard about, though I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, that many of the dates she gave were before the Labour Party came into existence—well done for winning those elections. The breadth of experience brought to bear by this House, particularly on electoral matters, is one of its great strengths, and I welcome the careful scrutiny that noble Lords have given to the principles and purposes of this Bill. I, too, echo the thanks that have been given to the many organisations that have provided briefings to us all. I particularly thank Philip Rycroft for all his work on his excellent report.
At its heart, the Representation of the People Bill is about strengthening confidence in our democracy, ensuring that our electoral system is secure, accessible and fit for the future; that those who administer and participate in elections can do so safely; and that every eligible citizen is able to take part freely and with confidence. My noble friend Lady Paul spoke powerfully in saying that challenges to our democracy do not come from voters turning up to vote at their local polling stations—we know that. But challenges do come from elsewhere, and we must all put our minds to how we tackle them.
I was interested to hear both that the Bill is too big and that it does not include the things which noble Lords from around the House want in it. We have also heard that it is being rushed through—that is an opinion—and we were asked whether it will be in time to address imminent crises in some of the areas we are looking at. We can only do our best to get things through as quickly as we can, and to create a Bill that is practicable and manageable but which tackles the main issues.
I will seek to respond to the main points raised in the debate. Where I am not able to cover every contribution in detail, I will of course write to noble Lords. It has been a long debate and I am pretty sure I will not get to everything.
I start by thanking the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield for his contributions to your Lordships’ House and I wish him well in his retirement. It was a great honour that he chose this debate for his valedictory, and I am grateful for everything he has done during his time here.
I thank my noble friend Lord Macintosh of Eastwood for his maiden speech, which was described by my noble friend Lord Foulkes as powerful, elegant and witty. I totally agree with those sentiments. I note that my noble friend Lord Macintosh is from the Isle of Skye—I have been there only once, but it is one of the most beautiful places I have ever been, and I envy him that. I also echo his thoughts. While we are talking about the political world, as we do in this Bill, all of us owe thanks to our families who put up with the vagaries of living with our political careers. I thank him and wish him well in his career in your Lordships’ House.
I start with some of the points made about engagement on the Bill, which is crucial. The measures in this Bill have been developed through close engagement with key partners from across the electoral community and the devolved Governments, and with younger people, civil society organisations, academics, think tanks, the Parliamentary Parties Panel, the Electoral Commission, the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, colleagues from across government, and so on. To deliver these changes, we will continue to work closely with our partners in local and devolved government and with political parties, the electoral sector, education and civil society, and citizens themselves, as we need to ensure that impacts are thoroughly considered and changes are successfully implemented. I absolutely dispute the accusation of lack of consultation. I have been provided with a long list of meetings and engagement that I am happy to provide to the noble Baronesses, Lady Finn and Lady O’Neill. I checked that Philip Rycroft did consult with the Conservative Party during the course of his report.
There has been a great deal of talk—not surprisingly in the current circumstances—about donation caps. My noble friends Lord Wills and Lord Foulkes will know that my style is both to listen and to act on Members’ concerns. This Bill will be no exception to that. The noble Lords, Lord Evans of Weardale, Lord Rennard and Lord Carter, my noble friends Lord Watson and Lady Hodge and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, wanted to insert a wide enabling power in the Bill. As I said in my introductory speech, we must put politics back under public control. There are shared concerns about the rise of big money in politics and its ability to dominate public power. This Bill is not the totality of our ambition for electoral reform. Work will continue. As a first step, the First Secretary of State and the MHCLG Secretary of State have written to the Electoral Commission to review spending limits, which we believe are too high. We are establishing a cross-government task and finish team to consider threats to UK democracy, including political funding, illegitimate influence and broader threats to political equality. I have heard all the points raised in the Chamber, and I will take those back for consideration.
A number of Peers spoke about the cap and asked why it should be retrospective. We will not allow bad actors to funnel money into our elections in advance of a change in the law. There is a clear time-critical risk of evasion of these new rules that would undermine their purpose if they were brought in at a later date. Donations made by overseas electors—I think this is the information the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, was looking for—that breach the new requirements will have to be returned. Regulated transactions involving an overseas elector as a participant that breach new requirements will have to be repaid. Donations made by individuals who returned to the UK, but who were not overseas electors from 6 July 2026, that breach the new requirements will have to be returned. Regulated transactions involving an individual who has returned to the UK as a participant that breach new requirements will have to be repaid. We are removing the incentive for those who want to circumvent protections that we deem necessary. This is not about any one particular donation. These provisions were in consideration before this weekend.
The noble Lords, Lord Wallace, Lord Evans, Lord Rennard and Lord Carter, and my noble friend Lady Hodge raised issues around party spending limits. The Secretary of State and the First Secretary State have asked the Electoral Commission to undertake a review on lowering registered political-party, third-party campaigner and candidate limits to ensure the entire electoral spending framework is scrutinised and fit for purpose. In terms of timing for that, the commission has been asked to provide recommendations no later than July 2027.
Completely understandably, we have had a number of contributions on crypto assets. I will write to answer the specific questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. I will make some general comments, but I will write and answer her specific ones. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, asked very particular questions on this. With this ban, we need to take decisive action to defend the legitimacy and integrity of the democratic system from foreign interference. We do not want to undermine the ban. Applying the ban only after Royal Assent of the Bill would risk bad-faith actors taking advantage of the advance notice of the passage of legislation and undermining public trust in our democracy. As set out by the former Secretary of State on 25 March, any donations made to political parties in crypto assets will not be permitted under the new requirements. Recipients will have a period of 30 days following the coming into force of the provisions in the Bill to return or forfeit crypto-assets donations accepted on or after 25 March 2026, after which enforcement action can be taken and failure to comply will risk criminal liability.
There have been a number of comments around think tanks. This has been a really important issue, both debated here today and in the discussions on this Bill outside. Today we have heard contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Brady, and my noble friends Lord Wills, Lord Evans of Sealand, Lady Royall, Lady Hodge and Lady Goudie. Electoral law already covers think tanks that donate or spend during regulated election periods. Our reforms will ensure that only those with a genuine UK connection can contribute to our democracy—for instance, requiring recipients to undertake know your donor due diligence to guard against illegitimate foreign funding. The Rycroft review identified broader risks of foreign financial influence across the political system, including the potential for existing arrangements to be exploited, rather than risks specific to any one type of organisation. Our reforms are designed to address those system-wide vulnerabilities, but we are continuing to think about the issues around think tanks.
We heard many points about the consolidation of electoral law. I understand the issue, particularly after listening—not in the Chamber—to my noble friend Lord Shamash setting out how broad the spectrum of electoral law is. We also heard comments from the noble Lords, Lord Evans, Lord Jamieson, Lord Fuller, Lord Norton, Lord Shamash and Lord Pack, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. We understand the calls for consolidation of electoral law. Of course, major reform would take very careful consideration and an extensive amount of time. The Government’s immediate priority is the implementation of our manifesto commitment. A full-scale consolidation and simplification would need an in-depth review and modernisation alongside consolidation, which would be the job of more than one Parliament to achieve.
The Government have an ambitious agenda to improve our elections, including giving 16 and 17 year-olds the right to vote and strengthening the rules around donations. We are focused on delivering that agenda via the Bill. However, we are cognisant of the challenges facing election teams. As the noble Lord, Lord Pack, said, we are taking a tiny step towards consolidation with the forms issue, and we will continue to look at areas that can help modernise and improve the electoral process and delivery.
We heard many comments—some formulated as questions—on young people voting at 16 and 17, and rightly so. There is a lot of support for this around the Chamber, although I appreciate that it is not universal. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, asked us to look at the Australian preparation for elections. I am very happy to look wherever we can for information about that. I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Brady, meant to say that voting can damage our health. I do not know whether that is a new Tory strapline, but I do not think we will be picking that one up.
The noble Lord, Lord Macintosh, spoke about votes at 16 improving voter turnout in Scotland. The noble Baronesses, Lady Leaman, Lady Foster, and Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Markham, spoke about voting at 16 and 17, as did many other Peers. The important question is not what else you can or cannot do at 16 but whether 16 is the right age to be able to vote, and our Government are clear that the answer to that question is yes. Sixteen is the right age to be able to exercise your democratic right. Extending the vote will allow 16 and 17 year-olds to have a say in the government who shape their future and set them up for lifelong engagement in democracy. Sixteen and 17 year-olds have views that deserve to be represented, as my 16 year-old grandson is always telling me. As we have heard from the experiences in Scotland, engaging voters at a younger age will build the foundations for a lifetime of participation in our electoral processes.
The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, tried to press me on scientific evidence in favour of 16 and 17 year-olds not being able to vote. I say to the noble Lord that we do not give people the vote based on their intellectual or cognitive abilities, and that applies to 16 and 17 year-olds—as it does to all our voters.
Many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Bailey, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall, Lady Prashar, Lady Thornhill, and Lady Deech, asked the very important question about the steps being taken to support young people’s voter education, which goes right to the heart of the previous question. My noble friends Lady Lister and Lord Watson referred to the APPG’s work on citizenship education, which I commend. We want to break down barriers and drive participation. We know that education and engagement are a crucial part of implementing this policy. It is vital that young people understand and value democratic processes and feel they are relevant to them. We want to ensure that democracy education reinforces the importance and value of participating and inspires greater democratic engagement, and we want that to start at 16 and continue into adulthood. We are working with the Electoral Commission, the devolved Governments and civil society to consider what additional measures we can take to support schools, colleges and youth groups to roll out practical voter and civic education, and our colleagues in the Department for Education are looking at this in terms of curriculum.
There were some important questions about addressing online abuse, particularly abuse targeted at female politicians and candidates. We all need to address online abuse as a matter of urgency. The noble Baronesses, Lady Royall and Lady Goudie, and the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, mentioned this: the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, mentioned in particular Ann Widdecombe. We have had a number of attacks on elected politicians that make us focus our minds again, but hundreds of other attacks go on around the country. This is a top priority.
The Online Safety Act placed a legal requirement on all tech platforms to proactively tackle the most harmful illegal content, much of which disproportionately affects women and girls. This includes harassment, sexual exploitation, stalking, controlling or coercive behaviour, extreme pornography, and intimate image abuse. We have implemented the new measures in the Online Safety Act and, going further still, we have criminalised the creation of non-consensual sexual deepfakes—building on existing offences—criminalising sharing or threatening to share such content. We have made this offence a priority under the Online Safety Act. We need to continue our efforts in that regard to make sure that this does not have a place in our political dialogue.
There were some questions around AI-generated misinformation and disinformation. Illegal AI-generated content is already regulated under the Online Safety Act, as I said. A range of legislative offences apply to deepfakes and misinformation and disinformation in this context, including the false communications offence, which makes it illegal to knowingly spread false information with intent to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm.
I have a number of comments on bank cards and whether they undermine the security of the policy. Our understanding is that the policy will remain secure and that this use of bank cards does not undermine it. We are limiting the policy so that only cards from UK-regulated issuers can be used. That is because the UK is recognised having one of the strongest systems in the world for stopping money laundering and terrorist financing, so this safeguard will ensure a high level of security. We are also limiting the policy to cards that have a visible expiration date and require that this date has not elapsed. As bank cards are a non-photographic form of ID, it makes sense that they need to be in date to maintain security and integrity. Although bank cards do not bear photographs, we believe that this is a sufficient and appropriate level of security. The change will ensure that more legitimate electors are able to meet the voter ID requirements and will not be denied their right to vote.
The last thing I will have time to cover is the national commission on electoral reform, which a number of noble Lords asked about. I understand the push for that. The Government’s priority is a politics that works for all people. The Prime Minister has been clear on his commitment to bring about a new voting system and he welcomes a national debate about this. But this Bill is not the place to legislate for that debate. We have to get these measures over the line for our 16 and 17 year-olds to vote at the next election and to curb foreign influence in our democracy. Our Prime Minister is open to different ways of having a debate about how we can better include everyone’s vote and voice, and we will set out a path on that in due course. I look forward to those discussions.
I did not think I would be able to respond to all the points that were made, and I did not. I will respond to noble Lords in writing where I have not got to them. This Bill is a significant and necessary step in renewing the foundations of our democracy. Of course the Government recognise that this House will rightly wish to probe these matters in detail. We will continue to engage constructively as the Bill progresses, and I look forward to the further scrutiny and debate that will follow in Committee.
My noble friend Lord Evans of Sealand mentioned our Prime Minister’s wish for a national conversation about democracy. As I said, I welcome that and look forward to it. But the principle is clear: our democracy works best when it is trusted, secure and open to all those entitled to take part. That is what this Bill seeks to achieve, and it is in that spirit that I commend this Bill to the House.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they consider the bill in the following order: Clauses 1 to 6, Schedule 1, Clauses 7 to 19, Schedule 2, Clauses 20 to 49, Schedule 3, Clauses 50 to 53, Schedule 4, Clause 54, Schedule 5, Clauses 55 and 56, Schedule 6, Clauses 57 and 58, Schedule 7, Clauses 59 and 60, Schedule 8, Clause 61, Schedules 9 and 10, Clause 62, Schedules 11 and 12, Clause 63, Schedule 13, Clauses 64 and 65, Schedule 14, Clauses 66 to 69, Schedule 15, Clauses 70 to 74, Schedule 16, Clause 75, Schedule 17, Clauses 76 to 91, Title.
Lord Rooker
After “Whole House,” insert “but that Committee stage will not commence until the Minister has made a statement setting out which clauses and schedules of the Bill, including amendments made to the Bill, the House of Commons did not have time to consider on the floor of the House;”.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I spoke for less than a minute on Second Reading and therefore I did not have an opportunity to congratulate my noble friend Lord Macintosh of Eastwood on his very powerful maiden speech. My purpose with this amendment is exactly the same as the one on the public accountability Bill: to strengthen the role of the elected Members of the Commons. I will make a couple of general points and then come to this Bill.
In the Commons, Second Readings are all effectively guillotined. It is called the programme Motion and it affects all Bills. The effect is that the Government always want to boast about the numbers of Bills, which is done at the expense of scrutiny of Bills, so the Bills arrive in your Lordships’ House as a result of inadequate scrutiny. We end up sending more amendments back to the Commons than would otherwise be the case. Then, in the Commons, the Government—it is only one Government in both Houses—blame the extra work for elected Members in the Commons on the upper House abusing its position, leading to calls for reform. Even when we return amendments to the elected Members, they are limited in the time they can use due to the original programme Motion. My view is that elected Members need more time for scrutiny. The Government have to return to Parliament some of the power that they have taken away with the programme Motions designed to fit in more Bills rather than better Bills. Asking for a list from the Government of what they have not allowed to be scrutinised puts the buck back where it belongs.
On this Bill, on 2 September the Commons dealt with Report and Third Reading. They had five hours during which there was debate and Divisions, on which I do not comment. Then the programme Motion from 2 March took over and the Government’s 15 new clauses and six schedules occupying 72 columns of Commons Hansard were approved on the nod—no debate, no speech, no vote. One of those new schedules—in the Commons it was called Schedule 8 and it has now turned up in the Bill as Schedule 12—is 19 pages of the Bill.
We are a revising Chamber. We need to know what we are revising, because in this case you cannot identify from the Bill any of the changes passed on the nod. They are dispersed throughout the Bill and the numbers have changed. They could, for example, be italicised. We would not need a list then. The Bill would show us that these were the bits on the programme Motion passed on the nod. The only way at the moment is via Commons Hansard, which of course is a bit unsatisfactory. We should have an official list from the Government of what the Commons did not have time to scrutinise. That is what it is all about. We cannot identify in the Bill the part that we are not revising but scrutinising for the first time because nobody else has scrutinised it.
We are being taken for Charlies, as it were, because we get the blame later on. I venture to say that there will be a lot of amendments to this Bill. In a few months, when the rows start about what has been sent down there, I want the audit trail complete. In a way, that is why I have raised this amendment.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has just said. He has identified a problem. It is not new. It has evolved over a period of decades, but it is a real problem that this Chamber is facing now. I strongly support the detail outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, which we face and which the Commons has not addressed.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, conscious of the time, I will very briefly say only that I fully agree with both noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Hayward. Were what is being proposed what we were used to having, we would think, of course, it is completely obvious that we would never abolish the provision of such straightforward information that would help us do our job better, so I very much commend the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, the amendment that my noble friend has tabled seeks information on the amendments debated in the Commons, so I thought it would be helpful to the House if I set out the scrutiny that the Bill had in the House of Commons.
The Bill had its Second Reading in the House of Commons on Monday 2 March. The House of Commons then ordered that the Bill should be committed to a Public Bill Committee. The Public Bill Committee itself decided on its sitting pattern. The Committee completed its scrutiny in nine sittings over five days. As usual, all clauses and schedules were considered, as were all proposed amendments and new clauses that were selected by the chair. Report took place on Wednesday 2 September. The House of Commons ordered that consideration should conclude no later than five hours after it commenced. All proposed amendments and new clauses selected by the chair were considered.
I have no doubt that noble Lords will add to the work of the Commons with their usual high-quality scrutiny. There will, I am sure, be time to debate all the issues that noble Lords raised in detail as the Bill progresses through the House.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend, but let us get this absolutely clear: the Committee in the Commons did not discuss the stuff that was dumped in the Bill after the programme Motion on Report. The Committee did not know about it. The reality is—noble Lords can read Commons Hansard; it is there for them to read—that 15 new clauses and six schedules, occupying 72 columns of Hansard, were approved on the nod. They were not discussed. What is more, they were all government amendments, because the programme Motion means that only the government ones are passed on the nod: the ones in the names of opposition or individual Members disappear.
The programme Motion is designed to secure the Government’s business, and quite right too. I was there at the beginning, in 1997, when we introduced the idea of guillotining every Bill, but it has got out of hand because they are too close, too tight. More Bills are being pushed through, and we are now ending up with unscrutinised legislation, and that is not good legislation. I beg leave to withdraw.