House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shivani Raja (Leicester East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Anna McMorrin)
I thank NHS staff and care workers for their tireless work, but I also understand the frustration felt by people in Wales that waiting lists are going up under the Plaid Cymru Government. Just last week the Chancellor announced an additional £450 million for the Welsh Government to deliver public services. That is on top of the largest spending review settlement since devolution. I hope that the Welsh Government use this funding wisely to improve NHS services and reduce waiting lists.
Shivani Raja
Welsh Government figures show that, as of March 2025, there were more than 30,000 Welsh people waiting for NHS treatment in England, which is almost three times the number in 2011. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Welsh Government about managing this cross-border demand, reducing waiting times in Wales and ensuring that services in England have the capacity to meet the needs of patients on both sides of the border?
Anna McMorrin
Wales is the home of the NHS, and I am proud of the way that Welsh Labour has always been its fiercest defender, even in the face of Tory austerity. Welsh Labour brought those waiting lists down for 10 consecutive months before the last election. They are now rising under the Plaid Cymru Government, and we need to see clear action from the Welsh Government to bring them down. We regularly have discussions on how we can do that.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
As the Minister has just said, NHS waiting lists have soared to a 10-month high since Plaid Cymru’s election, despite the progress that was being made as they came down under Welsh Labour. Will the Minister join me in urging Plaid to make cutting waiting lists a priority, especially as we enter these winter months, when NHS pressures are at their greatest?
Anna McMorrin
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Waiting lists are going up under Plaid Cymru after the Welsh Labour Government brought them down for 10 months straight. Welsh Labour has always prioritised the NHS, including through free prescriptions, mental health support via 111, free car parking in hospitals, women’s health hubs and specialist mental health support in every school. Those were Welsh Labour decisions based on Welsh Labour values, and I urge the Plaid Cymru Government to honour them, perhaps by using the £450 million in additional funding that this UK Labour Government announced at the Budget just last week.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Kinnock)
This was a proudly Labour Budget that provides people in Wales with breathing space for today and hope for tomorrow. We are helping Welsh families with the cost of living by extending 0% VAT on electricity bills, getting rid of gas standing charges and removing the 4% tariff on heating oil to support 105,000 households in Wales.
Llinos Medi
The autumn Budget will deliver real-terms cuts to Welsh public services, because it fails to “compensate for higher inflation.” Those are not my words, but those of Cardiff University, which says that Wales now faces “difficult choices”, including cuts to local authorities such as mine on Ynys Môn. Can the Secretary of State explain why this UK Labour Government are imposing cuts on Welsh public services?
Stephen Kinnock
I genuinely do not know where Plaid Cymru is getting these numbers from. This Budget provides the Welsh Government with an additional £450 million for public services, meaning that the Welsh Government settlement continues to grow in real terms over the spending review period. In addition, the UK Government are providing a £6.5 billion increase in Welsh Government spending power as a result of changes to the fiscal framework, additional funding through the Barnett formula and the largest settlement in the history of devolution. This generational increase in 2025 was the largest settlement for Wales since devolution began in the late 1990s.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
I greatly welcome the Chancellor’s announcement of a further £30 million for the delivery of a new station at Cardiff Parkway, in a constituency that neighbours mine. Does the Secretary of State agree that this investment stands in stark contrast to the approach of the Plaid minority Government at Cardiff Bay, who are threatening to close numerous junctions of the M4, worsening air and noise pollution for my constituents?
Stephen Kinnock
I share my hon. Friend’s frustration. The Welsh Government must recognise that only a relief road will address the needs of the people, the economy and the environment of south-east Wales. What local people do not need is disruption and junction closures. I was pleased to see the Senedd support Welsh Labour’s motion to rule out closures and to begin work on an appropriate relief road for the M4, and I urge Plaid Cymru to work with Newport council and to reconsider its position.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
It was a damp squib Budget that largely forgot Wales. It had nothing on upgrading the A55 or the M4 bypass. The previous Welsh Government were offered the finance by the previous Conservative Government to unclog the Brynglas tunnels, but the Minister’s Labour Senedd colleagues—as we have heard—had the hide last month to call for an M4 relief road, despite being in power for 27 years. Can the Secretary of State explain why Labour is now making calls on projects it could and should have delivered when in power, or do they prefer to be the ones shouting from the hard shoulder?
Stephen Kinnock
I am taken aback by the brass neck of the Conservatives, after 14 years of neglect and incompetence, the failure to fund rail, and the failure to fix so many of the problems that they caused. I am very pleased that the Welsh Labour motion in the Senedd was approved, and we call on the Plaid Cymru Welsh Government to change tack, reconsider and do the right thing for the people of Wales.
Mims Davies
That is a screeching U-turn for us all to see. As we have heard today, matters could go from bad to horrendous for M4 drivers. With the separatist Plaid Cymru Welsh Government now threatening to close multiple junctions, the Wales Office has sat on its hands. Compare that to my Conservative colleagues and me, who scrapped the Severn bridge tolls. Where is the action? Where is the pushback? After this failure, can the Secretary of State tell us why drivers and businesses should have any confidence that the Labour Government will stand up to Plaid for them?
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Lady talked about the Budget. I remind her of what the Budget does for drivers: it extends the temporary 5p per litre fuel duty cut for a further six months; it makes permanent the 55p per mile tax-free mileage rate for the first 10,000 business miles, which will save a worker travelling 6,000 business miles at least £120 a year in tax from 2027-28; and it extends the 3.7p cut to red diesel duty to 1 July 2027. I respectfully suggest to the hon. Lady that she has another look at the Budget and comes back when she has got her facts right.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Communities across Wales are desperate to see economic growth and new jobs, and that is why the Welsh Liberal Democrats believe that Wales needs more powers, including powers over borrowing, full powers over rail infrastructure and full powers over the Crown estate. Does the Secretary of State agree and, if so, will Wales get more powers during this Parliament?
Stephen Kinnock
I wish the hon. Gentleman luck in the forthcoming leadership election—I believe he is standing against himself, so I am sure he will have a positive outcome. He mentioned rail, and I am delighted that we have secured at least £445 million to progress rail projects across Wales, including £30 million for Cardiff Parkway, which is front-loaded to support delivery of Welsh priorities during the spending review period. I am sure that he and his party will join me in welcoming those measures.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Prime Minister promised to end 40 years of Thatcherite ideology, but last week’s Budget was a whimper, not a reset. A poll since the Budget found that 60% of voters believe that it merely tinkers around the edges, and in Wales we can see why—real-terms cuts loom for public services, we see a shrinking capital budget and there is no meaningful movement on rail funding. Does the Secretary of State understand why so many people in Wales feel that the Budget falls so far short of the promises talked up by his Government?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the right hon. Lady for that question, but again I am not sure that those on the Opposition Benches are clear about what the Budget will deliver. In addition to all the breathing space measures, which are making a clear difference to the cost of living, we have £30 million on Cardiff Parkway railway station, £2.5 million on new funding for M-Sparc, £11 million for the Aberavon bridge and £20 million to support reindustrialisation in AI sectors, and that is on top of all the work we are doing on nuclear power at Wylfa and revitalising the Welsh steel industry. With all due respect, she too should have another look at the Budget and come back when she has got her facts straight.
Liz Saville Roberts
The Secretary of State did not mention the £14 billion that has been promised, or the £300 million for Leeds railway station.
There are threats of cuts everywhere. The BBC has announced £9 million of cuts at BBC Cymru Wales, including 58 job losses. Twenty hours of programming, as well as radio shows such as “Dros Ginio” and “Ar y Marc”, will be axed, and Welsh production companies are raising the alarm about the impact of fewer commissions. We have had to fight hard for Welsh-language broadcasting. What is the Secretary of State doing, as Wales’s supposed man in the Cabinet, to protect jobs and safeguard our national media?
Stephen Kinnock
I am proud to be a strong voice for Wales in the Cabinet. Frankly, I find it shocking that those on the Opposition Benches think that Wales should not have a strong voice in the Cabinet. We are ready to work closely with the Welsh Government to ensure that our broadcasting industry, which we are very proud of, continues to go from strength to strength. I look forward to working with the right hon. Lady and other colleagues to achieve that objective.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Kinnock)
The UK Government are committed to driving economic growth in Wales. We are investing £2.6 billion to bring nuclear power back to Wylfa, £500 million to secure the future of Welsh steel, and £50 million to support defence jobs across Wales.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Secretary of State for his response. He and I both know that when it comes to driving economic growth, whether it is in Wales or Northern Ireland, we are always better together. Given that both Wales and Northern Ireland face similar challenges with rural economic development and in supporting our vital small business sectors, what specific lessons has the Department shared with the Northern Ireland Office and the devolved Executive to ensure that targeted regional growth strategies work collectively to strengthen the entire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Gentleman mentions rural economic development. We are extending the 3.7p cut to red diesel to July 2027, and suspending tariffs on fertiliser. We are removing the 4% tariff on heating oil, which will support 105,000 Welsh households, and I am sure that many of his constituents will also benefit. We had productive talks at the National Economic Council in Glasgow. Of course, it was unfortunate that the Northern Irish Government were not represented in those talks, but we will certainly continue to work closely with the hon. Gentleman and others to ensure strong co-operation and collaboration across all the nations that make up our United Kingdom.
Steve Witherden
The Access for All programme is 20 years old this year, yet much work is to be done on making travel easier for rail passengers with mobility constraints. For example, the northbound platform at Ruabon station, in my constituency, still has no step-free access and is in desperate need of a ramp or, better yet, a lift. What steps is the Department taking to improve accessibility at Welsh railway stations?
Stephen Kinnock
I enjoyed meeting my hon. Friend last week, when we discussed Ruabon station. My officials have since raised this project with Network Rail. I am very pleased to confirm that the UK Government have announced Ruabon as one of the 23 stations across Great Britain that have been selected to progress to the next stage of the Access for All programme. I look forward to further engagement with my hon. Friend on this hugely important project, which I believe includes the installation of what is known in the trade as a jack-in-the-box lift.
Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Anna McMorrin)
This Government are delivering the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war by investing £298 billion over the next four years to strengthen our national security and keep us safe. Wales is well placed to benefit from this investment, with 20,000 defence jobs already in Wales. Every pound that we invest in defence should be judged by what it does. We want to ensure that all investment brings jobs and skills, and strengthens our national security.
Carolyn Harris
It is disappointing to see the Plaid Welsh Government decide to delay defence investment decisions in Wales, including on DARC—the deep space advanced radar capability—in Pembrokeshire. Welsh Labour will always take the defence of Wales seriously, even if Plaid will not. Can the Minister update me on the Welsh Government’s commitment to establishing defence technical excellence colleges in Wales, so we can get on with training up the next generation of defence experts?
Anna McMorrin
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that Labour will always put the defence and security of the Welsh people first. That is why we announced last week that, if the Welsh Government continue to drag their feet on committing to a Wales defence technical excellence college, the UK Government stand ready to step in where Plaid will not. With the Scottish Government already making clear their commitment to DTECs in Scotland, I strongly urge the Welsh Plaid Cymru Government to come to the table and work with us, so that we can protect our security and create the jobs of the future.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Ajax programme at the General Dynamics land systems factory is obviously a huge employer in Merthyr Tydfil, but with the Government unable to get Ajax back on track and no guarantee of any defence exports, all work at the factory is due to stop after the vehicles have been upgraded to capability drop 4. What are the Government doing to ensure that the jobs at that factory remain beyond the completion of the work on the Ajax programme?
Anna McMorrin
The hon. Member makes a very good point. General Dynamics is a very important company, and I have had many conversations with it about its investment and the continuation of the Ajax programme. We know about the challenges that the programme has encountered, but considerable efforts have been made to resolve them and drive forward the programme. That organisation invests hugely in the local community, delivering high-quality jobs, and part of our £50 million defence growth deal is to ensure that this will continue well into the future.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Welsh defence industry supports 20,000 jobs and is absolutely vital to the national security of the United Kingdom, yet defence firms face growing uncertainty over the UK Government’s failure to set out a detailed plan to meet the 3% of GDP target on defence spending and Plaid Cymru’s proposed defence ethical investment framework in Wales, which are both creating serious concern for businesses looking to invest, expand and protect jobs. Therefore, what discussions has the Minister had with defence companies about these concerns, and what is she doing to give the industry the certainty it desperately needs?
Anna McMorrin
I thank the hon. Member for his question, but I think he may have a short memory. It was his Government who cut the Army to its smallest size since Napoleonic times and short-changed the equipment plan by £17 billion. In stark contrast, this Chancellor announced a £298 billion investment in defence over the next four years. We are working at pace to deliver the development growth deal across the country, with high-quality jobs and investment across Wales. I am urging the Plaid Cymru Government to stop at nothing, to work with us and to ensure that we deliver security for the people of Wales and those high-quality jobs.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Kinnock)
Whether it is through Wales’s role in bolstering the UK’s defence and steel production, or leading the way in industries such as compound semiconductors and the life sciences, our Union of nations is hugely strengthened by Wales. We cannot put a ceiling on the awesome talent and ambition of the Welsh people, and I simply cannot understand why Plaid Cymru is hellbent on doing so.
Mr Barros-Curtis
I was shocked to see the front page of the Western Mail last week, which said:
“Free milk scheme for pupils could be scrapped”.
I thought we had gone back in time to the infamous milk snatcher, Margaret Thatcher, but no, it was the modern-day Plaid Cymru Welsh Government. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that scrapping free school milk would be a backward step, and will he commit to working with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that the Union means more opportunities for our children in Wales, not fewer?
Stephen Kinnock
Well, I have to say that when Plaid won in May, I did not have Thatcherism 2.0 on my bingo card. First, Plaid dragged its feet on additional learning needs funding; then it refused to commit to Flying Start; and now it may be targeting free school milk. My hon. Friend is right: the Plaid Welsh Government should be supporting children and families, just as this UK Labour Government have by scrapping the two-child cap, which will be hugely beneficial for nearly 70,000 Welsh children.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
One would hope that any Union would be a Union of equals, in which equal partners listen to each other with mutual respect. May I respectfully ask the Secretary of State to check his facts, as he has asked Plaid Members to check theirs? Can he confirm that the UK Government have listened to the Welsh Government on the Cynnal child payment pilot? Will he ensure that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will not count this payment as income, so that families do not lose out on the other benefit support that they need?
Stephen Kinnock
We have a shared priority with devolved Governments to tackle child poverty, so that no child living in poverty in the UK is left behind. Child poverty is a significant challenge, and reducing it over the next 10 years will require ongoing commitment and collaboration, particularly through the implementation phase. We are open to exploring the Welsh Government’s Cynnal pilot and we will continue to engage with them on the details.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Anna McMorrin)
I have regular discussions with the Welsh Government on defence and many other matters. We are fully funding the £15 billion defence investment plan, strengthening our armed forces, investing in cutting-edge technology and creating nearly 60,000 additional industry jobs across the UK. Continued uncertainty around the Welsh Government’s approach to defence, and delays to important projects such as DARC—Deep Space Advanced Radar Capability—risk deterring investment and jobs from Wales, as well as risking our national security.
John Cooper
Plaid, the SNP and Sinn Féin: the separatist cabal trying to break up Britain, with little regard for UK defence. In Scotland, we already have a hostile environment for our critical defence industry. What can the Secretary of State do in Wales to prevent the same fate befalling key workers there?
Anna McMorrin
This is absolutely such a critical industry and topic for our country to work on together as a strong United Kingdom. The dither and delay from the Plaid Welsh Government is undermining our Welsh defence sector. It is having a very real impact on jobs, investment and opportunities, and our communities deserve better. I once again urge the Plaid Welsh Government to work with us and stop the delay.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
The deployment of military personnel to deal with wildfires in Wales was very important this summer. Does the Minister agree that, now that UK and Welsh Government summits have taken place and there is additional money in the Welsh budget, we need a plan on wildfire prevention and resilience ahead of next summer?
Anna McMorrin
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his work with his community, and the commoners and firefighters in his constituency. I also pay tribute to all our firefighters and military for their role in fighting the wildfires this summer. The Welsh and UK Governments held summits last month and set out a route forward, including the UK Government equipping RAF helicopters to fight fires in remote areas. That is absolutely essential. The Welsh Government are looking to bring in international expertise. This is yet another example of the importance and power of cross-border collaboration.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Kinnock)
Cross-border travel is crucial to unlocking economic growth and employment opportunities. We are investing at least £445 million in Welsh rail, including in the Burns stations in South Wales, to improve cross-border connectivity and to help tackle congestion on the M4, a vital economic link between Wales and England. It is therefore deeply disappointing that the Welsh Government have chosen not to proceed with the M4 relief road.
Dr Evans
One of the biggest straitjackets on economic growth east to west is the “most-bashed bridge in Britain” on the A5 in my patch: the Watling Street bridge. There are plans to lower the road underneath it, but they seem to have stalled. Will the Minister speak with the Transport Secretary to see what can be done to get those plans unstuck, so that the road can be lowered and we can get Britain moving again?
Stephen Kinnock
The A5 is a hugely important cross-border artery, so it is vital to ensure that traffic can flow smoothly. If the hon. Gentleman would care to write to me on the subject, I would be happy to follow up with officials and the Secretary of State for Transport.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I was very surprised last week to hear the Plaid Cymru Transport Minister calling rail funding of £445 million from the UK Government an “insult”. Does the Minister agree that squabbling about cross-border transport gets us nowhere, and that the Welsh and UK Governments must work together to get spades in the ground for the Magor and Undy Walkway station?
Stephen Kinnock
The UK Government are making a very substantial contribution. It is vital that we invest in rail, and my hon. Friend is right that we now have to ensure that we get those spades in the ground. We are ready to roll up our sleeves and work closely with the Welsh Government, Transport for Wales, Network Rail and others to ensure that we get those projects up and running as rapidly as possible.
Speaker’s Statement
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I extend a warm welcome to the President of the National Assembly of Côte d'Ivoire and his delegation, who are with us in the Public Gallery. For her first outing in this role, I call the First Secretary of State.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
The First Secretary of State (Louise Haigh)
I have been asked to respond on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is accompanying His Majesty the King at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Antigua. This weekend, the whole country will fall silent to mark Remembrance Sunday. We pay tribute to the men and women who have served, and all those who made the ultimate sacrifice in defence of our values and freedoms. I wish a joyful and peaceful Diwali to everyone who will be celebrating. This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I will have further such meetings later today.
Matthew Patrick
Giving people opportunity is the mission of our party, but for young people on the Wirral, Brexit means that they have been denied many of the opportunities that their parents enjoyed, such as the right to work, study or live anywhere across Europe. The progress being made on a sanitary and phytosanitary deal gives me real confidence and hope that we can strike a good deal with the European Union in our national interests. Can the Government go further, strike a deal for young people, and restore to them the opportunities that Brexit took away?
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Brexit deal we inherited damaged our economy, weakened our ability to control immigration and took opportunities away from young people. Negotiations are ongoing, but we know that an SPS deal could add billions to our economy, cutting costs for exporters, helping supermarkets offer better prices, and supporting British farmers. We are working with the EU to create a balanced youth experience scheme that creates opportunities for young people to live, work and study abroad. Meanwhile, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) has already said that the Conservatives would rip all that up, no matter the benefits; perhaps he would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight?
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I associate myself with the comments the First Secretary of State made about Remembrance Sunday, which I look forward to marking in my constituency of Brentwood and Ongar.
This year, how much will the Government spend on working-age welfare?
Louise Haigh
Let me start by congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his elevation to deputy leader of the Conservative party. He recently said that it was now his job to tell the Leader of the Opposition when she is getting things wrong, which must make him the busiest man in Westminster. I am sure that the whole House is right behind him as he takes on such an important job. This Government are committed to bringing the benefits bill down and dealing with the mess left behind by the previous Tory Government, on whose watch welfare rose by £88 billion in a decade.
Alex Burghart
I think it is very telling that the right hon. Lady does not want to tell us the answer to that question. The answer is £183 billion. That is the highest figure ever. It is higher than anything during covid; it is higher than spending on defence, schools and policing combined. It is nearly £10,000 for every working household in this country. Will the Government commit to bringing that bill down in this Parliament?
Louise Haigh
The Government have been clear: the benefit bill will come down, and we are already taking steps to ensure that. We have rebalanced universal credit, increased face-to-face assessments, introduced a right to try work for disabled people, and introduced the youth guarantee for unemployed youth. Under previous Tory Governments—on the hon. Gentleman’s watch—the welfare bill soared by £88 billion. Nearly 3 million people were written off, with 1 million young people not in employment, education or training. That is the legacy of the previous Tory Administration. This Government are committed to tackling all of it.
Alex Burghart
The right hon. Lady has missed the fact that the bill is higher now than it has ever been. The Government are in a complete mess on this. On Thursday morning, the Chancellor went on the BBC and was asked whether there will be cuts in welfare before the next election. He said that there will be. Cue panic in Downing Street. The Prime Minister was sent out to clarify things. He said that the welfare bill needs to come down, but that this cannot be done by cutting the welfare bill. Then, at teatime, the Chancellor conceded defeat and said,
“It’s not correct to say that we are going to bring this welfare bill down”.
Will the First Secretary of State be clear: why is Labour not going to bring the welfare bill down during this Parliament?
Louise Haigh
The hon. Gentleman can continue reading out his questions, but he should listen to the answers. I have repeatedly said that the benefit bill will come down, and have set out the steps that this Labour Government are already taking to bring it down. The Milburn report will report shortly, as will the Timms review. Let me set out what further choices this Labour Government are making. Last night, the Opposition walked through the Lobby to vote against every change that this Budget will deliver. [Interruption.] They cheer, but they voted against a council tax cut for 20 million households. They voted against taking VAT off electricity bills. They voted against taking 70,000 small businesses out of business rates, and they voted against a tax on banks to fund it all. Perhaps he would like to explain why he did so now.
Alex Burghart
The right hon. Lady seems to have missed out the bit where the Resolution Foundation said that this Budget would be “catastrophic” for living standards, and the bit where the Office for Budget Responsibility said that the Budget would risk 215,000 jobs through tax rises. We know that Labour cannot bring down welfare in the next three years. It has been briefed, however, that the Prime Minister is preparing a 10-year plan. I am old enough to remember Keir Starmer’s 10-year plan, because it was six months ago. This is the only political party in history to have two 10-year plans in 10 months. Given that the Labour party is experimenting with planning, can it commit to reducing this record welfare bill—the highest welfare bill ever—in its 10-year plan?
Louise Haigh
The hon. Gentleman can ask me the same question four or five times; I will keep answering the same way. We are taking steps already to bring the welfare bill down, and we will take further steps. We have committed to legislating. Every week, the Conservatives bring here the same problems, and the same messes that we inherited from them—on welfare, defence, immigration and the economy. This Labour Government are committed to tackling it all. No matter what he brings, we are taking steps to deliver on all of it.
Alex Burghart
I am sure that the right hon. Lady was paying attention at the Budget, and to the figures that were published. Welfare spending will go up in every single year of this Parliament. I remember the Milburn review—a review so important that it was delayed until after the Budget. The Government are not going to fix welfare, and we know why, because the welfare Secretary told us. He said that every meeting he had with Labour MPs was about asking, “Who can we tax to pay for benefits?” It is very likely that the right hon. Lady was one of those MPs. We all remember that she led the rebellion against Keir Starmer’s very modest welfare policies. If the Government cannot reduce the welfare bill because of their Back Benchers and Front Benchers, can they at least promise that they will not put up taxes to cover these ever-increasing costs?
Louise Haigh
We have repeatedly been clear that we cannot afford to pay for failure and must invest in success. That is how we will bring the welfare bill down. We will make support more conditional on taking up opportunities, and ensure that young people get the help that they need earlier. We are tackling the long-term drivers of welfare spending, including high housing costs, and we will do all this in a Labour way.
The hon. Gentleman told a gathering of Conservative party members that they should keep apologising for the many things that they got wrong in government, but I am not sure that his colleagues got the memo. The Leader of the Opposition claimed that she was not in the Cabinet when they made mistakes on migration, but she was there at the peak of the Boriswave. The shadow Home Secretary claimed that he was not responsible for immigration policy when he was a Home Office Minister, and the shadow Chancellor still does not want blame for the mini-Budget, which was written when he was in the Treasury. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to take this opportunity to apologise on behalf of himself and his colleagues.
Alex Burghart
We all know what the Labour way is: more tax, more welfare and more borrowing. There is no commitment to reducing welfare, and no promise not to put up tax. The Government know what needs to be done, but they do not have the bottle to do it. They are too scared to cut spending and too weak to do the right thing. They are too busy putting off until tomorrow what needs to be done today, and everyone else is paying the price—the millions of people on welfare, and the millions of people picking up the bill. If Labour does not want to do the right thing, why does it not just get out of the way?
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Rankin, we had a little eye contact earlier. I do not think that it looks good to try to shout down a woman. I call the First Secretary of State.
Louise Haigh
I know that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar regards himself as the Tories’ resident historian. In fact, he once published a paper titled “Profile of a Doomed Elite”. I am sure that the House will be as surprised as I was to learn that it was not a study of the prospects of the current shadow Cabinet.
As a student of history, the hon. Gentleman will be well aware that few Governments have delivered the scale and speed of change that this Administration have in our first 100 days; we are cutting business rates for 70,000 businesses, cutting tax for entrepreneurs, cutting VAT from electricity bills to helping 20 million households with energy bills, scrapping standing charges, capping bus fares, investing in our high streets, extending parental pay and tackling rough sleeping. He does not seem impressed. Perhaps that is because the only Government who had more of an impact in a shorter space of time was the one he served under: the one led by Liz Truss.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Louise Haigh
I am very happy to congratulate Fleetwood Town with my hon. Friend. As a Barnsley fan, we live for those David versus Goliath moments.
We published the UK’s first ever plan to better protect people and our environment from forever chemicals earlier this year. Just this week, the UK Health and Security Agency launched its first study into the levels of forever chemicals in the population. As we continue to build the evidence, we will consider the case for any appropriate measures, including national standards to manage the risks and protect communities. The Environment Agency is supporting a thorough investigation into the Thornton-Cleveleys site and I will make sure that the DEFRA Minister of State keeps my hon. Friend updated.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
May I associate myself with the remarks of the First Secretary of State about Remembrance Sunday, when we will join in honouring our service personnel and their sacrifices? May I also join her in wishing a happy Diwali to all those who celebrate?
American voters have rejected Trump’s warmongering and the economic chaos that it has caused, unlike the Conservatives and Reform who cheered on Trump’s illegal war. Trump has renewed his threat of strikes on Iran—strikes that would be devastating for security in the region and devastating for the cost of living in the UK. Will the Government stand together with our reliable allies and send a clear message to Trump and Netanyahu that there must be no more strikes?
Louise Haigh
The US is one of our most important allies and our priority, absolutely, is de-escalation. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that the war in the middle east has been catastrophic for the cost of living crisis here at home, and the parties opposite, including the Tories and Reform, should consider carefully their judgment in calling for us to jump so readily into it.
Daisy Cooper
I am grateful for the unequivocal response on that. The First Secretary has our backing in calling for de-escalation.
As well as the economic turmoil, the American people have also sent a message that they are sick of Trump’s scandals, from his blatant corruption to his close friendship with Epstein and most recently, emerging from the Epstein files, an allegation of rape. Will the First Secretary of State join me in saying that in this House, we will not tolerate powerful men who abuse their position against women in this Parliament or any other? Will the Government also commit to assisting any and all inquiries that the new Democratic Congress may launch?
Louise Haigh
The hon. Lady raises an incredibly important point about the Epstein files and everything that they revealed. She is right to highlight the importance, always, of challenging power and standing on behalf of vulnerable victims.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
Louise Haigh
I vividly remember visiting the station with my hon. Friend. He has been a strong campaigner on this and I know just how important it is for his constituents. We have awarded over £640 million to the Lancashire combined county authority for its local priorities, which could help deliver schemes such as this one. I know that the Rail Minister will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the campaign.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
Political stability in Northern Ireland should never, and certainly cannot now, be taken for granted. A fundamental principle in our democracy is that Ministers who take up office uphold the rule of law and support the police, the courts and our rule of law, yet the lawless First Minister of Northern Ireland and three of her Ministers have shredded their pledge and, with it, the responsibility that comes with office.
Do the First Secretary of State and our Labour Government believe in the rule of law and believe that where one errs it should not be that all are punished, that lawmakers cannot be lawbreakers, and that there therefore needs to be an amendment to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to ensure that, in circumstances such as these, the punishment applies to those who stepped outside all respected norms and their pledge of office?
Louise Haigh
The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not going to comment on a live police investigation. The major problem facing Northern Ireland right now is, as he will agree, the absence of a budget. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is looking at how we can ensure that there is more political and financial accountability, and he will continue engaging with all Northern Ireland parties about how we move forward. Ultimately, we want calm heads to prevail and power sharing to succeed, and we want to enhance the resilience of the political institutions in Northern Ireland. We are willing to work with all parties on that, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman will play his full part in getting a budget agreed.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The UK can be a world leader in this industry, which is why our space strategy set out over £7.8 billion of investment to strengthen our national security and resilience. I can assure him that our decisions will always prioritise economic growth and jobs here in the UK and the enhancing of our sovereign capabilities, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Space Minister will be very happy to meet him to discuss this.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
Louise Haigh
I am sure the whole House’s thoughts are with Eivie and her friend’s families and all who loved them. This is a tragic case, and one that absolutely highlights the importance of reforming SEND—I know the whole House is behind that—as we look to tackle the failures in this system that have been an issue for many years. My right hon. Friend the Education Secretary is leading the work to strengthen that system so that families do not have to fight for support, and education, health and care plans will remain part of the system. Parents will continue to be involved in decisions about their children’s support, and the tribunal will remain a key legal backstop. My right hon. Friend is more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss this issue and the very sad case he raises.
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Louise Haigh
I am very grateful for that conditional invitation. We absolutely recognise the potential benefits that upgrades to Haughley junction could deliver for passengers and freight alike and that these must be delivered alongside rail upgrades in the Ely area. As my hon. Friend knows, both projects were cancelled by the previous Government in 2021, but I am pleased to confirm that both are now being considered for future funding, and I know the Transport Secretary will be happy to meet him to hear his case.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Louise Haigh
The hon. Gentleman raises an excellent example of the kind of people this Government are behind and trying to help. Working people are the millions of people who put in every day and do not get back what they deserve, people who do not have savings they can dip into and pay their way out of problems, and people who rely on good public services. Those are the people who this Labour Government are delivering for and who the Budget served last week.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Louise Haigh
I congratulate my hon. Friend on campaigning on this important area and highlighting some of our most vulnerable constituents. I absolutely agree that victims and survivors of domestic abuse deserve proper and timely legal support. In recognition that individuals might not be able to access certain assets or funds, we have already updated legislation to improve the availability of legal aid for survivors of domestic abuse, which includes ensuring that £100,000 of the value of a home will not be considered in the legal aid means test. However, we will always work to ensure that victims and survivors have the support they need, and Ministers will be happy to hear any further proposals.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Louise Haigh
I am happy to take that case away and raise it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
Louise Haigh
I thank my hon. Friend. At the Budget, we made clear our commitment to creating good growth in every postcode, driving regeneration in every part of Britain. That commitment was backed by £80 million of new funding for the local renewal fund to support projects that create jobs, invest in local economic regeneration and boost growth. His proposal is a very good fit for that funding, and I will ensure he meets the relevant Minister to discuss.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Louise Haigh
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue. Ofcom recently introduced a draft advertising code under the Online Safety Act 2023 that, when implemented, will require major tech platforms to take robust action on online scams. Non-compliance could lead to fines of up to 10% of global revenue. We believe it is for big tech platforms to tackle those issues and, where they are failing, we will not shy away from taking firm action.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. There is no place for hatred and violence of any kind in our society, whether on our streets or online. Our action includes investing in stronger protective security for faith communities, using the recommendations of the Bell review to tackle antisemitism in schools and universities, and delivering our social cohesion plan. For the first time, this Government have chaired a National Security Council on tackling antisemitism, to demonstrate our commitment to rooting out that evil. We will always be happy to work with Governments across the UK, including in Scotland, to share best practice, because we all have a role to play in strengthening our society.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Louise Haigh
Cuts made over the previous decade severely impacted the most deprived communities, and we inherited an outdated, unfair funding system that no longer reflected where pressures are greatest. The final settlement for Richmond council makes available more than £223 million, but I will ensure that the relevant Minister meets the hon. Lady to discuss how we take this matter forward.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Louise Haigh
I begin by wishing my hon. Friend a very happy birthday—I am sure there is nowhere he would rather be celebrating.
My hon. Friend is right to highlight that under the Conservatives, his constituents were let down by unfunded spending commitments that were never deliverable. We have reset the programme and are investing in our NHS, delivering more appointments and lowering wait times—his local elective waiting list is down by almost 27,000. We are working closely with trusts to accelerate progress wherever possible, and a Health Minister will be happy to meet him to discuss his innovative financing proposals.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Louise Haigh
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise those critical issues and I absolutely understand the concerns over the services at St Helier. I know that the Minister for Secondary Care discussed these issues with MPs earlier this week. We have allocated £5 million to fund critical repairs at the hospital. We are keen that as many women’s health services as possible remain there while the essential work is carried out. The trust is committed to taking a decision on plans for the maternity and women’s unit in December. I know that the Minister would be happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss next steps and how we will address these really important issues.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
Today I met Braelyn Hollensbe, along with her mum. At 16, she was given just three months to live because of a brain tumour. Braelyn travelled to the UK for cutting-edge treatment. She is now 19, with scans showing no evidence of disease, and she is in the Gallery with her family today, thanks to our NHS. The drug DCVax-L is manufactured here in the UK. It is the first treatment in decades that has been shown to extend survival in recurrent glioblastoma patients, yet it is available to only a tiny number of patients on a compassionate use basis. Will the First Secretary join me in welcoming Braelyn, congratulate the NHS on playing a role in helping to develop this treatment, and agree that we should help to get it into widespread use to save more lives?
Louise Haigh
I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this incredibly important point, and of course I welcome Braelyn and her family today. I will ensure that the Health Secretary looks at this issue urgently. I know that the Prime Minister has taken a personal interest in it and will want to ensure that action is taken as soon as possible.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Will the First Secretary confirm that it is still Labour Government policy that employers are not working people?
Louise Haigh
I answered that question earlier in the session. Rather than take the Whip’s question, perhaps the hon. Gentleman could confirm why the Conservatives voted last night against every measure in the Budget that will help his constituents.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
In my constituency, the coastal towns of Largs and Saltcoats were badly flooded by Storm Boelo, with much damage caused to local businesses, as well as damage to constituents’ houses and gardens. Does the First Secretary agree with me that to avoid that happening again, there has to be joined-up working with the Scottish Government and all relevant authorities and agencies to ensure that our vulnerable coastal towns and communities have coastal defence preparedness plans in place?
Louise Haigh
I know that this is an issue my hon. Friend has been raising, and I met her yesterday to discuss this very issue. Flooding is devolved to the Scottish Government, but we have set up a floods resilience taskforce to ensure that we can work across borders, share best practice and address exactly the issues she raises.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
On Saturday night, five teenagers in my constituency were stabbed while at a party. I would like to offer my thanks to the emergency services for their prompt response, and I extend my best wishes to the families, the victims and their friends. What reassurance can the First Secretary give my constituents that the Government are taking the issue of violent crime seriously and treating it as a public health emergency?
Louise Haigh
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this issue, and to do so in the way that she has. I know that Members from across the House will send their thoughts and best wishes to the victims, to their families who will be incredibly worried about them and to the community at this time. We urge anybody with information to bring it forward to the police, so that any perpetrators can be brought to justice, and we remain committed to halving knife crime over the next decade. I will ensure that a Minister meets her to discuss the particular issues she raises about this crime and how we should address these issues going forward.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to for ask your advice about the First Secretary of State having potentially inadvertently misled the House on two occasions during Question Time. She said that the Conservatives voted against every change in the Budget. That is not true—we voted against six specific measures. She also said quite specifically that the Conservatives voted against a council tax cut for 20 million households. We did not—we voted against increasing council tax by opposing resolution 86—
Mr Speaker
Order. When I stand up, please do me the courtesy of sitting down. Look, we cannot continue the debate. I am not responsible for the answers. What you have done, Mr Stafford, is to correct the record by putting down what you believe to be the facts. I do not want to continue a debate at this time.
Bills Presented
Energy Independence
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Jonathan Reynolds, Secretary Angela Rayner, Secretary Dame Angela Eagle, Secretary Chris Bryant, Secretary Mr Douglas Alexander, Secretary Stephen Kinnock, Michael Shanks and Martin McCluskey, presented a Bill to make provision about the regulation of the energy sector; about energy schemes; about heat networks; about the Independent System Operator and Planner; about the North Sea Transition Authority and activities relating to petroleum; about the Mining Remediation Authority and coal-mining operations; about hydrogen power; about employment rights for offshore workers; about the energy efficiency of properties in the private rented sector; about radioactive waste; about fees relating to the assessment and certification of fuels and fireplaces; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Tuesday 10 November, and to be printed (Bill 176) with explanatory notes (Bill 176-EN).
Visitor Levy (England)
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Angela Rayner, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Louise Haigh, Secretary Lisa Nandy, Jim McMahon and James Murray, presented a Bill to make provision for and in connection with the imposition, by strategic authorities, of a new local tax in respect of stays in residential accommodation.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Tuesday 10 November, and to be printed (Bill 177) with explanatory notes (Bill 177-EN).
Fashion Supply Chain (Code and Adjudicator)
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a Code of Practice to be followed by retailers of fashion clothing, footwear and accessories in their relationships with their suppliers; to set up an Adjudicator with the role of enforcing that Code of Practice and encouraging compliance with it; and for connected purposes.
The UK fashion and textile sector contributes £62 billion to our economy and supports 1.3 million jobs. From historic textile mills in Yorkshire and Lancashire to garment manufacturing in Leicester, London and the west midlands, domestic production provides skilled regional employment and industrial capability.
The majority of fashion retailers want to trade ethically, and certainly the public encourage them to do that, supporting fair wages and good conditions. However, the global garment market is heavily buyer-driven. Where a minority of companies engage in abusive practices, responsible businesses risk being undercut and small suppliers lack bargaining leverage. Without a level playing field, bad practice distorts fair competition and stops small businesses operating successfully.
We saw how completely the garment market can fail during the covid-19 pandemic. When retail stores closed in 2020, major brands selling in the UK cancelled billions of pounds-worth of confirmed orders overnight, withheld payments for garments already stitched and demanded steep discounts on shipped goods. That crisis laid bare the fundamental flaw in global garment supply chains: when unexpected costs hit, buyers dump commercial risks on to factory owners and workers, with zero accountability.
These practices have been documented for decades by organisations including the International Labour Organisation, Human Rights Watch, the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre and the Vietnam labour institute, and recent research from the Universities of Aberdeen, Nottingham and Leicester, the Tata Institute and Transform Trade shows that unfair buying habits remain routine commercial tactics across the UK, Bangladesh and India. These unfair practices, which include cancelled orders, forced price cuts, refusal to pay for goods in production and delayed invoices, caused job losses, poverty wages and unsafe working conditions for the workforce, the majority of whom are women.
In historic hubs such as Leicester, heavy buyer pressure has driven the number of clothing businesses down from 1,500 in 2017 to roughly 95 today. Behind those figures are real factory owners facing impossible terms. One UK manufacturer produced 1,000 garment samples over a single season, costing hundreds of pounds each, only for the buyer to order just 140 styles. Another suffered a sudden cancellation of 80,000 finished garments and 100,000 metres of fabric that was already paid for. Small UK factories pay up to £4,000 a year for mandatory compliance audits, only for 42% to receive zero orders after passing them.
Overseas suppliers face the exact same tactics. In India, when a factory had an order almost complete, an auditor flagged slightly insufficient lighting in one corner of the workshop, which the buying agent seized on to force down the contract price. Elsewhere, UK retailers have held shipments at destination ports to force steep retroactive discounts, ignoring daily emails from factory managers asking how to pay their staff. Buyers can drop orders at short notice or force price cuts, making low-paid workers absorb the blow through reduced hours, unpaid overtime or lay-offs.
Women make up 61% of the core garment workforce in the UK and 60% in Bangladesh. Crucially, international suppliers fall outside the jurisdiction of UK labour enforcement bodies, and relationships are governed by unilateral buyer manuals filled with automatic fines. Of 1,000 factories surveyed in Bangladesh, not one took legal action against a buyer; some 80% feared blacklisting. Few factory owners, whether in Leicester, India or Bangladesh, can afford to sue multimillion-pound brands.
This Labour Government have taken positive steps to raise standards across our economy. The Government’s review into responsible business conduct demonstrates a clear commitment to supply chain integrity. The creation of the Fair Work Agency will strengthen domestic labour enforcement, and the 60-day payment cap in the Commercial Payments Bill is a major step forward for business cash flow. We should celebrate those achievements, but to complete the picture and protect ethical businesses, we must go further where standards fall lower. Enforcing labour laws against factory owners cannot address financial pressures when a retailer forces a supplier to sell below production cost. Transparency reporting does not stop daily commercial abuses such as forced discounts or sudden cancellations. Capping payment terms at 60 days helps UK payment schedules, but it does not reach international supply chains or protect against cancelled contracts. Advising small suppliers to pursue litigation fails to recognise commercial reality, as no small business can afford to sue the buyer that it depends on for survival.
We need to regulate buyer behaviour directly through a statutory garment trading adjudicator across the UK market, bringing domestic and foreign retailers selling in the UK into scope. That creates fair competition, enabling small businesses to compete successfully. We already have a proven model in the Groceries Code Adjudicator; code breaches fell from 79% in 2014 to 33% in 2024, while food retailers remained profitable and paid food suppliers up to three months faster than clothing retailers pay garment suppliers. Furthermore, the European Union is proposing similar unfair trading practice regulations for the textile sector.
Ahead of establishing the adjudicator, a mandatory supply chain code of practice is needed to define clear rules of fair dealing. First, therefore, the garment trading adjudicator would enforce a mandatory supply chain code of practice, including a legally binding principle of fair dealing, giving suppliers certainty over orders, fair payment timelines and protection from sudden contract changes. Secondly, it would protect suppliers by allowing factory owners, trade unions and third parties to submit evidence through confidential and anonymous reporting channels, supported by a multilingual system so that global suppliers can report in their own languages.
Thirdly, the adjudicator would be empowered to initiate proactive market investigations based on intelligence without requiring an individual, formal public complaint that could expose a single supplier to commercial retaliation. Fourthly, it would have the power to impose financial penalties on abusive retailers who breach the code and require retailers to reimburse suppliers for what they are owed. Finally, the regulator would be funded entirely through a statutory levy on large fashion retailers, placing zero cost on the British taxpayer.
This proposal has been made by the Environmental Audit Committee in the past and has cross-party parliamentary support. By supporting this Bill, we can build on this Government’s impressive work—from the creation of the Fair Work Agency to the new Office for Responsible Business Conduct—and complete the regulatory picture. Establishing a garment trading adjudicator would create a level playing field, in which responsible businesses were protected from unfair competition, small suppliers could invest with confidence, and British retail could stand tall as a global benchmark for ethical trading. I urge the House to support this Bill and grant leave for it to be brought in.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Liz Twist, Cat Smith, Ms Stella Creasy, David Mundell, Martin Rhodes, Rachael Maskell, Jeff Smith, Maya Ellis, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Mary Glindon, Wera Hobhouse and Navendu Mishra present the Bill.
Liz Twist accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 172).
Sporting Events Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)
Sporting Events Bill [Lords]
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
13:35 - The House divided: - Ayes: 62 / Noes: 286 - Question accordingly negatived.
13:48 - The House divided: - Ayes: 91 / Noes: 298 - Question accordingly negatived.
14:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 93 / Noes: 287 - Question accordingly negatived.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Strategy for bidding for the FIFA World Cup—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, publish a feasibility study and bidding plan for the United Kingdom to bid to host the FIFA World Cup in 2042.
(2) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed and each subsequent year until the 2042 FIFA World Cup is allocated, the Secretary of State must lay a statement before Parliament to update on the progress of the bidding plan.”
This new clause creates a duty on the Government to prepare a UK bid to host the FIFA World Cup in 2042.
New clause 3—Prohibition on fee-gouging and surge pricing—
“(1) In relation to any sporting event designated under this Act, no person may—
(a) charge, through a ticket resale platform, a transaction fee exceeding 10% of the face value amount;
(b) charge a purchaser in the primary market a transaction fee exceeding 10% of the face value amount;
(c) engage in surge pricing.
(2) In this section—
“primary market” refers to ticketing activities with an authorisation granted under Schedule 1, paragraph 3; and
“surge pricing” is ”dynamic pricing”; when prices are adjusted rapidly and frequently in response to changing demand.”
This new clause caps transaction fees for primary sales and secondary resale platforms at 10% and bans surge pricing for every sporting event designated under the Act.
New clause 4—Prohibition of gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship—
“(1) A person must not, in connection with a relevant sporting event—
(a) carry out, arrange, or permit advertising or marketing for a gambling business, facility, or brand, or
(b) enter into, give effect to, or display any sponsorship arrangement involving a gambling business.
(2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not the advertising provisions in Schedule 2 have been applied to the event under paragraph (2)(1).
(3) In this section—
“gambling business” means a business providing facilities for gambling within the meaning of section 5 of the Gambling Act 2005 (and includes a gambling brand); and
“relevant sporting event” means a sporting event in relation to which any part of the sporting events framework applies under section (2).”
This new clause prevents gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship at sporting events covered by this Bill.
New clause 6—Assessment of framework conditions—
“(1) Before making regulations under section 2 in relation to a domestic sporting event, the appropriate national authority must consult—
(a) the Competition and Markets Authority;
(b) persons who appear to the appropriate national authority to represent the interests of consumers who may wish to attend the sporting event;
(c) persons who appear to the appropriate national authority to represent businesses that would be affected by the application of the sporting events framework, including operators of secondary ticketing platforms;
(d) such other persons as the appropriate national authority considers appropriate.
(2) As part of the consultation under subsection (1), the appropriate national authority must—
(a) identify the parts of the sporting events framework proposed to be applied and explain why their application is considered appropriate;
(b) explain the basis on which it considers that each condition in section 3 applicable to the sporting event is met;
(c) set out the evidence, criteria or metrics relied upon;
(d) assess the likely effects of the proposed regulations on consumers, affected businesses and competition; and
(e) invite views on the matters set out in paragraphs (a) to (d).”
This new clause would require the appropriate national authority to consult the Competition and Markets Authority, consumers and affected businesses, and assess the potential impacts on competition and consumer choice before applying the sporting events framework to a domestic sporting event.
New clause 7—Industrial action regulations—
“(1) This section applies in relation to regulations under section 2 which apply the industrial action provisions.
(2) The regulations must specify the period during which the industrial action provisions apply.
(3) The period in subsection (2) must not be shorter than the minimum period.
(4) In subsection (2), the “minimum period” means the period—
(a) beginning on the day on which any part of the sporting events framework is applied and has effect in relation to a sporting event, and
(b) ends on the day on which all provisions of the sporting events framework cease to apply to the sporting event.”
This new clause defines the minimum period in which the appropriate national authority must apply the industrial action provisions.
New clause 8—Exception for charitable auctions—
“(1) The ticket touting offence does not apply in relation to the sale of an event ticket in an auction conducted—
(a) by a charity, or
(b) by a person other than a charity, provided that the proceeds of the event ticket’s sale are given to a charity.
(2) In subsection (1), “charity” has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Charities Act 2011.”
New clause 9—Review of Government’s economic policies on the hosting of major sporting events—
“Within the period of six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must prepare, publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament, a report assessing the impact of His Majesty’s Government’s economic policies on the ability of the United Kingdom to attract and host major sporting events.”
Amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—
“(da) Schedule 4A (“the sports rights provisions”).”
Amendment 6, page 1, line 12, at end insert—
“(f) Schedule 6 (“the industrial action provisions”)”.
This amendment inserts industrial action provisions, which would ban strikes by certain workers, including transport workers, when the sporting events framework is applied to a sporting event.
Amendment 8, page 1, line 12, at end insert—
“(f) Schedule 6 (“the single sex protections provisions”).”
Amendment 4, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, at end insert—
“(c) the sports rights provisions.”
Amendment 9, page 2, line 10, at end insert—
“(c) the single sex protections provisions.”
Amendment 7, page 2, line 10, at end insert—
“(2A) Where an appropriate national authority applies one or more of the parts of the sporting events framework to a sporting event by regulations under this section, the appropriate national authority must also apply the industrial action provisions.”
This amendment requires the appropriate national authority to apply the industrial action provisions when they apply one or more other parts of the sporting events framework to a sporting event.
Amendment 1, in clause 3, page 3, line 28, at end insert—
“(6A) The fourth condition is that the live coverage of the sporting event is made available—
(a) free of charge to all persons in the United Kingdom with access to a television or internet-connected device, or
(b) on a platform licensed by Ofcom which is accessible without subscription to members of the public in the United Kingdom.”
This amendment adds a condition for Sporting Events to be covered by this Bill, to include making the sporting event free to air.
Amendment 10, in clause 7, page 5, line 2, at end insert—
“(c) section (Exception for charitable auctions)”
Amendment 13, in clause 26, page 21, line 17, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (4A),”
Amendment 2, page 21, line 19, leave out from “event” to end of line 20 and insert —
“(i) that takes place wholly or partly in a relevant part of the United Kingdom, and
(ii) the live coverage of which is made available—
(A) free of charge to all persons in the United Kingdom with access to a television or internet-connected device, or
(B) on a platform licensed by Ofcom which is accessible without subscription to members of the public in the United Kingdom.”
This amendment would require that any event receiving financial support from the UK Government must be broadcast free to air as a condition of that support.
Amendment 14, page 21, line 36, at end insert—
“(4A) The power under subsection (1) may only be exercised if the appropriate national legislature has approved the financial assistance by resolution.”
Amendment 15, page 21, line 41, at end insert—
“the appropriate national legislature” means—
(a) in relation to England, the House of Commons;
(b) in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Parliament;
(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, the Northern Irish Assembly.”
New schedule 1—Industrial Action Provisions—
“Part 1
Offences
Industrial action transport offences
1 (1) It is an offence for a transport worker to engage in any industrial action at any time during the specified period.
(2) It is an offence for any person to—
(a) arrange for any industrial action to be carried out by a transport worker,
(b) permit the carrying out of such action, or
(c) induce a transport worker to engage in industrial action, at any time during the specified period.
(3) In this paragraph, a “transport worker” means an employee of a transport service anywhere in the United Kingdom.
(4) The following are to be considered as transport services for the purposes of this paragraph—
(a) airport operation services;
(b) bus services;
(c) light rail services;
(d) passenger railway services.
(5) In this paragraph—
“airport operation services” has the same meaning as in section 88 of the Civil Aviation Act 2012;
“bus services” has the same meaning as in section 162 of the Transport Act 2000;
“light rail services” means passenger railway services provided on or in respect of any of the following light rail systems known at the time this Act comes into force as—
(a) Blackpool Tramway;
(b) Docklands Light Railway;
(c) Edinburgh Trams;
(d) Glasgow Subway;
(e) London Trams;
(f) London Underground;
(g) Manchester Metrolink;
(h) Nottingham Express Transit;
(i) Sheffield Supertram;
(j) Tyne & Wear Metro;
(k) West Midlands Metro;
“passenger railway services” means—
(a) services for the carriage of passengers by railway by a person providing services—
(i) under a franchise agreement within the meaning of section 23(3) of the Railways Act 1993 (“the 1993 Act”),
(ii) under, or secured under, the duty in section 30(1) of the 1993 Act,
(iii) under an agreement to which one of the persons listed in section 24A(4)(a) of the 1993 Act is a party, or
(iv) under, or secured under, section 173(1) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, or
(b) the refuelling of any locomotive or other rolling stock used for the services mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) by the person providing those services.
(6) Services relating to the following are not passenger railway services for the purposes of this paragraph—
(a) a train operation service using a railway which the Office of Rail and Road determines in accordance with regulation 2A(1) of the Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006 is a heritage, museum or tourist railway that operates on its own network;
(b) a train operation service that starts or terminates outside Great Britain.
(7) In this paragraph—
“services for the carriage of passengers by railway” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the 1993 Act (see section 82(2) of that Act);
“locomotive” , “network”, “rolling stock”, “station”, “track” and “train” have the meanings given by section 83(1) of the 1993 Act, but in applying the definitions in that subsection, references to “railway” in the definitions are to be treated as having the meaning given in sub-paragraph;
“railway” has the meaning given by section 67(1) of the Transport and Works Act 1992 but includes a “tramway” within the meaning of that section.
Industrial action local authority offences
2 (1) It is an offence for a relevant local authority worker to engage in any industrial action at any time during the specified period.
(2) It is an offence for any person to—
(a) arrange for any industrial action to be carried out in a relevant local authority area, or
(b) permit the carrying out of such action, at any time during the specified period.
(3) In this paragraph—
“relevant local authority worker” means an employee of a relevant local authority;
“relevant local authority” means any local authority which has responsibility for the provision of one or more services in an area in which a specified sporting event, or an event that is part of the sporting event, is to be held;
“relevant local authority area” means the geographical area in which a relevant local authority has jurisdiction;
Part 2
Enforcement
Penalties on conviction
3 (1) A person guilty of an offence under this Schedule is liable—
(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;
(b) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding £50,000.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this Schedule in Scotland is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £20,000;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.
Power to impose financial penalties
4 (1) The appropriate national authority may impose a financial penalty on a person if the appropriate national authority is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person has committed an offence under this Schedule in relation to the sporting event.
(2) The amount of the penalty is to be decided by the appropriate national authority, but must not be more than £20,000.
(3) Only one financial penalty may be imposed in respect of the same conduct.
(4) No financial penalty may be imposed in respect of any conduct if—
(a) the person has been convicted of an offence under this Schedule in respect of the same conduct,
(b) criminal proceedings for an offence under this Schedule in respect of the same conduct have been instituted against the person and the proceedings have not been concluded, or
(c) criminal proceedings for an offence under this Schedule in respect of the same conduct have been concluded and the person has not been convicted.
(5) A person may not be convicted of an offence under this Schedule if a financial penalty has been imposed under this paragraph in respect of the same conduct.
Notice of intention to impose financial penalty
5 (1) Before imposing a financial penalty on a person under paragraph 4, an appropriate national authority must give the person a notice (a “notice of intention”) stating that the authority proposes to do so.
(2) The notice of intention must be given before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the first day on which the authority has sufficient evidence that the person has committed an offence under part 1 of this Schedule.
(3) The notice of intention must set out—
(a) the amount of the proposed financial penalty,
(b) the reasons for proposing to impose the financial penalty, and
(c) information about the right to make representations under paragraph 6.
Right to make representations
6 (1) A person who is given a notice of intention may make written representations to the appropriate national authority which gave the notice about the proposal to impose a financial penalty.
(2) Any representations must be made within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice of intention was given to the person.
Final notice
7 (1) After the end of the period mentioned in paragraph 6(2) the appropriate national authority must—
(a) decide whether to impose a financial penalty on the person, and
(b) if it decides to do so, decide the amount of the penalty.
(2) If the authority decides to impose a financial penalty on the person, it must give a notice to the person (a “final notice”) imposing that penalty.
(3) The final notice must require the penalty to be paid within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice was given.
(4) The final notice must set out—
(a) the amount of the financial penalty (which may be less than the amount specified in the notice of intention, but cannot be more),
(b) the reasons for imposing the penalty,
(c) information about how to pay the penalty,
(d) the period for payment of the penalty
(e) information about rights of appeal, and
(f) the consequences of failure to comply with the notice.
Withdrawal or amendment of notice
8 (1) The appropriate national authority may at any time—
(a) withdraw a notice of intention or final notice, or
(b) reduce an amount specified in a notice of intention or final notice.
(2) The power in sub-paragraph (1) is to be exercised by giving notice to the person on whom the notice was given.
Appeals
9 (1) A person to whom a final notice is given may appeal against—
(a) the decision to impose the penalty;
(b) the amount of the penalty.
(2) The appeal may be made—
(a) in England and Wales, to the First-tier Tribunal;
(b) in Scotland, to the sheriff;
(c) in Northern Ireland, to a county court.
(3) An appeal under this paragraph must be made within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the final notice is given to the person.
(4) If a person appeals under this paragraph, the final notice is suspended until the appeal is finally determined, withdrawn or abandoned.
(5) An appeal under this paragraph—
(a) is to be a re-hearing of the appropriate national authority’s decision, but
(b) may be determined having regard to matters of which the authority was unaware.
(6) On an appeal under this paragraph the First-tier Tribunal or the court may quash, confirm or vary the final notice.
(7) The final notice may not be varied under sub-paragraph (6) so as to make it impose a financial penalty of a greater amount than the appropriate national authority could have imposed.
Recovery of financial penalty
10 (1) This paragraph applies if a person fails to pay the whole or any part of a financial penalty which has been imposed on a person in accordance with this Schedule.
(2) In England and Wales the appropriate national authority which imposed the penalty may recover the penalty or part on the order of the county court as if it were payable under an order of that court.
(3) In Scotland the penalty may be enforced in the same manner as an extract registered decree arbitral bearing a warrant for execution issued by the sheriff of any sheriffdom in Scotland.
(4) In Northern Ireland the authority which imposed the financial penalty may recover the penalty or part on the order of a county court as if it were payable under an order of that court.
(5) In any proceedings relating to a financial penalty, a certificate that—
(a) purports to be signed by or on behalf of the person with responsibility for the financial affairs of the authority which imposed the penalty, and
(b) states that payment of the financial penalty was, or was not, received by a date specified in the certificate, is evidence of the facts stated.
Proceeds of financial penalties
11 Where a relevant enforcement authority imposes a financial penalty under paragraph 4, it may use the proceeds for the purposes of any of its functions.
No protection if union induces industrial action
12 Where industrial action is prohibited during a specified period under this Schedule, an act done by a trade union to induce or attempt to induce a person to engage in industrial action is not protected from any proceedings in tort.
Part 3
Interpretation
13 In this Schedule—
“industrial action” means action taken by workers against their employer in furtherance of a trade dispute;
“specified period” means the “minimum period" specified in the regulations as required by section [Industrial action regulations];
“strike” means any concerted stoppage of work;
“trade dispute” has the meaning given by section 244 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.”
This new Schedule establishes the industrial action provisions, referred to in Amendments 6,7 and NC7, and sets out penalties for breaching them.
New schedule 2—The single sex protection provisions—
“Protections for participants in major sporting events
1 (1) Before the Secretary of State may make regulations under section (2), the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the organiser of a sporting event will—
(a) provide that all competitors in the single-sex sporting event compete against those of the same biological sex in the interests of fairness and safety;
(b) provide that all competitors and officials in the sporting event are able to use—
(i) single sex accommodation based on their biological sex;
(ii) single sex changing and washing facilities based on their biological sex;
(iii) single sex toilets based on their biological sex.
Protections for spectators of major sporting events
2 (1) Before the Secretary of State may make regulations under section (2), the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the organiser of a sporting event will—
(a) make facilities available onsite, so that all spectators and staff, or any person attending the sporting event are able to use—
(i) single sex toilets based on their biological sex;
(ii) single sex changing and washing facilities where necessary based on their biological sex.
(2) In this section, "onsite" means a place specified or described in the regulations as required by section 11(2)(a).
Accessible facilities
3 (1) Nothing in paragraphs 1 or 2 requires that self-contained toilet, changing or washing facilities to be restricted to persons of one sex only.
(2) Self-contained facilities may be used by persons of either sex, together with any carer or assistant, provided that appropriate arrangements are made to ensure the privacy and dignity of users.
Financial Assistance
4 Before the Secretary of State may make regulations under section (26), the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the organiser of the sporting event and the organisers of associated legacy programmes and social impact initiatives comply with regulations under paragraphs (1), (2) and (3).
Interpretation
5 In the application of this Schedule to a sporting event by regulations under section (2), references to “single sex” means sex as defined in the Equality Act 2010.”
This new Schedule, with Amendments 8 and 9, add single-sex protection provisions to the framework to ensure the provision of single-sex competitions and facilities at major sporting events, as well as at associated events. Provides for an exemption for self-contained facilities, including for disabled people. It would also prevent relevant authorities providing funding for events that do not comply with single sex protections as defined in the Equality Act 2010.
Amendment 11, in schedule 1, page 26, line 20, at end insert—
“(4A) It is not an offence under this paragraph for a person (“A”) to advertise that an event ticket is available for purchase from another person (“B”) unless A knows, or ought to know, that B is touting an event ticket.”
This amendment mirrors a defence in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020 to ensure that the offence of advertising that an event ticket is available for purchase does not apply strict liability.
Amendment 12, page 28, line 7, at end insert—
“(2A) An authorisation under this paragraph must include a secondary ticketing condition.
(2B) A “secondary ticketing condition” is a condition that requires a person granted a ticketing authorisation under this paragraph to have and maintain a mechanism through which an event ticket can be transferred or sold to another person.”
Amendment 5, in schedule 4, page 45, line 20, at end insert—
“Schedule 4A
SPORTS RIGHTS PROVISIONS
1 (1) A sporting event betting licence is a licence issued by a sporting event controlling body which allows a gambling business to make use of information or data derived from or relating to a specified sporting event in the places, at the times and for the purposes specified in the licence.
(2) A sporting event betting licence must—
(a) provide for the sharing of information between the sporting event controlling body and the gambling business for the purpose of protecting and supporting integrity in sports and betting services; and
(b) state any fee payable by the gambling business to the sporting event controlling body in respect of the facilities for gambling in relation to the sporting event.
(3) A sporting event betting licence may prohibit betting on a particular contingency or class of contingencies in relation to a sporting event if the sporting event controlling body considers that betting on the contingency may expose the relevant sporting event or class of sporting event to unmanageable integrity risks.
(4) A sporting event betting licence takes effect, and may be terminated, in accordance with its terms.
2 (1) It is an offence for a gambling business to offer facilities for gambling in relation to a sporting event unless it is licensed to do so by the relevant sporting event controlling body through a sporting event betting licence.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable—
(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;
(b) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding £50,000.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph in Scotland is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £20,000;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.
(4) Where a gambling business has been found guilty of an offence under this paragraph in England and Wales, the offence may also be investigated and the gambling business prosecuted by the Gambling Commission under section 28 of the Gambling Act 2005 as if the offence were an offence under that Act.
(5) Where a gambling business has been found guilty of an offence under this paragraph, the conduct constituting the offence is actionable by the relevant sporting event controlling body, which may seek—
(a) an injunction, or in Scotland an interdict, requiring the provision of those facilities to cease;
(b) damages.”
Anna Sabine
As we have said before, the Liberal Democrats welcome this Bill. We recognise that the Euros, the world cup and the Olympics have huge positive implications, such as boosting our economy and bringing people together. Making these events easier for the UK to deliver is therefore the right thing to do.
On Second Reading, I emphasised my disappointment that the Bill did not include cultural or music events—industries that also bring billions into the UK’s economy, and events that encounter many of the same problems as sporting events. I have met Ministers, and I understand their position that cultural events are not within the scope of the Bill. However, I did not want to let debate on the Bill close without emphasising again that this is a missed opportunity to support cultural and music events.
There are other areas in which the Bill could be stronger, the first of which is free-to-air sports. This year, for the first time since the champions league began in 1992, supporters could not watch the final without paying. This is the latest in a long line of events that have gone behind a paywall. Meanwhile, the BBC’s coverage of the Lionesses has inspired a generation of girls to pick up a football, and Channel 4’s Paralympics coverage has shown disabled children what is possible. Free-to-air coverage works, and amendments 1 and 2 would ensure that any event covered by this Bill or backed by public money would be available to all. As well as that, new clause 2 proposes a bidding framework to bring football home, making sure that the Government can host the 2042 world cup. The Liberal Democrats have also long argued that gambling advertising has no place in sport. New clause 4 would ban gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship from the events that are covered by this legislation.
All those amendments matter to sport, which is why I have continued to push for them during the passage of the Bill. However, the amendment I wish to push to a Division today deals with ticket touting. The Labour party manifesto says:
“Access to music, drama and sport has become difficult and expensive because of ticket touting. Labour will put fans back at the heart of events by introducing new consumer protections on ticket resales.”
That is a pledge to act, in black and white. Elsewhere, the Government have pledged to bring forward legislation that will ban ticket resales at above face value. The commitment is clear, but this Bill contains a framework for implementing all of those promises, and the Government have chosen not to act this time.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I am sure the hon. Lady agrees that it is really good that the scope of this Bill was extended to include more major events, not just one big-ticket item. However, it now creates a two-tier ticketing system; it places restrictions on the sale of tickets to only a few sporting events, while music events and other cultural events are waiting for a solution that has been promised but not come. Does the hon. Lady agree that that puts in stark perspective the urgent need for the ticket touting Bill to come forward as quickly as possible?
Anna Sabine
It would be very unwise to disagree with the hon. Member on any issue relating to this area; yes, I totally agree with her. The issue of ticket sales really needs clarification.
Every year, fans lose £145 million from tickets being resold at eye-watering prices. Every time the Government delay reforming ticket sales, more and more money is lost and—more importantly—another eager fan misses out on watching their team play. The Government keep promising further legislation down the line, but the Liberal Democrats are calling for action to be taken now, which is why we have tabled new clause 1. This new clause does what the Government have promised and what this Bill fails to do: it stops tickets being resold at above face value. It would mean that no more fans are priced out by an algorithm and no more touts profit at the expense of the people who love sport, and also live music and theatre. The Government say that they back reform; today, they can prove it. I hope this House will vote to support new clause 1.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think we are seeing a first in this House—a debate in which the Member for Harlow is called first. I welcome it. You are in a good mood, Mr Speaker, because it is Lancashire Day today.
Chris Vince
Well, as a sort of adopted Yorkshireman, I look forward to celebrating it with you.
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. As you know, Mr Speaker, I am a keen football supporter, and although the fortunes of both Harlow Town and Leeds United have been somewhat inconsistent in recent years—I know that the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst), who is sitting opposite me, is looking forward to a positive Farke-led revolution—I feel an immense sense of pride when the country hosts sporting events. I think not only of the 2012 Olympics; I am old enough to remember Euro ’96, when football came home, but perhaps not in all the ways we hoped it would.
I also pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), for her commitment and dedication to sport in this country. Whether it is grassroots football teams such as the league-winning Roydon FC or our Ballon d’Or winning England captain Harry Kane—
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
Or Wigan Warriors!
Chris Vince
I know that sport, and indeed the fantastic rugby league players who I know, Mr Speaker, you regularly cheer on—
Chris Vince
Maybe between us, we can change that. [Interruption.] I feel like I have started an argument between Mr Speaker and the Secretary of State that the Secretary of State is not going to win, so I will move on quickly.
Sport has the opportunity not only to improve people’s lives, but to change people’s lives. I have formed friendships by standing at Harlow Town football club week in, week out, and I am forever grateful for having had that opportunity. This Bill will strengthen the UK’s position as a world-leading host of major sporting events by establishing a legal framework that makes it easier to host international competitions, and strengthen our advantage when bidding for future tournaments.
I welcome some of the suggestions made by the Liberal Democrats in their amendments, but I believe that the Bill in its current form already addresses unauthorised ticket touting. We need to see the back of that menace. We want real sports fans to have the opportunity to go to these sporting events.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
Having served as the Sports Minister overseeing the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth games, I know at first hand the incredible opportunities and challenges that come with hosting major international sporting events. For that reason I broadly welcome the Bill and the framework it seeks to establish. The case for hosting major sporting events is clear: they generate significant economic activity, support jobs, inspire participation in sport and leave lasting legacies in communities across the country.
Sport contributes more than £53 billion annually to the UK economy. Major events play an important role in supporting growth across sectors such as tourism and hospitality. The Birmingham Commonwealth games alone generated an additional £1.2 billion in economic value added, as well as leaving a legacy of improved or new facilities in and around Birmingham. As we look ahead to Euro 2028, and as we pursue our ambition to host the 2035 women’s world cup—and a future Olympic games—it is vital that we have a modern and effective legislative framework in place. Historically, Parliament has had to legislate separately for each major event, and that approach is neither efficient nor sustainable.
The Bill’s strength is that it creates a standing framework through which future events can be delivered more effectively, reducing unnecessary bureaucracy while ensuring the UK remains an attractive place, if not the best in the world, to host major sporting competitions. For those reasons, I support the broad aims of the Bill.
Although the Government have already accepted some amendments, including incorporating a limited number of recurring annual events, the Opposition Front Bench have tabled a few further amendments and enhancements that I would like the Government to consider supporting. First, the success of a major sporting event depends not only on athletes and organisers but on the transport networks and public services that allow spectators, volunteers and competitors to participate. When that infrastructure is disrupted by industrial action, as we have seen, local businesses lose trade, visitors face uncertainty and the reputation of the host nation can suffer. Many will remember the strikes planned to coincide with the opening of the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth games, which were a deliberate attempt to disrupt a major national event, while the country was recovering from the pandemic, with the intent of causing maximum disruption. Furthermore, the Government had to dip into contingencies—taxpayer’s money—to the tune of £4 million to provide alternative transport options for sporting fans. Any opportunity to limit such damage would be welcome.
Secondly, a major sporting event should not only showcase excellence on the field of play but command the confidence of athletes, spectators and governing bodies alike. For many people, maintaining fairness in women’s sporting competition and preserving appropriate single-sex spaces form an important part of that confidence. The Opposition’s amendments would incorporate single-sex protections into the sporting events framework, ensuring that where it is applied, major sporting events and associated activities provide single-sex competitions and facilities in accordance with the Equality Act 2010. The proposals also provide sensible exemptions for self-contained facilities, including those designed for disabled people, recognising that accessibility, dignity and practicality must sit alongside privacy and fairness.
There are also several proposals and amendments relating to ticketing and ticket touting, in particular the secondary ticket market. We need to be careful in this area. There is cross-party support for ensuring that we do not have rip-off ticketing in sporting and many other events. We also need to ensure a valid, perfectly legitimate secondary ticket market can thrive, because that can be good for consumers, and competition can help keep prices low. There have been circumstances where a monopoly has been created in sporting events. That may have been well intended, but it has led to organisers charging considerable amounts in, for example, fees. We saw that during the FIFA world cup, where the official resale platform charged a 15% fee to buyers and sellers. That demonstrates how easily costs can be passed on to supporters when limited competition and no alternative marketplace is available. I therefore ask the Government to consider what further evidence may be required when looking at this challenging marketplace.
I stress again that I support the overall purpose of the Bill and the framework it establishes, but if we are serious about maximising the benefits of hosting major sporting events, we should also be prepared to strengthen the legislation where necessary. The amendments would do exactly that, so I hope the Minister will consider them carefully.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Ind)
I welcome this Bill, because I know from experience how important it is. Before becoming the Member of Parliament for Southend East and Rochford, I was fortunate enough to be involved in the London 2012 Olympic games, the Euro 2020 football championships and the 2022 FIFA world cup. I have seen at first hand what it takes to make a major sporting event a success and the benefits it can have for the wider community. These events have taught me that while venues, organisation and promotion are all important, the most crucial factor is support from Government and local authorities. Unfortunately, that support is not consistent across the country. While some areas have the relationships, expertise and capacity to help sporting events thrive, others start from scratch each and every time. That is why the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee has called for a national strategy for major events, and I welcome the Government’s commitment to publish one.
The Committee has also called for responsibility for major events to be moved from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to the Department for Business and Trade. That move would highlight the role of events in driving investment, tourism and growth. The importance of major sporting events is not just their financial contribution, but their ability to create and celebrate community. We also see that in grassroots events, such as Rochford Hundred’s Remembrance Day fixture, which recently brought the community together in an extraordinary way. That event was not a global spectacle, but it showed the true power of sport in building community. I commend the club’s president, Ray Stephenson, and its chairman, Steve Maguire, who made that match happen.
I finish by encouraging colleagues to think back to the successful sporting events of the past few decades, and specifically their ability to make the whole country feel united. In these times, we all know how important it is to stay united. This Bill strengthens our ability to deliver those moments and ensures that the benefits reach every community in the country.
Nigel Huddleston
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, please forgive me for the omission, but I neglected to refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests when I gave my speech some moments ago.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Thank you, Mr Huddleston. That has most definitely been put on the record.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I also point Members to my declaration in the register. Major sporting events bring significant economic and social benefits, from hospitality and tourism to grassroots participation and improved facilities. I am very proud that next summer, the Utilita Bowl in Eastleigh will host its first men’s Ashes test, which is expected to generate millions a day for the local economy. However, those benefits depend on fans being treated fairly, and that starts with ticket pricing.
The Bill makes it a criminal offence to tout tickets for an event covered by the framework, in the relevant area during a specified period. Fans have waited too long for touting to be tackled and the unlimited fines send the right signal. However, while the Bill criminalises unauthorised resale, even at or below face value, it sets no price limit on authorised resale, leaving fans exposed. That is why I welcome new clauses 1 and 3. New clause 1 would stop tickets being resold above their original cost and cap resale platform fees, while new clause 3 would cap transaction fees at 10% and ban surge pricing. This means the most a fan could ever be charged for a ticket they can no longer use is the price they paid. The Government have committed to capping resale prices on the same basis as new clause 1, but have promised only a draft Bill: the new clauses would protect fans sooner.
Too many fans are now priced out of watching the sport they love, not just in stadiums but at home. Amendment 1 would make free-to-air coverage a condition for any event covered by this Bill. As many of us remember, in 2022, 17.4 million people watched the Lionesses win the Euros on BBC One. In the season that followed, the FA estimated there was a 140% increase in girls under 16 playing football, including in my constituency, with 2.3 million more women and girls playing the game than the year before. I will not lean on the old line that girls cannot be what they cannot see and I would not claim that free-to-air coverage is the only reason for that growth, but it is part of the story. As I mentioned, next year’s fourth Ashes Test will be played in Eastleigh, but no home Ashes series has been shown live on free-to-air television since 2005. Where public money is given to an event, fans who cannot get a ticket should not then be shut out by the cost of a subscription as well.
The Bill will create restricted advertising zones around events, where unauthorised advertising will become a criminal offence. However, that protects commercial rights, not the content of what is advertised, leaving the door open for gambling companies to remain official sponsors. The Liberal Democrats have long called for stronger protections, and new clause 4 would deliver them by prohibiting gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship at every event covered by the Bill. The Government’s impact assessment estimates that hundreds of street traders will be affected by trading restrictions, but the Bill includes no statutory duty to consult them before a restricted trading zone is created.
In my constituency, West End has a compact high street close to the Utilita Bowl. Depending on how a zone is drawn, it could cover much of the village’s commercial centre. Can the Minister explain what those restrictions would mean in practice for businesses like those in West End? New clause 6 would require consultation with those representing affected businesses, but would not guarantee that the traders themselves or councils are given a say over how a zone is drawn. I ask the Minister to consider requiring a brief impact assessment for nearby small businesses, with local authorities given a statutory right to comment before a zone is confirmed. If the Bill is to work for sport, it must work for local businesses and fans too.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I rise to speak to amendments 8 and 6, on industrial action and single sex protections respectively. The point I wish to raise goes further than this specific Bill, because I think it is a perfect case study of the purpose of the Chamber. We have a Bill that, as the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) articulated, has broad support across the House and is not a controversial Bill. Colleagues on both sides of the House love sport and want our country to attract major sporting events to our shores, and they see sport as a force for good in unifying communities—I very much agreed with his sentiments on that point.
The Opposition have tabled two modest, reasonable and sensible amendments, one of which would simply build on the existing law and provide that if we are to use taxpayers’ money on events in the UK, they should surely comply with UK law. That is the very essence of a modest amendment. We have a consensual Bill, and the amendment simply restates the existing law and how it would apply to an international competition held in this country.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak today on behalf of the official Opposition, and I refer Members to my entry in the Members’ Register of Financial Interests.
As I made clear at Second Reading, Britain has a world-class sporting heritage and a renowned reputation for hosting major events. From the Olympics and the Paralympics to Wimbledon, the Open and the British grand prix, these occasions bring pride to our country, support jobs and inspire future generations. That is why the Opposition support a permanent legislative framework to help Britain host such events, and why we have sought to work constructively with the Government on maximising the opportunity.
The result of that can be seen in the Bill before us today. It has benefited considerably from scrutiny, particularly the work of Lord Parkinson, Lord Markham and Baroness Evans in the other place. One of their most significant achievements was extending the framework to major recurring sporting events. Under the Bill as originally drafted, international tournaments visiting Britain could benefit, whereas established fixtures such as Wimbledon and the London marathon could not. Thanks to Conservative peers working alongside Lord Addington and others, the Lords voted to remove that exclusion. I welcome the Government’s subsequent acceptance of the principle, albeit with additional conditions introduced.
Several of our other amendments address practical concerns raised in Committee. New clause 8 and amendment 10 would give genuine charitable ticket auctions the protection they deserve. A charity auctioning donated tickets for a good cause should not be treated in the same way as a professional ticket tout, and neither should it have to depend on exemptions that Ministers might grant later. We have also proposed safeguards for ordinary supporters who need to resell tickets, stronger parliamentary scrutiny of financial assistance, and an assessment of how the Government’s economic policies affect Britain’s ability to attract major sporting events.
Those are important issues, and I hope the Government will give them proper consideration, but today I want to focus on our proposals for two major improvements to the Bill. The first concerns industrial action and is set out in amendment 6, alongside amendment 7, new clause 7 and new schedule 1. Taken together, these provisions would establish new protections against industrial action disrupting major sporting events. As my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) explained in Committee, there is little point putting elaborate protections in place for ticketing, advertising, trading and commercial rights if an event can nevertheless be brought to a standstill by industrial action.
We saw the risk of disruption to the Birmingham Commonwealth games in 2022, when rail strikes were announced around the period of the games. More recently, threatened action at Scottish airports raised concerns ahead of the Glasgow Commonwealth games. We should remember the enormous economic consequences of transport disruption. Last year’s London underground strikes cost Transport for London an estimated £20 million to £25 million in lost fares alone, with the wider economic impact estimated at £230 million.
Major sporting events take years to secure and organise. Spectators travel from across the world, businesses invest in preparation, and our international reputation depends on delivering what we have promised, yet all of that can be jeopardised by industrial action at precisely the wrong moment. Our amendments would make restrictions on industrial action by specified transport and local authority workers a mandatory part of the framework during the relevant period. These protections should not be an optional extra applied to some events but not others. The Government rejected similar proposals in Committee, citing workers’ rights, but surely we must also consider the rights of spectators, athletes and businesses who have invested their time and money in such events. The Minister has yet to explain how the Government intend to protect major sporting events from this very real risk, and I hope she will do so today.
I will move on to our second substantial proposal, which concerns fairness, safety and the protection of women’s sport. This is advanced through amendment 8, supported by amendment 9 and new schedule 2. Given its importance, I want to devote the remainder of my contribution to these provisions.
At the Paris Olympics in 2024, something shocking happened. It was in a women’s boxing match between Angela Carini of Italy and Imane Khelif of Algeria. After taking heavy blows to the face, Angela signalled for the referee to stop the fight. Just 46 seconds after the contest began, Khelif was declared the winner. Angela fell to her knees in tears, her Olympic dreams shattered, but this was not a fair fight—it was not a fair competition. Angela was fighting a man, and it was obvious to anyone with eyes, yet arguably even more shocking than the fight itself was the response. There was more criticism and ridicule of Angela for not shaking his hand in the ring, and for crying, than of a man punching a woman in the face repeatedly. As often happens, the feelings of a man were being prioritised over fairness and the safety of a woman.
What I observed was cowardice on a huge scale. Even Members of this House disgustingly celebrated this televised male violence against a woman, which cheated her out of the competition. Sport is played with our bodies. Men, on average, are much stronger and faster—biology matters. Angela and many other women who have been forced to compete against men have been put at risk of harm. This should never happen again in a sporting event anywhere. Our amendments would at least help to ensure that it cannot happen on British soil.
Thankfully, there has been some progress. In March this year the International Olympic Committee announced that, from the Los Angeles Olympics in 2028, eligibility for women’s competition will be determined through a one-time, non-invasive genetic test via a cheek swab. This will apply across Olympic sports, with the IOC explicitly recognising the importance of fairness and safety. Following the controversies of Paris, this is a welcome step towards restoring confidence in women’s sport.
In this country, we do not accept cheating, we do not accept women being treated as second-class citizens and we respect the law, which is very clear on this matter. That is so important, because sporting organisations, even after the For Women Scotland case, are still failing to ensure that the women’s category does not include males. They continue to turn a blind eye or come up with spurious reasons why they can sidestep the law.
Take table tennis and squash here in England. Both governing bodies now recognise the importance of biological sex in determining eligibility for women’s competitions, but both operate a two-tier system. Table Tennis England restricts its women’s category at nationally ranked competitions to female players, yet allows males to compete in women’s categories at local level. England Squash similarly excludes males from its female category in regulated competitions but permits their participation in recreational competitions. Both organisations accept the need for fairness at higher levels while sacrificing the integrity of the female category further down, but surely fairness matters to women at the grassroots just as much as it does to elite athletes. Why should a woman playing in her local league be entitled to any less consideration than a national champion? Do these organisations not realise that cheating a young girl out of her rightful podium place at grassroots level means that she is more likely to give up any dreams of progressing further?
Consider FIFA, which governs the women’s world cup. Its gender verification regulations date back to 2011, place responsibility largely on national football associations and expressly rule out routine testing. FIFA announced a review of the rules years ago, yet we are still waiting for a clear, updated approach. The consequences of these differing standards are already apparent. Zambia’s Barbra Banda was withdrawn from the 2022 women’s Africa cup of nations on gender eligibility grounds, yet subsequently competed at the 2023 women’s world cup and was named the BBC’s women’s footballer of the year in 2024. A once-in-a-lifetime sex screen would ensure that no male competes in such events.
Take the most recent announcement by the London marathon, which is considering allowing male pacemakers into the elite women’s race next year. The organisers say that it is to help women shatter the world record, but is it? In the words of the famed Olympian, Baroness Davies of Devonport:
“So do they have cheetahs to pace make for men’s races? Or just other men maybe?”
Even if the London marathon’s intentions are entirely honourable, the organisers will be changing a single-sex race into a mixed-sex one, thereby opening the door for male competitors to participate and win. It is exactly this type of thing that our amendments would prevent for such major sporting events.
What would the protections in our new schedule 2 actually do? First, it would require the Secretary of State, before applying the sporting events framework, to be satisfied that organisers will ensure that competitors in single-sex events compete against those of the same biological sex. It would also require single-sex accommodation, changing and washing facilities, and toilets for competitors and officials. These protections would extend to spectators and staff, ensuring access to appropriate single-sex toilets, changing and washing facilities. New schedule 2 also seeks to prevent financial assistance from being provided to sporting events, or to associated legacy and social impact programmes, where the required protections are not observed.
The Opposition do not believe that any male should be competing in women’s sport, and we do not support any sporting organisation benefiting from the Bill or getting taxpayer support if they do not respect the law. The Minister may once again tell us that existing legislation is sufficient. We have already heard that argument in Committee, and we remain unconvinced. I suspect the female athletes losing podium places to biological men feel the same.
I know many sensible Labour Members entirely agree with us on this, and there may even be a couple of Lib Dems who do, but none of the Greens do. Today, I am asking those Members and the Government more broadly to be brave and do the right thing. Backing amendment 8 and the single-sex protections that it would help establish would ensure that women’s sport was protected at these sporting events, and that only females could compete. If Members are still feeling a bit yellow about it, they should do it for their daughters, their wives and their mums. This is about ensuring that female athletes can compete fairly, that sportswomen have access to appropriate facilities, and that the sporting organisations benefiting from this framework are held to the highest standards.
This Bill offers a rare opportunity to strengthen Britain’s position as a leading host of major sporting events. We support that ambition and welcome the improvements made during the Bill’s passage, and we have put forward a number of reasonable amendments, but we can and must go further. After all, what is the point of putting on a world-class competition if no one can get to it, and if the games are rigged from the start?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
Today’s debate has broadly shown cross-party recognition of the importance of major sporting events and their ability to showcase the very best of our country. The UK is a world leader when it comes to hosting major sporting events; this Bill will make sure that we continue to attract the world’s biggest sporting moments, and to welcome the social and economic benefits they bring.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologise for not being here at the very beginning of the debate, as I know I am meant to be. Running any sporting event, be it the Commonwealth games or a football tournament, is almost impossible for one city to do on its own because of the financial cost, but it may be possible for a number of UK cities to hold it together. Will the Government commit to ensuring that, if we hold a showpiece football tournament or the Commonwealth games, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England can all be part of it?
Stephanie Peacock
The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. Indeed, we are working together on Euro 2028, which is the first tournament to which this Bill will apply.
This is a framework Bill that covers ticketing, transport, advertising, trading and unauthorised association. Proportionality is now embedded in these powers—I gave that commitment on Second Reading—so that everyone, particularly small and micro-sized businesses, can benefit when the world comes to visit us. After valuable discussions in this House and the other place, we are pleased that the Bill will also extend to our world-class recurrent events, so that those internationally acclaimed events can apply for and benefit from the powers in this Bill.
I am grateful for the contributions from across the House.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
I am grateful to the Minister for appearing before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee during our inquiry on major events earlier in the year. We asked her what more she could do to demonstrate that the Government were gripping this issue, so the extension of the Bill to more events other than one-offs is really good. As I mentioned, however, we risk creating a two-tier ticketing system, because these rules relate to sporting events, but music and other cultural events are left waiting for a solution—a solution that was promised in the manifesto, but has not yet come. Can she give any update on when we might expect the ticket touting Bill that will set out the restrictions on who can operate in the secondary market, and how that can be more legislatively fair?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the Select Committee, and indeed the hon. Member, for their work. I really appreciated their work on major events, and I listened to most of the evidence that her Committee took. We are absolutely committed to getting that Bill on the statute book, and I will come on to that in a moment.
I am grateful to the former Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), for all his work, and for his speech. I believe he asked why transport is not included for recurrent events. We have had a conversation about this with stakeholders, and we are confident that recurrent events already have robust transport provisions in place. This issue was raised in detail in Committee, and I have written to the relevant Transport Minister about those concerns.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for their support. Their speeches highlighted that major events contribute to communities across our country. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) asked about small businesses. We draw the zone much more tightly for events such as Euro 2028 than for recurrent events, but I am happy to speak to the hon. Member about this.
Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am going to have to take a moment—
Chris Vince
Does the Minister agree with me that it is hugely important to celebrate all levels of sport, from grassroots football clubs such as Roydon FC to the mighty Harlow Town and, of course, Leeds United?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a really important point, and I am grateful to the House for its understanding.
The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) deal with ticketing. As I said to the Chair of the Select Committee, we are committed to tackling industrial-scale touting, but this Bill is not the place to do so. Our upcoming ticket tout ban Bill will do that.
Jim Shannon
We are very appreciative of all the work the Minister does in the Department, and we very much respect her enthusiasm and energy. We understand that she will be bringing forward legislative change that we wish to see, and we welcome that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I believe the Minister is just about to conclude—final word.
Stephanie Peacock
Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I think the hon. Gentleman makes a really important point.
We have had a very good debate on this issue, particularly in Committee, and I am grateful for the support of the whole House. We are a world leader in major events, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The Minister has done a fantastic job.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Voting in today’s deferred Divisions will now reopen in the No Lobby and continue for 25 minutes.
Third Reading
King’s and Prince of Wales’s consent signified.
Lisa Nandy
The UK has a proud record of hosting the world’s greatest sporting events, including in Glasgow and Birmingham this summer, and who can forget the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games in London, delivered by the late and great Tessa Jowell, who is still much missed by all of us in the House? I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), who oversaw an extraordinarily successful Commonwealth games in Birmingham that really showed what this country is capable of.
In a world where too many things divide us, sport has the remarkable capacity to unite—to bring communities together and show the best of our country to the world. Perhaps its greatest power is what it can do for the next generation. I was privileged to be at the Red Roses’ historic win at the 2025 women’s rugby world cup and to see Twickenham packed to the rafters cheering them on. What made me prouder still was seeing what followed—thousands of girls taking their first steps into rugby, signing up to their local clubs and discovering what they were capable of. This is what we should always strive for.
We have some extraordinary opportunities ahead of us. When the two Tour de France grand départs come to Great Britain next summer, they will create the most accessible major sporting event our country has ever hosted. Millions of people will have the chance to get up close to some of the greatest competitors in the world, and hopefully it will inspire a new generation into cycling.
The UEFA European championship in 2028 will give us a summer of extraordinary football. We are determined that its legacy will be about much more than what happens in the stadiums across the whole of the United Kingdom. That must, of course, include great benefits for Northern Ireland.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
It is a slightly technical point, but with mega-events such as those the Secretary of State is talking about, unauthorised car parking can cause major problems to the event organisers—I have been one myself—requiring traffic management systems and other measures. Do you agree that it might be appropriate to have exclusion zones around stadiums and other sporting venues? Far be it from me to deter such entrepreneurial spirit, but do you also agree that any landowner who wishes to operate an unauthorised car park should work together with the event organiser so that they can better organise those traffic management plans?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, I remind Back Benchers that it is not appropriate to say “you” and “yours” in the Chamber.
Lisa Nandy
I very much took the concern as being directed as me, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise it, because it can be a significant problem. Transport provisions are already in scope of the Bill, but we would be happy to work with him and others who share our concerns about making sure that events are successful if there are particular issues that arise subsequently.
The UEFA European championship in 2028 is going to be an incredible moment for our country. It is projected to deliver a sixfold return on public investment, and we are going to use this opportunity to get more people playing football, strengthen our grassroots clubs and open up opportunities right across the country. Members will also know that we have bid for the FIFA 2035 women’s world cup and the 2029 world para athletics championships. This Government are also committed to seeing the Ryder and Solheim cups hosted here.
As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced last week, we have committed £7 million to a detailed feasibility study for a potential bid to host the Olympic and Paralympic games in the north of England in the 2040s. This is personal for me: I grew up in the north of England, in Manchester, and I watched as we unsuccessfully bid for the Olympic games many years ago. Many people across the country told us that it could not be done—Manchester could not host major sporting events. Then, only a few years later, we went on to host a really successful Commonwealth games and show the world how it was done. Every part of this country deserves the chance to contribute to our incredibly rich legacy of major sporting events. We believe that the north of England has so much to offer, and we are determined to make sure that the rest of the world gets the chance to see that.
Underpinning all this is a belief that the benefits of hosting major events should not be confined to the host city or to those fortunate enough to secure a ticket. The benefits should be felt in towns and cities and in our schools, sports clubs and communities across all four nations of the UK. The events should inspire a generation of young people to go on and live the richer, larger lives that they deserve.
The Bill allows us to stand ready to host the biggest events in the world, to protect the integrity of those events to ensure that people can enjoy them, and to make certain that the benefits reach as far as possible. I am grateful to Members across the House who have engaged so constructively and thoughtfully with us during the passage of the Bill to improve it. I thank those who have supported our provisions, which we believe will improve the way that we host major sporting events.
I would like to thank in particular our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins), for her sterling work on this Bill. Our Whips are often unsung heroes in this place. Without them, the major benefits that we deliver to the people of this country would simply not happen.
In particular, the improvements that hon. Members have helped us to make have broadened the framework’s scope so that some of our world-class recurrent events can also benefit from its provisions. We have heard loud and clear the importance of getting the balance right to provide effective protections for major sporting events, while ensuring that the framework operates fairly and proportionately for businesses and communities. I am pleased that the safeguards are now strengthened in the Bill.
I want to address a few of the concerns that we have heard today head-on, in particular the questions about biological sex and the need to protect sporting events. I say to the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) that I have heard her points, and I know that she feels passionately about this issue, but I want to be clear, for the avoidance of any doubt, that participation in all events within the scope of the Bill is already based on biological sex. I do not want Members to misunderstand what we are doing through this Bill.
There were concerns raised by a few hon. Members about the prospect of sporting events being derailed by strike action. I have to say, and I hope Members will take this in the right spirit, that I could not disagree more with their proposals. It is notable that no Member could point to a single instance when a major sporting event has been derailed by strike action. When I was serving as parliamentary private secretary to Tessa Jowell, many Conservative Members raised concerns that the 2012 Olympics would be derailed by strike action. In the event, the only major disruption was when a private company, G4S, failed to deliver on its contract and the Army had to be drafted in to support. I gently say to those on the Opposition Benches that if they want to avoid strike action, the best way is to treat the workforce of this country as partners in our national endeavour and to treat them properly.
I recognise the concerns about ticketing raised by the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) and echoed by the Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage). I recognise the intention behind the Liberal Democrat amendment, but I want to be clear: the Government rejected the amendment not because we are anything but committed to bringing in the strongest protection for fans, whether at music, sport or other live events, but because it would have, in effect, created a two-tier system where sporting events were covered but music events were not. That dilutes a comprehensive package that we are putting forward to the House to clamp down on ticket touts and to call time on the rip off that has been allowed to go on in plain sight for too long, in order to give music, sports and other live events back to their fans. I also gently say that in 14 years of Tory Government, and in five years of coalition, no action was taken on this issue. A Labour Government will deliver it.
I pay particular tribute to our devolved partners. From the outset, we have been clear that this must be legislation for the whole of the United Kingdom. We have worked closely together to ensure that the Bill reflects that commitment and that the opportunities and rewards from hosting these events are shared across all four nations. When the world comes to our countries, it should be able to see and experience the very best of every part of our United Kingdom, of which we are so immensely proud.
Finally, I thank all of the individuals across Government who have worked hard to get us to this point. Major sporting events give us moments we remember for a lifetime, but their real value lies in what they leave behind: the communities they strengthen; the opportunities they create; the young people they inspire; and the pride that they help us share with the world. Through the Bill we stand ready to seize those opportunities and to make sure that when those moments come, the benefits belong to us all. I commend the Bill to the House.
Rebecca Paul
The Opposition will not seek to divide the House on Third Reading. We support the fundamental purpose of the Bill and believe Britain should be the best place in the world to host major sporting events. A permanent legislative framework will help us achieve that ambition. The great tragedy of this process, however, is that the Bill we have before us could have been so much more. Thanks to the work of Conservative peers, alongside others in the other place, the Bill was significantly improved before reaching this House. Yet, despite the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) in Committee and the arguments we have put forward during the Bill’s subsequent passage, the Government have failed to grasp the opportunity to go further.
In this Bill, we had an opportunity to establish clear statutory safeguards for female athletes, to protect the integrity of single-sex competition and to ensure that sporting organisations benefiting from the privileges conferred by the Bill respect the rights and safety of women and girls. Is that not what female athletes deserve? Is that not what all women deserve?
I have to say that I am shocked at the result of the vote on amendment 8. Ninety-three Members in this place voted to protect the women’s category, almost all of those Conservatives, and no Liberal Democrats voted in favour of the amendment. [Interruption.] I have huge respect for the Culture Secretary, but we do not believe this matter is covered. We know that in practice males are able to participate in competitions. As I said in my speech on Report, we know that the London marathon is considering including male pacemakers, yet the London marathon is meant to be covered by the Bill. We also have the numerous issues at FIFA level. Therefore, with respect, I do not believe that the issue is covered. It is gut-wrenching that a rare chance to address those concerns has been squandered by those on the Government Front Bench, many of whom still struggle to articulate what a woman even is. It will now fall to a future Conservative Government to do what is necessary to protect the fairness and integrity of women’s sport—and the House should make no mistake, we will do it.
For now, we can add sport to Labour’s long list of safeguarding failures for women and girls. It has refused to move the dangerous men unlawfully held in women’s prisons, dragged its feet on the grooming gang inquiry, stood by as nurses are harassed by the NHS for not wanting to undress in front of males, and refused to stop the PATHWAYS puberty blocker trial, which would cause irreversible harm to hundreds of children. Yet Labour has the gall to say that reducing violence against women and girls is one of its priorities. I am afraid that actions speak louder than words. Time and again, the Government have the chance to do the right thing, and time and again they do not. For them, party will always come before country.
Equally disappointing has been the Government’s refusal to address properly the threat of industrial action disrupting major sporting events. I struggle to see the logic in legislating to protect ticketing arrangements, commercial interests and advertising rights, but stubbornly refusing to take action on the strikes that could bring those same events to a standstill. What good are all the commercial protections if spectators cannot reach the stadium and an event that has taken years to organise is thrown into chaos by union bosses looking for their next bit of leverage? We all know why the Government will not support that: they cannot upset their union paymasters. I hope they all declared their interests today while they do their paymasters’ bidding.
With all that said, we will not stand in the way of the Bill becoming law. We recognise the benefits it will bring and the considerable work that has gone into improving it. However, the Government will know deep down that this was a missed opportunity to deliver something considerably more meaningful. The Bill will almost certainly make Britain better equipped to host major sporting events, but sadly, it does not make Britain a better place for a female athlete to compete, and that is a terrible shame.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.
Railways Bill (Carry-over Extension)
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
14:34 - The House divided: - Ayes: 279 / Noes: 139 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I beg to move,
That the period on the expiry of which proceedings on the Railways Bill shall lapse in pursuance of paragraph (13) of Standing Order No. 80A shall be extended, so that the period expires at the end of 29 April 2027 rather than at the end of 4 November 2026.
The Railways Bill places passengers back at the heart of our railway. By establishing Great British Railways it provides a framework to ensure a robust, high-quality offer for passengers, including disabled passengers, to instil confidence in our railways and to attract more people to use them. Great British Railways will also ensure that we harness the economic and environmental opportunities of rail freight, underpinned by two statutory duties related to freight. Great British Railways will be tasked with maximising freight growth in a sustainable way, providing confidence to freight customers and the wider sector that the industry is being prioritised.
Great British Railways will also ensure that the needs of communities up and down the country are considered at every turn. A bespoke partnerships framework will require Great British Railways to work hand in hand with local authorities to ensure that local communities receive the services they need.
As hon. Members will be aware, this legislation is currently undergoing scrutiny in the other place. It is important that that work continues and that the Bill reaches the statute book. The motion simply ensures that Parliament has sufficient time available to scrutinise the Bill. With that in mind, if hon. Members wish to raise any specific concerns, I invite them to do so in writing to my Department, where I am sure my colleague the Rail Minister will be more than happy to respond.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Goodness, I thought we had a Rail Minister in front of us. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Labour Government brought a Bill to this House incomplete, late, like a student late with an essay, handing in half-baked work well after the deadline, hoping nobody would notice, with half the answers missing—that is why we are back here. Presumably the Department is taking inspiration from the Education Secretary. They have run out of time, missed the deadline, and now they are back for more. They have had a year, but what on earth have they been doing?
We are here because the Labour Government have once again shown whose side they are on: not on the side of working people—who they cannot even define—but on the side of their union paymasters, on whose coffers they depend. Who are the unions to Labour? An army of sugar daddies they cannot do without, picking up the tab for Labour MPs, and when the unions call, Labour cannot say no. This lot will ride roughshod over our railways just to fulfil their weird ideological obsessions and, more importantly, those of their union backers.
How do we know that? We look at their Bill. Whose interests does it support? Is it the passengers, whose fares are set to rise next year, thanks to the Chancellor sneaking it through on the last page of the Budget? Is it rail freight, which faces being squeezed off the tracks, slice by slice, under the weight of more costs and less access to tracks? Is it the taxpayer, who must foot the bill for this barefaced indulgence in ideology? No, it is Labour’s union bosses pursuing an ideology that has been abandoned by Japan and by every railway in Europe but is still there in the Labour party in the UK.
There used to be an order to how this worked, which was uniquely British. The unions rocked up at No. 10, and after a genteel chat over some Chablis—they might have pretended it was beer, sandwiches and pork pies, but there was always white wine and smoked salmon—they left with giant pay rises. Labour could not negotiate to save their lives—forget an actual meeting or even the pretence of a negotiation. That is all that has to happen these days; it is like ordering a takeaway the old-school way. It’s “Dial a rise”—the unions pick up the phone and demand what they want, as if they were ordering a curry for tea.
The Bill has been delayed because the Government’s union pals were worried. I know worrying about saving taxpayers’ money is an alien suggestion to Labour: whenever it gets a new Prime Minister, it seems contractually obliged to go back to the unions and chuck in a whopper of a pay rise so that they do not ruffle feathers in the latest leadership election. That is what the First Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) provided—back in those heady days when she was the Transport Secretary, before she had to resign due to forgetting she had admitted to being convicted of fraud—and that is what this Prime Minister has done as well.
Let us be clear: these delays have caused huge issues for taxpayers already on the hook for God knows how much, and huge issues for investors in our railways. This is no way to govern, it is no way to legislate and it is no way to respect this House. But maybe, just maybe, the Government will use the thinking time they will get if this motion passes to dwell on how to protect our open-access services, such as the Hull Trains direct service from Selby to London, rather than screwing them over with their “GBR or else” mobster-style manoeuvring. It is not good enough.
It is not good enough for passengers, whom the Secretary of State seems to expect to be out on the streets clapping and banging pots and pans in support every time the Government change a seat from one ironing board to another at the taxpayers’ expense, every time they paint a train red, white and blue—or Burnham yellow in Manchester—and every time they put up a clock. On this side of the House, we see a Bill that is most certainly not good enough for the taxpayers who must fork out for all this grandstanding while the service gets more expensive. That is what this Bill promises. Yes, it delivers certainty, the certainty of a service that will be worse: more trains delayed, more cancellations, more delays and more short-form trains. We see that already with the services being taken under state control. On this side of the House, we will not be voting to carry that forward. Rather than backing the Government’s union paymasters, we will be backing taxpayers and passengers instead.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Marvellous! Have we got the Liberal Democrat spokesperson? Marvellous! Olly Glover, come on!
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Yes, I am very much here, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Goodness me! How am I to follow that? I wonder how many other people have managed to get “sugar daddies” into Hansard. Congratulations to the shadow Secretary of State on that.
Nothing has changed with this legislation, as of yet, so our grave concerns remain. Of course, we hope that the deliberations of our noble Lords will lead to some improvements, and we look forward to seeing those at a later date. My only question to the Minister is: why has it taken so long to deliver this Bill? He is quite right to say that the opportunity for scrutiny is important, and that is welcome, but by my analysis, there have been some unexplained gaps, including one and a half months between Second Reading and Committee, and a four-month gap between the Committee concluding and Report. There was also a two-month gap in the Lords between Second Reading and Committee. I very much hope that the Secretary of State did not procure HS2 or East West Rail to project-manage this Bill, but perhaps the Minister will tell us he is considering introducing some form of parliamentary delay-repay scheme.
Simon Lightwood
What a truly bizarre performance by the shadow Secretary of State. I hope that it makes more sense with subtitles. He should not give up his day job, because he would make an absolutely lousy comedian.
The Railways Bill puts passengers back at the heart of our railway by establishing Great British Railways, and provides the framework to ensure a robust, high-quality offer for passengers, including disabled passengers, and to instil confidence in our railways and attract more people to use them.
Question put.
Deputy Speaker’s Statement
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Voting in today’s deferred division will now reopen in the No Lobby and continue for two minutes. [Interruption.] We see a Secretary of State running out.
Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Carry-over Extension)
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Online Safety (Ian Murray)
I beg to move,
That the period on the expiry of which proceedings on the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill shall lapse in pursuance of paragraph (13) of Standing Order No. 80A shall be extended, so that the period expires at the end of 29 April 2027 rather than at the end of 11 November 2026.
The UK is subject to daily and unrelenting cyber-attacks, as cyber-criminals and state-linked actors blackmail businesses, steal data and threaten our very way of life. As our lives become increasingly digital, the threat comes not only from hostile actors, but from weaknesses in the resilience of our systems. We must defend against both and focus our attention where it matters most.
Although all businesses should secure themselves against cyber-attack using the National Cyber Security Centre’s free toolkits, it is right that we do not over-regulate every business. That is why the Bill is targeted at our most essential and critical services, relating to drinking water, health, transport, energy and the digital services that keep our economy running. If these services were disrupted, we would have nowhere else to turn. The Bill safeguards those services and, in turn, protects the individuals and businesses that rely on them. That is the priority of this Government.
We will not hesitate to take action when hostile actors seek to do us harm. The Bill delivers a step change in national security and equips the Government with the powers to act decisively on threat intelligence. This Government have gone further still; we have tabled amendments to introduce a new vendor risk management framework, which will assist businesses in reviewing their supply chains and working with the Government to mitigate those risks, and it will, if necessary, enable Government to step in and instruct organisations to take action.
This week, the Bill re-entered the House after completing Third Reading in the other place on Monday 2 November. I pay tribute to the Minister, the noble Baroness Lloyd, as well as Members of this House and the other place for engaging so constructively throughout the Bill’s passage. In many instances, the contributions have refined the Bill and made it more robust. I know that hon. Members will continue this constructive dialogue in their consideration of Lords amendments, and will pass a Bill that is fit to deal with the cyber-threats that we face now and in future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats absolutely support this motion, but it is my democratic duty to highlight some things that I would love the Government to consider as we make this extension.
Let us look locally, nationally and internationally. In July, Hertfordshire county council raised its cyber-security risk to the maximum score on its register, 25 out of 25. That is exactly the kind of risk that this Bill should manage, yet the Bill excludes local authorities, even though they hold social care records on some of the most vulnerable people. Less than a fortnight ago, 32 Government services went offline while Departments patched critical flaws in widely used web software. That shows just how vulnerable the heart of our nation’s digital infrastructure and security is. On Sunday night, hackers attacked dozens of supermarket refrigerators and freezers in seven European countries, raising their temperatures to 50°C and spoiling millions of euros-worth of produce. That is the food we all rely on every single day, and the National Cyber Security Centre has warned:
“The UK’s cyber resilience is not yet where it should be.”
Our framework must not fall behind those of our closest neighbours. We should deepen co-operation with European Union agencies and member states. In a digital world, isolation only increases risk.
Those examples lay bare the crucial importance of the Bill and the devastating cost to businesses, consumers and our national security if we fail to get it right. The Bill cannot simply react to yesterday’s threats; we must ensure that our critical national infrastructure is prepared for the future, which means addressing over-reliance on high-risk foreign technology, and tackling the rapidly escalating threat of cyber-attacks powered by artificial intelligence, and on the internet of things, which is embedded in so much of what we use.
Digital sovereignty underpins everything else. We can no longer ignore the risks of over-reliance on American and Chinese technology, or rely on hostile, unpredictable states for our critical infrastructure. More than half of central Government organisations now run most of their systems on the cloud, and that all sits with just two companies, both American. The Government are the UK’s largest buyer of technology, but they almost never buy British. Since 2023, Palantir has won more than £420 million in public contracts across the national health service, the Met, the financial regulator, a city council and the Ministry of Defence. The latter’s £240 million contract was awarded without competition. Palantir is also an approved supplier on six public sector buying frameworks with a combined value of more than £9.7 billion—a route into Whitehall, the NHS, the police and our local councils.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a travesty that Palantir is not on the strategic suppliers list maintained by the Cabinet Office?
Victoria Collins
I thank my hon. Friend for that. There is so much that highlights that this is the wrong approach from our Government, and that we need to look not only at our suppliers, but at the importance of backing British technology. We believe that a digital sovereign strategy would change things. We need to back British innovation, reduce our dependencies and make our critical systems more secure. We need to look at each level of the tech stack and have a strategy that is right for the UK. I put that proposal to this House in June through new clause 13, which received cross-party support, but the Government and the Conservatives voted it down.
Sovereignty is not about doing this alone; it is about working globally while backing British. It is about becoming and staying world leaders in technology. It is about securing high-quality digital infrastructure that embeds us in global supply chains and makes the most of our incredible talent and skills. That would give us international leverage, not isolation. The Government say that sovereignty is covered by Departments across Whitehall, and last week’s Budget put another £60 million in the sovereign AI fund, but a venture fund and a patchwork of departmental reports are not a strategy.
The new powers on high-risk vendors in clause 44 allow the Government to react once a risky supplier is already in our system, but a strategy needs to be proactive. It needs to build British capability so that we never get to that point. Even industry is calling for a strategy, so I urge the Government to bring forward their own amendments on digital sovereignty.
Secondly, amendment 107, which passed in the Lords—a Cross-Bench amendment that Liberal Democrat peers supported—requires a review within a year of Royal Assent, and every year after that, of whether the regime is working, which sectors it covers, the supply chains, the regulators and the AI Security Institute. Given the fast pace of change in cyber-security, we urge the Government to support the amendment and to look at expanding the scope to local government, which holds our electoral rolls and our social records, and to retail, because a country that cannot feed itself is not resilient. We welcome the Government’s commitment in the other place to reviewing whether all critical national infrastructure sectors should be covered by this legislation and the Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018.
This week’s NCSC review warns that AI-powered malware is highly likely to be used in ransomware attacks on our critical infrastructure by 2028, yet there is still no clarity on who oversees AI in our cyber-defences: a single regulator, the AI Security Institute, or another body that is exactly right for the task. Our constituents and businesses need that clarity, because where there is trust in the regulatory environment, there is investment. People need to trust the technology; that is both pro-business and pro-society.
The Government need a plan for who does what, and they need it sooner rather than later. As Europe calls for a leaders’ summit on AI, I call again on the Government to convene a global AI summit, and to look towards an international AI safety agency, headquartered in the UK and modelled on the International Atomic Energy Agency, with a global treaty on pausing the development of super-intelligent AI.
Finally, none of this works unless those who are expected to deliver it can work. Small and medium-sized enterprises make up 99.8% of UK businesses and are often the most vulnerable link in the cyber-supply chains. This week’s discount on Cyber Essentials certification is welcome—the Liberal Democrats called for that—but it is time-limited; it ends in March, and the certificate must be renewed every year. Even the NCSC calls it only a starting point. SMEs need real support from a cyber-security support service when they are hit, to give them clear guidance.
On Second Reading, I compared this Bill to a house with stronger fences and a better alarm, but with its back door left wide open. The past few days alone have shown us why closing that door matters. I urge the Government to consider our amendments, for the communities and councils who rely on critical infrastructure, for the businesses integrated into every supply chain, and for every family who expect the services that they rely on to be there when they need them. We support the carry-over motion.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
It a pleasure to follow the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, who raised a number of important points, particularly about Palantir operating in the national health service. I support this carry-over motion, which will allow Parliament to complete its work on legislation that is vital to our national security, our civil preparedness and our economic resilience. Having completed its Lords stages earlier this week, the Bill is now within reach of the statute book, and the need for its protections is increasingly urgent. Just yesterday, the chief executive of the National Cyber Security Centre warned us:
“The cyber threat has increased faster than our defensive capabilities”.
The threats are increasingly obvious. As the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) mentioned, this week, nine countries have been attacked; supermarket fridges were turned up to 50°C, ruining millions of pounds-worth of food. That comes on the back of attacks against French supermarkets only three weeks ago. The National Cyber Security Centre’s review describes Russian intelligence exploiting routers to target critical infrastructure, widespread disruption caused by Iranian proxies and the ever-expanding reach of Chinese cyber-espionage.
These operations form a fast-evolving hybrid threat to our economy and the infrastructure on which our essential services depends. For those of us in the west midlands, last year’s attack on Jaguar Land Rover brought these threats right to our doorstep. Production lines ground to a halt, orders were disrupted and suppliers placed under crushing financial pressure. The cost of the attacks was estimated at £1.9 billion and while the Government responded quickly, providing a £1.5 billion loan to help sustain JLR and its supply chain, the best response and the best protection we can give businesses is prevention.
JLR’s ordeal underscores the need for the Bill and the changes it makes to the 2018 framework, requiring IT service providers, data centres and other critical bodies to meet rigorous cyber-security standards, strengthening incident reporting and giving the Government the power to respond to national security threats. For Halesowen and the west midlands, these changes would boost the resilience of businesses, keeping them trading and production lines moving, and data centres and livelihoods secured, so I support the motion so that we can complete this legislation promptly and put its protections into practice as soon as possible.
Ian Murray
I welcome the comments made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on this incredibly serious issue and look forward to her bringing them back when we actually have the debate, beyond this carry-over motion. I hope she will support the carry-over motion so she can make her speech again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) mentioned JLR and other high profile issues of a serious nature. That allows me to briefly give a big message to all businesses in the country that cyber-security is also their responsibility—it should be in every boardroom, at the top of every agenda, to ensure we are not having those incidents. As my hon. Friend, said prevention is better than cure. The National Cyber Security Centre has all the free tools available, so I encourage every single business—micro, small, medium and large—to use those tools to ensure they are as secure as they possibly can be. Of course, we cannot stop all cyber-attacks being successful, but we can minimise the risk as much as possible and make sure that it is everyone’s responsibility.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
During the evidence collection process, lots of experts from the cyber-security sector called for board accountability to be reintroduced into the Bill, as it is in similar legislation in the European Union. Will he give us his thoughts on why that has not been included?
Ian Murray
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson mentioned the same European Union regulations. We need to do what is in the best interests of businesses in the United Kingdom. The message is pretty clear that all businesses must have cyber-security at the top of their agenda—it should be in every boardroom and we keep encouraging them to do so.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Madam Deputy Speaker, you missed out on me making a very long speech, so you are very lucky. Will the Minister briefly touch on what liability there will be for frontier model providers, such as OpenAI, who breach their duties, for example I am thinking of the Hugging Face incident in July 2026?
Ian Murray
My hon. Friend from Harlow—I am surprised he did not mention Harlow in his contribution, so I thought I had better put it on the record or otherwise he will be struck out—makes a good point. However, we can also see that AI provides a good solution to this problem. Because of the PHP incidents in the past few weeks, we have identified that there were holes in that particular system and then those holes were patched and plugged, so while AI is a big cyber-security problem, it is also a big part of the solution. This Bill is here to give us better cyber-security and better resilience across all our economy.
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
For many years, residents in Newton Flotman have lived with unsafe junctions on the A140. Five awkward junctions in a 500 yard stretch of the A140 are causing chaos and confusion, and they are a serious risk to safety. Over 500 residents who have signed this petition believe road improvements are urgently needed to protect motorists and pedestrians in Newton Flotman. The petitioners
“therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage Norfolk county council to commit to upgrading the junctions on the A140 with Flordon Road, Short Street, Old Street and Cargate Lane, and to improving safety for road users.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of South Norfolk,
Declares that the junctions on the A140 with Flordon Road, Short Street, Old Street and Cargate Lane are unsafe and pose a risk to motorist and pedestrian safety; and further declares that upgrades are needed to improve the safety of these junctions.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage Norfolk County Council to commit to upgrading the junctions on the A140 with Flordon Road, Short Street, Old Street and Cargate Lane, and to improving safety for road users.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003247]
Valerie Vaz (Walsall and Bloxwich) (Lab)
This petition is presented on behalf of the residents of Walsall and the United Kingdom to raise the issue of the proposed secondary school on Reedswood Park, an important community space and former golf course. The development would result in the irreversible loss of valuable green space and natural habitat, while increasing the existing pressure on the surrounding infrastructure, with concerns relating to traffic congestion, limited parking capacity and road safety.
If a new secondary school is required—the data suggests it is not—alternative sites may be available, including the former Sneyd school site. There were 2,062 signatures to an online petition, and the petitioners are therefore calling on the Government
“to ensure that in considering proposals for a new secondary school, full weight is given to the environmental, transport and community impact of development at Reedswood Park and to consider whether alternative sites may provide a more appropriate location.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that Reedswood Park is an important community green space and that 2,063 signatories to a separate online petition oppose plans to build on the park for a new secondary school; further declares that the proposed secondary school development would be located on part of the park formerly used as a golf course; further declares that the development would result in the irreversible loss of valuable green space and natural habitats supporting local wildlife; further declares that the surrounding infrastructure is already under significant pressure, with concerns relating to traffic congestion, limited parking capacity and road safety; and further notes that, if a new secondary school is required, alternative sites may be available, including the former Sneyd School site.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ensure that, in considering proposals for a new secondary school, full weight is given to the environmental, transport and community impacts of development at Reedswood Park, and to consider whether alternative sites may provide a more appropriate location.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003256]
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Your Party)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of Coventry South regarding Coventry city council’s contract with Palantir. More than 3,900 people have signed a related online petition. In September 2025, Coventry city council awarded Palantir a contract worth £500,000 to provide AI-related services in children’s services. The contract was renewed in February 2026 at a cost of £750,000, a 50% increase, bringing the total to £1.25 million.
There are serious concerns about Palantir’s involvement in military and immigration operations, including providing surveillance infrastructure to the Israeli Government, which are committing genocide in Palestine, as well as the handling of sensitive personal data and the growing privatisation of our public services. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to call on Coventry city council to terminate its contract with Palantir, to consult residents and trade unions and to ensure transparency, accountability and democratic public control over the use of data in our public services.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency Coventry South,
Declares that Coventry City Council has renewed a £750,000 contract with the US firm Palantir for children’s services; further declares that there are serious concerns about Palantir’s involvement in military and immigration operations, including its provision of data surveillance infrastructure to the Israeli government, which is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, the handling of sensitive personal data, and the increasing role of private technology companies in public services; and further declares that Coventry residents, council staff and recognised trade unions should have a meaningful say in decisions concerning the use of AI and data in local public services before a contract is agreed and renewed.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to call on Coventry City Council to terminate its contract with Palantir; consult residents and recognised trade unions on future AI and data decisions; and ensure transparency, accountability and democratic public control over the use of data in Coventry’s public services.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003257]
Strategic Licensing Regulations: London
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter this afternoon, and I thank the Speaker’s Office for granting this debate.
I am sure I am not the only Member of Parliament to have had a late night, to have spent time in Bar Italia as a young person, or to have enjoyed the wonderful culture of central London, whether at the Royal Albert Hall, the Theatre Royal, Haymarket or the Soho Theatre. The west end’s history and culture is synonymous with the openness, creativity and diversity that define modern London. However, I am the only Member of Parliament to represent the communities in the Cities of London and Westminster. Few places have contributed more to our cultural life, and few places demonstrate more clearly the importance of striking the right balance between supporting a thriving night time economy and making sure that residential communities can also thrive.
I represent some of the most vibrant, economically critical and culturally significant communities in the country, from the City of London to Pimlico, from Covent Garden to Marylebone and from Fitzrovia to Soho. These are the places that help power London’s economy and define our global reputation, and they are also places where people live, where people enjoy their own lives and where people bring up families. They enjoy their homes and the internationally renowned nightlife that exists alongside them. Many of them raise families there, they sleep there, and they expect to have a meaningful say over decisions that affect their neighbourhoods and their quality of life. That balance between a thriving city and a liveable city is at the heart of any licensing policy, and it is why these regulations matter.
Let me be clear at the outset of this debate: I support devolution; I support economic growth; and I support thriving communities. And I support the principle that genuinely strategic issues may require a strategic voice. I also recognise that the Government’s final regulations that they published a few weeks ago are narrower and more objective than many feared they might be. The Government have rightly moved away from the broader and more subjective approach originally proposed. Concepts such as economic importance, reputational importance and strategic geography have not been adopted. Instead, the regulations rely on statutory criteria based on venue size, operating hours and licensing classifications.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate this evening—this afternoon, even! Does she welcome the fact that the Mayor of London will still need to take into account the four strategic licensing objectives in coming to any decision: protecting public safety; protecting children and young people; preventing public nuisance; and preventing crime? Does she also note that there is a facility for people to then appeal the Mayor of London’s decision if at that point they do not agree with it?
Rachel Blake
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She makes a powerful point about the overriding significance of the four licensing objectives. Public safety and preventing crime are critical objectives, and they mean an awful lot to my constituents.
These criteria provide greater certainty for residents, businesses and local authorities alike. However, Parliament should still ask whether the thresholds now adopted reflect the expectations created during the consideration of the parent legislation. During the passage of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, Ministers repeatedly described these powers as exceptional, carefully constrained and a measure of last resort. The House of Lords approved the principle before seeing the detailed definition. Parliament has now seen both the regulations and the accompanying guidance. It is therefore reasonable now to ask whether the practical operation of these powers will remain consistent with those assurances.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. She makes a very good point about how the criteria have been drawn. The Kensington Society in Kensington and Bayswater has estimated that 45% to 50% of venues that currently have a licence would be between D and E, which is what is specified in the secondary legislation. So they obviously have concerns that that volume could generate a whole set of call-ins for things that would not really be considered strategic by any sort of common understanding. Does my hon. Friend have a similar concern about the volume, particularly for that licensing band in part A of the relevant statutory instrument?
Rachel Blake
My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the number of premises that will be affected in central London by the statutory instrument as it was laid down. A large proportion will be open to this call-in power and that raises a really important question about whether City Hall is expecting to be able to call in that many, and indeed whether it would want to, and whether that fits in with what most people would consider a strategic intervention. I will come on to some questions for the Minister about how we might closely define a strategic intervention and monitor what a strategic call-in power might look like. We do have to ask whether the practical operation of these powers will remain consistent with the expectations during the passage of the Bill.
The concern today is not whether strategic powers should exist. There are many places across London that are of strategic significance to our future as a successful world city—and Parliament has already settled that question, and I recognise that. The concern today is whether strategic powers will remain genuinely strategic.
For communities such as Soho, where hospitality, culture and late-night activity are an integral part of the area’s character, a significant number of applications might fall within the category of strategic importance, and that really matters in Westminster and in the City of London. The City of Westminster contains around 4,000 licensed premises, with nearly half located in the west end and in St James’s ward, and I have some figures that I think are going to be really interesting for everyone present. I know everybody will be really pleased and interested to hear that 1,000 premises are licensed to 11 pm, 1,692 to midnight, 478 to 1 am, 131 to 2 am, 221 to 3 am, 22 to 4 am, 19 to 5 am and—this is really neat—24 premises open until 6 am so they are more like 24-hour premises. It is really important for everybody to acknowledge the number of premises that are open into the later hours, making sure that we are a truly global world city that is welcoming to people who want to be entertained through the night.
Of course, that concentration of licensed activity is unparalleled anywhere else in the country, and therefore even small shifts in licensing policy can have significant consequences not only for residents and local businesses, but for London’s wider cultural and night-time economy. That is precisely why Parliament must be confident that powers described as strategic remain genuinely strategic in practice.
Residents therefore have a reasonable question: if large numbers of applications—as my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) has drawn attention to—are potentially eligible, where is the line between a strategic exception and a routine intervention?
That leads to perhaps the most important point: being eligible for a call-in is not the same thing as being called in. The regulations determine which applications may be considered by the mayor. They do not require the mayor to intervene. The revised section 182—of Licensing Act 2003—guidance now provides greater clarity about the operation of the new regime. It establishes a London-wide framework, confirms the mayor’s strategic role, and explains how call-in powers are intended to operate.
But the publication of guidance does not in itself answer the practical questions that matter most to residents and local authorities. How many applications do the Government expect to qualify each year? How many call-ins does the mayor expect to make? How many venues across London are likely to fall within scope? On what basis will potentially eligible applications be selected for intervention? What evidence informed the thresholds that have been chosen? Those questions remain important because the impact of the regime will depend not on what may be called in, but on what is called in.
The City of London Corporation has also raised concerns about the practical implications of the new arrangements, and about the scale of applications that could potentially fall within scope, and local authorities across London continue to ask many of the same questions as residents. When will these powers be used? What criteria will guide the decision to call in? How will strategic considerations be balanced against local evidence? These are reasonable questions, and they deserve answers.
One of the strongest concerns I hear from residents is about local democratic control. Throughout the passage of the parent legislation, Ministers rightly spoke about neighbourhood voice, community empowerment and maintaining a strong democratic basis for decision making. The revised guidance itself emphasises the importance of community involvement in licensing decisions and the opportunities for local residents to have their say. Yet many residents still ask a simple question: if a resident speaks at a local licensing hearing, presents evidence on crime, noise, antisocial behaviour, dispersal and residential amenity, What democratic links exist between that participation and a subsequent determination by City Hall? Residents have every right to expect a meaningful voice in licensing decisions that affect where they live.
Licensing decisions often depend on highly local evidence about noise, crime patterns, dispersal routes and residential amenity. Anyone who has attended a licensing hearing, as I am sure many of us here this afternoon have done, will know that these cases frequently turn on detailed local knowledge of a particular building, street or neighbourhood. That local knowledge matters, and Westminster’s experience demonstrates that clearly. Soho’s success depends on getting the balance right between supporting culture, hospitality and economic activity and protecting the people for whom Soho is home.
What additional rights will residents have when an application is called in? How will they be able to make representations directly in a mayoral determination? What weight will be given to evidence heard by local licensing committees? How will borough licensing committees remain primary decision makers, rather than advisory bodies? How will the Government assess whether the new arrangements are strengthening, rather than weakening, community empowerment? My purpose here is not to argue against strategic objectives, to challenge the important role of London’s nightlife in its economic growth or to challenge these powers in principle; my focus is on safeguards, transparency and accountability. That is why I will continue to press for five practical measures.
First, we need clear public guidance from the mayor on the circumstances in which call-in powers will be exercised and what factors will inform those decisions. Secondly, we need annual transparency reporting, rather than waiting two years for the first statutory review. Thirdly, we need publication of every call-in decision with full reasons. Fourthly, we need meaningful opportunities for resident participation in every mayoral determination. Finally, we need the publication of annual data, broken down by local authority area, showing how many applications became eligible, how many were called in and which criteria triggered the intervention. If these powers are genuinely intended to be used sparingly, there should be no objection to that degree of transparency.
London’s success depends on maintaining the balance between growth and community. Soho’s success depends on maintaining the balance between being a world-famous destination and a place that people proudly call home. Residents deserve confidence that local voices will continue to matter; Parliament deserves confidence that powers described as exceptional will remain exceptional; and we all deserve confidence that implementation will match the assurances that Ministers gave when these powers were first proposed.
It is my responsibility as the Member of Parliament for Cities of London and Westminster to stand up for centuries-old communities who live side by side with thriving nightlife. I am absolutely determined that they will do so into the future, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jim McMahon)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for securing this important debate and for the significant effort that she has put into representing her constituents on this matter over a long period of time; I know how much it matters to her and to them. Hopefully I will address the points that she has made in the course of her speech, but I know that this will not be our final conversation on the issue, nor should it be.
This is about how we balance competing interests. We must recognise that London is a global city and acts as a draw, but it is also where people live and are part of a community. I know that my hon. Friend is trying to strike that balance. The new strategic licensing arrangements came into force yesterday. They give the mayor a strategic role in licensing across the capital, with a duty to publish a London-wide policy and a power to call in certain applications of potential strategic importance. Before I address their impact, it is important to explain the problem that the reforms are intended to solve.
London’s hospitality, cultural and night-time economy is central to the capital’s success and its appeal as a global city, but licensing decisions can have implications that extend beyond a single premises or borough, affecting London’s wider economy, cultural offer and international reputation. Individual boroughs are rightly focused on their local circumstances, and these reforms are intended to complement that local expertise with a strategic role for the mayor where an application may be significant to London as a whole. The aim is not to set local and London-wide interests against each other, but for them to complement each other. The aim is to support a licensing system that is capable of balancing those interests fairly while continuing to protect residents and uphold the licensing objectives.
Let me start with residents and the concerns that my hon. Friend has rightly raised on their behalf. I want to be clear that the protections at the heart of the licensing system remain unchanged. The four statutory licensing objectives—the prevention of crime and disorder; public safety; the prevention of public nuisance; and the protection of children from harm—continue to apply. Those protections apply equally where the mayor intervenes. Any application that is called in will still be determined in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 and with regard to the importance of promoting those objectives, while residents and other interested parties will retain their existing ability to make representations on individual applications. Residents have also had the opportunity to respond to the mayor’s consultation on his new strategic licensing policy, which will set out the wider framework for his strategic licensing role.
Alongside those opportunities for residents to make their voice heard, the new arrangements include specific transparency requirements around the mayor’s new strategic role. Advertising requirements will ensure that residents are informed when an application is identified as being potentially strategically important, and, if the mayor intervenes, of the decisions taken. There are clear lines of accountability. Mayoral directions remain subject to the existing rights of appeal, and where a direction is appealed, the mayor is legally responsible for defending it. Overall, residents will retain the protections at the heart of the licensing system, and transparency and clear accountability are built into the mayor’s new strategic role.
Let me turn to London’s licensing authorities. I recognise the concerns about what the mayor’s new role could mean for local decision making, as well as the additional responsibilities that it will place on licensing teams. I should reiterate that local licensing authorities will remain the default decision makers. They will continue to receive applications, consider representations, hold hearings where necessary and determine applications in the first instance. The mayor’s new role does not replace those core functions; it provides an additional strategic role for applications that meet the relevant criteria, with call-in decisions remaining discretionary.
Deirdre Costigan
The Minister makes a point about supporting local authorities in London. Will he commit to ensuring that local authorities are included in the two-year review of this measure? Will he look at the potential new burdens funding that might be required for local authorities?
Jim McMahon
I will come on to the new burdens funding shortly. I will mention in a short while the built-in review periods and the approach to those that she asks about.
The new arrangements will require some additional information sharing with the Greater London Authority. Those requirements are largely based on information that authorities already collect or have access to through the normal licensing process. Even so, we recognise that meeting those requirements may come with additional costs. The Government will therefore conduct a full new burdens assessment to ensure that local licensing authorities are appropriately reimbursed for new costs resulting from these powers.
We recognise that the new system will place demands on the GLA. It has been preparing for its new responsibilities, in addition to recruiting additional resources to support the operation of the new regime. Our aim is simple: to keep boroughs at the heart of decision making on licensing while ensuring that both they and the GLA are equipped to ensure that the new system works effectively.
Rachel Blake
Will the Minister comment on the part of the process where the Greater London Authority makes the decision to call in applications? As I discussed in my opening remarks, we know that there is quite a broad pool of eligible premises. I believe that my residents have a concern about how the decision to call in will be made and the transparency around that decision. They are concerned that some types of premises or premises operating in particular areas might seek to get that call-in, so we really seek transparency on that issue.
Jim McMahon
I will talk through that process shortly, and also cover what the criteria for potentially strategically important venues mean. I need to reiterate, though, that although keeping boroughs at the heart of licensing decisions is important to us, so too is ensuring that the system supports London’s wider growth.
That brings me to businesses and the central purpose behind the reforms: better supporting London’s hospitality and night-time economy. A thriving hospitality sector is fundamental to London’s success as a global city. We want a licensing system that gives responsible operators greater confidence to invest, adapt and grow. Giving businesses that confidence means ensuring that the new process does not create unnecessary delay or uncertainty, which is why the regulations establish clear statutory deadlines and procedures.
To address a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, the call-in power is designed to support a more enabling approach to licensing, rather than giving the mayor a means to block or further restrict applications. An application granted as applied for cannot be called in. Where the mayor intervenes, any conditions he imposes cannot, in his opinion, be more restrictive than those imposed by the licensing authority, and he can only direct that an application be rejected where the authority has itself rejected it. We believe that those protections and safeguards strike the right balance. They are intended to ensure that the new strategic role supports growth without creating unnecessary delay or uncertainty for businesses, while maintaining important protections for residents and the local community.
I now turn to the point about sites that are potentially strategically important to Greater London. As has been said in the debate, we have built in a requirement for the mayor’s call-in power to be reviewed after two years, and then at least every five years thereafter. I am happy to take away the particular point about the role of local authorities in that review process and confirm in writing the position.
To summarise one of the bigger concerns, because the scope of premises can feel quite wide, there is a concern that the proposal creates a completely double-run system—a process on top of the local licensing authority. In supporting this proposal and the new licensing regime, it is not our expectation as a Government that all the premises that are in scope will be called in by the mayor for a strategic decision. Our expectation is that most of them will go on as normal, and for them to be called in by the mayor, they would have to meet at least one of the criteria set out in law.
We believe that these reforms get the balance right between protecting local residents and communities and recognising that in many ways, London’s night-time economy is unique. Many people come to London not only to work and shop, but to experience the night-time economy—our theatres, bars, restaurants and nightclubs.
Joe Powell
I thank the Minister for his important clarification of the Government’s intention. Does he also accept that there is a big difference in rateable values between inner and outer London? One of the concerns of inner-London MPs such as myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) is that, almost by definition, we will end up with more venues in the potential call-in zone compared with outer London. That clarification for inner London is therefore particularly important.
Jim McMahon
We will need to see how that works in practice, because I think it could work both ways. I recognise that rateable values might be lower in outer London than in inner London, but that reflects the economic benefit that premises in inner London bring—that is why the business rates bill ends up being higher. It would be reasonable for the mayor to say that, for that reason, such premises clearly have a more important role to play than those of the same nature in an outer-London borough that might look the same on the outside. Those premises can play quite different roles economically in their contribution to the wider night-time economy, so that can probably work both ways.
Although I recognise all the concerns that have been raised, I believe that these reforms strike the right balance. They recognise London as a global city and the wider considerations that that brings, but balance that with the need to ensure that our local licensing authorities are empowered and their status is respected. I think we have set out how we will do that. Indeed, the extraordinary concentration of restaurants, music venues, theatres and nightlife in these areas is part of what makes them such attractive places, not just to visit but to live. That is why we should not treat the interests of residents and those of the hospitality sector as inherently opposed. These reforms are intended to balance them fairly, supporting responsible businesses and London’s wider growth while preserving the important role of boroughs and their accountability to local communities.
Rachel Blake
The Minister should be aware that some of the organisations where residents come together to represent their communities celebrate the nightlife in their neighbourhoods. Some have come together to support the re-establishment of particular celebrated nightlife venues, such as G-A-Y in Soho. I wanted to make it a matter of public record that many residents are clear about their passion for a lively nightlife, while balancing that with the residential character of an area.
Jim McMahon
My hon. Friend reinforces how it is not about putting residents in one basket and visitors from outside the city in another. Everybody benefits from a place that is thriving and active, where people feel welcome and that there is something for everyone. That is the balance we are trying to strike. I know from speaking to all the local MPs in the area who have made representations that that is very much the balance they are trying to strike, too. I commit to continuing our communication. I am keen to understand how the new arrangements work in practice and to hear from local experiences, and I know that Members will continue to make the case.
The regulations require the Secretary of State to review how these new arrangements are working in practice and to publish a report within two years of commencement. Further reviews, as I said earlier, will then be published at least every five years thereafter. It is not the case that these arrangements will be introduced and then simply left in place. Their impact will be kept under review, allowing us to assess how the system is working in practice for London businesses, licensing authorities and residents alike. That is the balance we are trying to strike. I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster for securing this important debate and for her continued work supporting local residents.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (Continuation) Order 2026
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jo White)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (Continuation) Order 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. The order provides for the continuation of the Secretary of State’s powers under the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, otherwise referred to as TPIM powers. The continuation is for a further five years.
The Government take all necessary steps to protect the public. The threat we face from terrorism is enduring and evolving. It is vital that we have the tools necessary to keep our country safe, which include the powers conferred on the Secretary of State in the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011. These measures ensure that, to protect the public from a risk of terrorism, when prosecution or deportation are not possible the Secretary of State can impose specified restrictions and requirements on an individual involved in terrorism-related activity.
Section 21 of the Act states that the Secretary of State’s TPIM powers will expire at the end of five years from the date the Act was passed. Having been renewed twice in 2016 and 2021, those powers are due to expire at the end of 13 December 2026. Given the continuing threat to the UK from terrorism, there can be no doubt that TPIMs remain a vital component in the UK’s counter-terrorism toolkit. That position is supported by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the director general of the Security Service.
The Act provides the Secretary of State with powers to impose a TPIM notice on an individual if the conditions set out in section 3 of the Act are assessed by the Secretary of State to have been met. Those conditions include that she reasonably believes that the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity, and that she reasonably considers that it is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism, to impose such measures on the individual.
In addition to the power to impose a TPIM notice, the Secretary of State has powers to extend and vary a TPIM notice that is in force, and to revive a TPIM notice that has been revoked. Since the introduction of the Act in 2011, 33 TPIMs have been imposed. As of the last published set of figures from June to August 2026, four TPIMs were in force.
TPIMs provide some of the most restrictive measures available in the democratic world. That is why they are used sparingly and only in exceptional cases involving individuals assessed to present the highest levels of terrorism-related risk, where prosecution, deportation or other disruptive measures would be insufficient to protect the public. There are also stringent safeguards, including that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that all conditions are met and apply to the Court for permission to impose the TPIM notice, except in cases of urgency. A TPIM notice is subject to a review hearing at which the Court reviews the Secretary of State’s decisions that the conditions were met and continue to be met. The Act also provides a right of appeal in relation to specified decisions taken after its imposition.
Having consulted as required by the Act, the Home Secretary has, due to the significant terrorist threat facing this country, decided to make this statutory instrument to provide for the continuation of TPIM powers for a further five years—the maximum period allowed in the legislation. The UK has one of the strongest counter-terrorism frameworks in the world, and the Government are committed to ensuring that it remains robust, to tackle the threat from terrorism and keep the public safe. TPIMs are an essential component of this framework, and their continued necessity has been endorsed through the statutory consultation the Department has undertaken.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the Minister for her comments and for extending the powers set out in the 2011 Act.
Protecting our country from terrorism is a central responsibility of Government. The public deserve to be safe from these heinous acts. Our commemorations this year marking 25 years since the 11 September attacks—the deadliest terrorist attack for British citizens in our history—should serve as a constant reminder of this solemn duty. Every attack, whether it is the Manchester Arena bombing, Lockerbie, 7/7, Omagh or an array of other dreadful attacks, should prompt us to pay tribute to all those who have lost their lives in the service of our country by dedicating ourselves to preventing such atrocities from happening again. [Interruption.]
Blake Stephenson
Stopping terrorism underpins everything we do in this place, as those who seek to alter our politics using violence fuelled by hateful ideology cannot be allowed to operate in our country. As the head of MI5 recently stated,
“The protection of democracy—its institutions, its representatives, its principles—has never felt more vital.”
While we look back, the past year is a reminder of the threat posed by terrorism at this very moment. The decision to raise the threat level to “severe” followed intelligence assessments and appalling attacks against members of our Jewish communities. I will be cautious about referencing specific recent cases that have involved people being charged and hostile states. However, to use just one example, earlier this year two Islamist extremists received life sentences, and a third received a prison sentence, for their role in a terrorist plot intended to target the Jewish community in Greater Manchester, which was foiled through the outstanding work of our police forces.
Against that background, I can say with certainty that we agree with the continuing use of the powers. They are serious powers, as the Minister said, and ones that must be used appropriately. When the renewal period for TPIMs was instituted, the late Conservative Minister James Brokenshire rightly noted the safeguards that the House continues to put in place when voting to renew the powers, but also recognised that they were sadly likely to continue to be necessary for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, those comments remain accurate today.
These are serious, restrictive powers available to the Government. Therefore, I understand that they are rightly used sparingly as a tool of last resort, as the Minister outlined. According to the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation’s previous report, TPIMs were applied only 33 times between the introduction of the Act in 2011 and 2024, with only four active applications in the last quarter. While I would not want to ask the Minister to comment on specific cases, do the Government need to take a different approach given the increase in the terrorism threat level to our country?
As with all powers, some questions remain, including those arising from previous comments by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation that were noted by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. However, we must equally listen to the previous assessment of the independent reviewer, alongside the views of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the director general of the Security Service, all of whom have agreed that TPIM powers should be renewed.
When the renewal order for the powers was brought forward in 2021, the then Opposition rightly supported the Government’s efforts. Our support therefore continues in the same vein, recognising that it is imperative for all of us to ensure that the resources and powers necessary to protect the public are in place.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. The Liberal Democrats support this statutory instrument, which extends the Secretary of State’s powers under the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act for a further five years.
The Liberal Democrats opposed the previous control orders regime introduced in 2005 because indefinite house arrest, restrictions on internet access and forced relocation without a criminal trial raised serious concerns about human rights and civil liberties. TPIMs were introduced by the coalition Government to provide a more proportionate approach, balancing national security with individual freedoms. Allowing them to expire would remove an important capability for managing individuals who present the highest levels of terrorism-related risk. As the Minister highlighted, the extension is supported by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the director general of the Security Service. We therefore support the continuation of these powers.
Jo White
I thank all members of the Committee for being here today. We greatly appreciate the scrutiny provided on this important issue. If the Secretary of State’s TPIM powers were to expire, that would remove a critical counter-terrorism capability used to manage individuals who present a significant national security risk. Subject to the agreement of the House and the other place, the order will come into force at the end of 13 December.
The use of TPIMs must be necessary and proportionate. The tool is used as a last resort in circumstances where prosecution or deportation are not possible. The operation of the TPIM Act 2011 is subject to independent statutory review under section 20. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation’s most recent report, “The Terrorism Acts in 2024”, was published on 29 April 2026 and is publicly available on gov.uk. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation is currently Jonathan Hall KC, who supports the continuation of the TPIM Act 2011. His previous recommendations on TPIMs included amending legislation to prohibit a TPIM subject from possessing unauthorised weapons. That amendment was made under the Crime and Policing Act 2026.
I urge all Members to support this order to keep the public of the United Kingdom safe and retain the strength of our counter-terrorism framework.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Local Government Reorganisation in Devon
Westminster Hall
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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
Violence against Women and Girls: Smart Glasses
(1 day, 6 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
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered smart glasses and violence against women and girls.
A few months ago I was delighted, with the support of many women in the urban design industry and the Minister for Housing and Planning, to get women and girls mentioned in the national planning policy framework. Across the UK, 86% of women and girls aged 18 to 24 have experienced harassment in public spaces, and it seemed crazy to me that they were not going to be at the forefront of how we design those spaces and places.
Having won that victory just before the summer, I was horrified to see stories about AI glasses appearing all over the press. Adverts for smart glasses appeared across London. Online, celebrities sold them as a device to “stay in the moment” and enjoy “effortless connection”. A key selling point was that the glasses could be used to film discreetly. To me, that did not look like a fantastic new innovation; it looked like a device for filming women and girls without their knowledge in the very spaces we have been campaigning to make them feel welcome in. Planning policy had finally accepted that women’s safety matters in the spaces we build, but at the same moment technology was eroding women’s privacy and safety in those same spaces.
Sales of smart glasses are now soaring, and already my fears about their use are being realised. Women are reporting waking up after nights out to find that videos of them, filmed without their knowledge or consent by men wearing smart glasses, have gone viral online. The only indication anyone has that they are being filmed is a small LED in the corner of the glasses, but that is quickly disappearing, with “ghost Meta” shops offering to remove the light entirely so that no one in a public space knows they are being filmed. To me these devices not only have the potential to erode safety and privacy in public spaces, but raise really important questions about consent.
A few weeks ago, I met the campaign group Stop Smart Glasses. One of its campaigners is a secondary school teacher, and he told me that as part of his job he stands in front of teenagers and teaches them that consent must be sought proactively—that yes means yes and no means no. But increasingly those same children go home, pick up their phones and scroll on social media, where they see videos of girls who were filmed without even being asked or knowing. He pointed out the irony that if one of his female students is filmed by AI glasses in public, the onus is on her to approach the man doing the filming and ask him to stop. What are we teaching young people—that consent is something we learn in the classroom and abandon on the street?
Covert filming is not new, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) has done excellent work on tackling the problem in nightclubs and other public spaces, but smart glasses make it easier, and harder to detect and challenge. In Australia, one solution has been to ban the use of smart glasses in certain areas, such as swimming pools, but I feel that sends a message to women that they are safe only in certain places. Surely, we do not want that to become the case.
Waking up to a video of yourself online undermines perceptions of safety, but it is also a breach of privacy and raises real data protection concerns. According to Meta’s smart glasses terms of use, content captured by the glasses can be used to train Meta AI. The burden of consent allowing Meta to do that is placed on the person wearing the glasses. That means that if someone is filmed without their knowledge or permission, Meta can still use that content to train its AI, because the wearer has given de facto consent. I do not see how that squares with data protection law. GDPR says that companies need a proper reason to use our personal data, and an individual walking past someone wearing smart glasses in the street has not agreed to anything. Small discreet cameras make secret filming easier, and women and girls will be disproportionately impacted by that. More broadly, in the age of wearable tech, all of us, male or female, are losing a bit of our privacy every time we step outside. Despite that, I have heard nothing from the Government about how smart glasses should be regulated.
When I raise this topic in public, one main argument comes back as a justification for smart glasses: they provide huge benefits for people with accessibility requirements, including blind and partially sighted people. I completely understand that point of view. I met the Royal National Institute of Blind People a few weeks ago to hear from it directly. It was very clear that although technology can offer huge benefits to its community, it does not want to become a fig leaf for Meta to justify poor practice and surveillance technology, and that its members have the same concerns about the technology as everyone else. Furthermore, Meta glasses have not been made with blind people in mind. If they had, they would be vastly better at accommodating the range of needs that those with disabilities might have.
These glasses pose a threat to everyone’s safety and privacy in public spaces. Meta and other developers are breaching everyone’s right to privacy, while failing to be transparent about what they are doing with the data they have collected. As in so many other areas of life, this modern technology will undoubtedly have a heightened impact on violence against women and girls.
On Monday, I sat in this room for a debate on the social media ban, and it struck me how long all Governments of whatever flavour have put off acting on social media, even though the evidence of harm has been there for years. I do not want smart glasses to go the same way, where we only regulate once it is too late. We are only 50 days from Christmas, and we can expect these glasses to be sold everywhere in numbers. How can we put the genie back in the bottle once they are being worn everywhere? We have called for them to be banned on the parliamentary estate, but frankly, everyone deserves the same privacy that we should enjoy in this place.
I look forward to the debate, and I am thankful to everyone who has attended. I hope to hear from Members across the House who are concerned about the use of smart glasses and from the Minister, to understand what the Government intend to do about this potentially dangerous new technology.
Shivani Raja (Leicester East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I thank the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) for securing this debate and for her remarks, which summarised the concerns and challenges around this important topic very clearly.
This debate comes at an important time. We live in a time of rapid technological advancement, which is exciting but also must be safeguarded. We have seen how these developments can threaten the safety of our women and girls with deepfake videos, stalking and monitoring devices, and wearable tech such as smart glasses. The hands-free technology of smart glasses promises crucial assistance to visually impaired people across the country, but the promise must be backed up with the right precautions and protections. We should not restrict law-abiding citizens from using this technology where it causes no harm to others. Our responsibility is to ensure that the innovations do not outpace the very protections that keep our women and girls safe in public spaces.
Unlike smartphones, which are clear and visible when in use, camera-enabled smart glasses allow covert recording to take place at eye level, completely disguised as regular human eye-to-eye contact. For many women who are already navigating public spaces with extra vigilance, that creates real unease. Ministers have rightly set out that recording individuals without consent in order to cause alarm or distress or for sexual gratification falls under existing criminal offences such as harassment and voyeurism. The legal position is clear: anyone who misuses this technology to intimidate or harass women must feel the full force of the law.
The real issue, however, is enforcement. Proving intent when someone is covertly filmed on a bus or a high street is incredibly difficult, and once that footage hits the internet, the damage to a victim’s privacy and dignity is already done. Expecting victims to rely on post-hoc takedown requests under GDPR or the Online Safety Act 2023 places the burden entirely on the wrong shoulders.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Will the hon. Member join me in praising the work of the Police Service of Northern Ireland through initiatives such as Project Vigilant, which targets technologies that are used to abuse women and girls, and calling for greater research to support our police across the UK in identifying covert recording technologies, as that remains an operational hurdle?
Shivani Raja
The hon. Gentleman is right: we must view this issue in the context of the wider challenges of violence against women and girls.
The Government have pledged to halve violence against women and girls, which I wholeheartedly welcome, but warm words must be backed by actions. It was concerning that the Government missed their own deadline to publish their VAWG strategy on three separate occasions. Women and survivors deserve better than delayed timelines. Now that it has been published, the Government must ensure the law is strongly enforced so that perpetrators are caught and punished.
Technology should enrich our lives, not serve as a tool for covert harassment. I urge the Minister to work with manufacturers on basic safety-by-design standards such as mandatory untamperable recording lights on smart frames, and to ensure that our police forces have the digital tools needed to keep the women and girls in our communities safe and sound.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Wishart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) on securing this timely and important debate on a subject that she has been campaigning hard on.
Smart glasses are a new technology that, despite their benefits for accessibility, provide yet another way for people to secretly film, promote and broadcast violence against women and girls. We have not even got a grip on the violence that is already being filmed and shared using mobile phones.
Every woman and girl, wherever she lives and whatever her circumstances, has a right to feel safe. She should not have to worry that someone is secretly recording her, following her or waiting for an opportunity to capture a moment of violence and turn it into entertainment for other people. More than 10% of women in England have experienced online violence, and among women aged 16 to 24 the figure rises to 25%. Digital abuse follows women into schools, workplaces, homes and communities.
I will once again share the story of Isabella, a 15-year-old girl from my constituency. In May 2025, she was lured to a local cemetery in Lyme Regis, where a group of young people were already waiting for her. The attack was premeditated. Someone had a phone ready and began recording before Isabella even arrived.
Isabella knew the person who attacked her. Her head was smashed against a concrete step, and she was stamped on repeatedly and kicked in the face. While that happened, nobody stepped in to help her. Rather, they stood by, filmed, laughed and asked for the video to be sent to them. That video was circulated across schools in Beaminster, Bridport and Lyme Regis. Children who were not there—some who did not know Isabella—watched her brutal attack on their phones. The violence was shared, forwarded, replayed and discussed. Her humiliation was repeated in classrooms, corridors and group chats.
The attacker received anger management classes and a six-month restraining order, but the person who filmed the attack was not punished at all. Someone had planned to record a young girl being brutally assaulted. They were ready when she arrived. They chose to film, not help, and they helped to turn the attack into something that could be watched again and again.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman is outlining an appalling incident. Does he agree that we need to do what we can to get a societal change so that the friends, associates and families of those who carry out such activity, whether using smart glasses or mobile phones, understand that it is totally appalling and unacceptable and that they will be made to feel like the pariahs that they are in society?
Edward Morello
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. There is a societal conversation to be had about this behaviour, but there is also a question about regulation and whether the law is appropriate.
In December 2025, ongoing bullying forced Isabella to leave Beaminster school in the middle of year 10. She had only recently started her GCSE courses. She moved schools, but the same subject options were not available, so she had to change courses and catch up on four months’ work. Isabella still experiences flashbacks and anxiety in loud and crowded places. Her mother said to me:
“I have to live with knowing that the video will be forever available on social media.”
Isabella was filmed on a mobile phone. She was not attacked by someone wearing smart glasses, but her experience shows the world we already live in and the consequences of allowing technology to amplify violence and humiliation. If we cannot properly protect victims now, how can we possibly be confident that we will protect them when filming becomes even more discreet? Smart glasses risk creating yet another avenue for covert filming, whether that is secretly recording women in public, filming sexual harassment or capturing assault. The victim may not even know that they have been recorded until the footage appears online.
The Youth Endowment Fund’s 2025 “Children, Violence and Vulnerability” survey found that 70% of children had encountered violent content on social media, up from 55% in 2022. More than four in five have seen online conversations about harming specific groups. Among children involved in perpetrating serious real-world violence, 84% had engaged in online discussions about harming particular groups. Twenty-five per cent of children said that violent content had been promoted to them by social media platforms, and just 6% had actively searched for it.
Social media platforms’ algorithms are pushing real-world violence, much of it against women and girls, towards children. We know that these companies have the technology and the ability to remove content quicky: when copyrighted music appears in videos, it can be flagged and removed almost immediately because there is money at stake. The question is, why is the same urgency not being applied to violence against women and girls?
When a video shows a girl being brutally attacked or a woman secretly filmed, the protections too often fail the people who need them the most. We need a specific criminal offence covering the premeditated filming and distribution of violent attacks where the intent is to humiliate, distress or psychologically harm the victim. The law must recognise that the person holding the camera or wearing the smart glasses can be responsible for deliberately extending the abuse, even if they never physically touched the victim. Social media platforms must be properly regulated, so that they are forced to act immediately when violent footage involving women, girls and children is reported. The platforms must take action against accounts that deliberately distribute it. I hope the Government will act before it becomes too late.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) on securing this important debate.
I declare my interest as a practising optometrist. For my whole working life a pair of glasses has been my livelihood, and it has been nothing but an object of trust and good, allowing people to see and changing their lives. It is one of the most trustworthy pieces of clothing we could have. No one has ever been deceived by a pair of glasses, except perhaps when Clark Kent prevented us knowing he was Superman. My son likes to wear glasses with no lenses, so he can look very intelligent posting on social media with books in coffee shops. It is a matter of debate how convincing that is, but generally glasses are a product for good.
I am not a technophobe. I have seen in my practice, and that of colleagues, what this technology can do, as has been acknowledged by hon. Members. It can be used for good. More than 2 million people in this country live with sight loss and 250 more begin to lose their sight every day. For a blind or partially sighted person walking down the street to be able to ask their glasses what is front of them and hear that, for example, a van is unloading scaffolding, is genuinely life changing. I will not argue that we should take that away—I suspect nobody here would—but we cannot ignore what is happening.
It has been reported that more than 7 million pairs of one brand alone were sold last year in this country. We have all witnessed men using these glasses covertly on our streets, posting the footage online and then demanding money to take it down. There are reports of women being filmed during sex without knowledge or consent. As the hon. Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) mentioned, a small LED is supposed to warn of recording, but it is easy to miss. I sell these glasses and know it is not always possible to see the lights.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I am not familiar with the glasses the hon. Member is discussing, but it strikes me, as a lay person, that it would not be difficult to cover a small LED on a pair of glasses. Does he agree?
Shockat Adam
I absolutely agree. We must ensure that they are tamper-proof. Somebody will always create something to supersede technology, which I will come to. A woman cannot move away from a camera if she cannot see it.
I also want to consider what these glasses could do in school changing rooms. We know children can be cruel. It could be devastating to record a child—girl or boy—in their insecure period, upload the footage and threaten them with blackmail.
Harm does not stop at the wearer. It was reported earlier this year that workers paid to label footage for AI training were viewing intimate recordings captured by these devices, including people using the toilet. The people in the footage had not consented and were not aware that it was being used for training purposes.
The National Centre for Violence Against Women and Girls and Public Protection told us last month that at least one in five flagged online VAWG crimes are image-based abuse, with almost 75% of the victims being female. Every digital form of this abuse is rising, yet when we ask how many arrests have been made for covert filming, the answer is that the information is not held centrally, so we are legislating in the dark. I would like a response from the Minister on that point.
This abuse is not restricted to cameras, because hearing technology is now arriving in spectacle frames. Hearing glasses with directional microphones are already in our practices, and the patients starting to lose their hearing are often the same patients who are fitted with varifocal glasses. Again, I welcome that because live captions, conversation boosting and real-time translations are incredible. I tried the technology and even though I was in a noisy room, it did not just help me hear the conversation I was having—I was able to hear somebody else’s conversation on the other side of the table. If we take all that into account, we have facial recognition, which manufacturers are reportedly exploring, and a device that can know who we are, where we are and what we say without us even knowing it is there. The wearer knows they are using the device; people around them do not.
What is the law doing about that? Filming in public is generally lawful and data protection laws do not apply to individuals acting in a personal capacity, but the Information Commissioner has said that doxxing is largely outside their remit, wearables are not regulated in any particular category and the Government’s own violence against women and girls strategy does not mention smart glasses. As Doughty Street Chambers put it,
“English law was not written with this technology in mind”.
The industry already knows what is good. At this year’s 100% Optical, EssilorLuxottica, which makes the Ray-Ban Meta glasses, told practitioners that devices should show people nearby that they are in use, that encryption is
“not nice to have, but an absolute must”,
and that only necessary data should be collected.
Anna Sabine
While I welcome the suggestion that nearby users should be notified if the devices are in use, the point still stands around consent. It should not be on me as an individual to have to challenge people using them; they should have to seek my consent before they start filming me.
Shockat Adam
I agree wholeheartedly with that. We cannot leave this issue to good will; it belongs in the law. I do not believe in a blanket ban, as it would punish the disabled people who benefit most. The RNIB is right that blind and partially sighted wearers already fear hostility from people who cannot tell they have sight loss. However, no ban should not mean no action.
I ask the Minister to consider the following: putting a statutory duty on manufacturers to provide a clear, tamper-proof recording indicator and making it an offence to turn that off or sell products designed to defeat it. Secondly, we need to close the gap in the criminal law so that covert sexualised filming and posting it for whatever reason is clearly an offence, and bring the intimate image provisions of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 fully into force without delay. Thirdly, we must give survivors a fast and affordable route to redress, as the Women and Equalities Committee recommended. Fourthly, we must protect accessibility for those who need to use the technology for assistive purposes, as they should not be penalised. Fifthly, if we are not already, we need to collect national data on covert filming offences and include smart glasses and other sensing wearables in the violence against women and girls action plan. My profession has a part to play, too.
We are told that the harms of social media were unforeseeable; these harms are not. They are right in front of us—quite literally at our eye level. Let us act on this issue before it is too late.
Pete Wishart (in the Chair)
I call Jim Shannon—you have up to half an hour.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Half an hour; I was hoping it might be 28 minutes. I am not going to speak for 28 minutes; I will try to keep my contribution as succinct and focused as possible.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart and I thank the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) for setting the scene incredibly well. This subject has to be discussed and highlighted, and the debate has given us the opportunity to do that.
This matter strikes at the very heart of the safety, dignity and privacy of our citizens, and most notably the protection of women and girls in our communities. We stand at a crossroads where technological innovation is outpacing our moral and legal safeguards. If we do not act, the consequences will continue to be felt by the most vulnerable on our streets. Other Members have made that point incredibly clear and I thank them for that.
Let us look first at the scale of what we are dealing with. We are not talking about a niche gadget or a far-off futuristic concept as some may think. The figures are stark. It is estimated that hundreds of thousands of these smart glasses have already been sold right here in the United Kingdom. They are flooding the market, and they are sitting on the faces of everyday passers-by—people we do not know. Although many people wear them innocently, we cannot blind ourselves to the reality that these devices are a powerful tool of surveillance, masquerading as ordinary eyewear.
As we rightly focus our efforts on eradicating violence against women and girls, we must recognise how this technology changes the very nature of harassment, stalking and intimidation. That is not just my observation; the UK’s leading domestic abuse charities are also sounding the alarm, and they are clear in what they say. Refuge has given the example of perpetrators weaponising these gadgets to covertly track and film survivors—the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) clearly illustrated that—which has contributed to a horrifying 62% spike in tech-facilitated abuse. Furthermore, Women’s Aid has forcefully stated that pairing these glasses with AI facial recognition threatens the very safety of all women and girls and hands a digital toolkit to stalkers who want to identify and track strangers in real time without their knowledge.
For a woman walking down the street, the fear of being targeted is already a daily reality, but now the horror of upskirting is being magnified by technology that is completely hands-free and virtually invisible. A person could commit an act of visual violation without ever holding a phone, leaving the victim entirely unaware that her privacy, her dignity and her body have been captured and digitised.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman cited the figure from Refuge that referrals to its tech abuse team have increased by 62%. He said that we are at a crossroads, but it seems to me that we are already past that. To echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) said, this is an exact reflection of what happened with the social media ban: the Government are going to come along too late. We need to emphasise that smart glasses are an aggravating factor in humiliation and abuse, and we need more wraparound regulations to tackle this problem right now.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The threat is already here. The hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset has taken the opportunity to ask the Minister for legislative change in today’s debate, which is something I am also hoping for. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I welcome her to her role. She has been in Westminster Hall for two days running—it is becoming a habit, but it is a good habit to have.
Even more sickening are the reports from communities across our regions—tales of perverts sitting on benches at children’s play parks or walking dogs casually outside school gates. Under the guise of just going for a walk and looking around, wearing what appears to be standardised prescription lenses, these individuals can be recording very young girls and women. School safeguarding leaders have already issued urgent alerts to teachers and parents, because these sleek, modern frames make it near impossible to detect when a child is being filmed. The tiny indicator lights on these devices make a mockery of consent. They are easily covered up, as the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) said, with a bit of tape or a sticker. How are mothers, teachers or young girls supposed to feel safe when any stranger standing near a playground could be covertly documenting them and what they are doing? This is not just a nuisance anymore; it is a direct threat to public safety and an engine for child exploitation.
Let me clear: I am not a man who stands against progress. Innovation, when properly challenged, can be a force for immense good, and we have to recognise that. We see that in our invaluable national health service. Our dedicated district nurses, who travel the length and breadth of our communities to provide care to the vulnerable, are piloting these glasses for a good purpose. For them, the ability to stream real-time footage to a specialist consultant while treating a patient in their home is a magnificent breakthrough. That is one of the good things that modern technology can do. It saves lives, saves time and improves care.
But the fact that a tool can be used for good does not mean it should be given free rein in society—that is what this debate is about. The contrast is clear: those who use these glasses in the NHS, such as our district nurses, should be able to do so, under a strict, regulated licensing framework. Their devices must be fully auditable, restricted to secure clinical networks and bound by the highest standards of professional conduct and patient consent. We cannot allow the positive uses of technology to blind us to its profound capacity for abuse. Innovation cannot come at the cost of the safety of our daughters, wives and mothers. We need robust regulations and clear boundaries, and we must ensure that the law firmly protects women and girls from those who would use these devices to prey on them.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) for securing this crucial debate. As we have heard, smart glasses can pose a very real threat to the safety and personal privacy of women and girls in particular. Smart glasses, combined with the ease of communication and anonymity provided by social media, have offered a new avenue for gender-based harassment. Recordings of women and girls taken without their knowledge or consent can be livestreamed or uploaded and distributed online with far too much ease.
The initial harm of an in-person encounter is then compounded by social media algorithms. Quick to follow are abusive online commentary, online stalking and other technology-facilitated harassment. All that translates to real-world harm. Reporting in the past week by London Centric illustrates how perpetrators are getting away with it. The publication found that, if these so-called content creators film themselves approaching a different woman every day and post the videos on platforms such as Instagram and TikTok, they can receive millions of views, earn money from them and face no legal consequences. The police are aware, but they are simply working within the law—in this case, law that was written in the last century.
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 requires repeated harassment of an individual to reach the threshold for prosecution. However, harassing behaviour of the sort committed by those who are non-consensually filming women, such as those with smart glasses, is allowed as long as the women are only filmed once. To be frank, the current law makes this area the wild west when it comes to privacy and online abuse. It does not matter that the same harassing behaviour is replicated against potentially dozens of women. All that currently matters in law is that it is not done repeatedly to the same woman. As such, this disgusting behaviour is not only legal but profitable—it is monetised misogyny, plain and simple.
Those who claim, as the men filming these videos do, that it is “just a bit of fun”, need only read about the impact a few seconds of non-consensual filming has on the women who are victims of it. In one case, London Centric reported on a woman who, after being filmed without her consent by a “content creator”, described how other men have since entered her workplace, where she was recorded, to ask her whether she knows that she is “TikTok famous”. Other women have moved away from London altogether after being non-consensually filmed.
John Slinger
The hon. Lady is making a compelling speech. Does she agree that, in addition to the need perhaps to change the legislation and for greater enforcement, there is a huge amount of work to be done around education? I am afraid that education needs to be done for men and, sadly, boys. The statistics are clear: 91% of people prosecuted for sexual offences are men aged 18-plus. Does she think, as I do, that we need to be in schools and in the spaces where men and boys are talking, to explain to them just how disgusting this behaviour is and that it will have consequences?
Marie Goldman
The hon. Member makes an important point, and I agree, but we have to go after those who promote and normalise this behaviour—by which I mean the online platforms. They are essentially broadcasters. Reaching a mass audience, for example through television, used to mean having to have a broadcasting licence and being held to a high standard; but the online platforms get away with promoting disgusting, misogynistic content over and over again. People see it, so it becomes normalised.
John Slinger
The hon. Lady is being generous with her time. I reassure her that I completely agree that we need much tighter regulation of the social media companies. Frankly, the tech bros have had it too easy and too good for too long. We ought to find a way of holding them responsible and liable in law for some of the harms that their products cause, rather than merely suggesting that the users of their products are liable. Does she agree that we need to explore some of those concepts?
Marie Goldman
It seems that across the House we entirely agree on this matter.
Shockat Adam
In addition to the platforms, the manufacturers have a responsibility here. Does the hon. Member agree that manufacturing must come with greater responsibilities?
Marie Goldman
Absolutely, and I thank the hon. Member for his important intervention, which proves what a difficult and complex subject this is. Everybody has a role to play, not just the victims. As my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset said, it is important that we do not leave this matter just to the victims, but to manufacturers, broadcasters and social media platforms, as well as the so-called content creators—I struggle with that phrase, because they pose as content creators, but they make a lot of money out of this. That is one of the disgusting things; it is monetising misogyny, as I have said. Everyone has a role to play, and we must focus on that.
As we have seen, legislation is falling woefully behind advances in technology such as smart glasses and changes in behaviour on social media. When we legislate, we need foresight about what might come later, not just what is happening now and what happened in the past. We need to write legislation in that way. I urge the Minister to review the effectiveness of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, to ensure that the harassment loophole that I described is closed. I am sure she does not doubt that these examples are indicative of harassing behaviour, not least because social media feeds often show the same video to the same user over and over again.
Every woman and girl, regardless of who they are or where they live, has the fundamental right to live free from fear, harassment and violence—but, to ensure that that is a reality, not just a slogan or aspiration, we have to act decisively. As my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset said, the problem is not a lack of understanding of the issue. We can take simple steps right now to mitigate this misuse. We must begin by enforcing hardware-level standards to ensure that smart glasses are tamper proof, as other hon. Members have said. We must ban modifications that disable or remove the recording indicator, as well as those that might cover it up—a bit of electrical tape might do the job, as others have suggested, and that should not be okay either. We must also expand the scope of sexual harm prevention orders to prohibit completely the purchase or use of smart glasses by sex offenders, where appropriate, including as a condition of release.
The problems with emerging technologies do not exist in isolation. They are amplified by and rely on social media. I implore the Government to take stronger action to hold to account the social media giants—the companies that do not just facilitate, but promote this content. Stories such as those detailed in London Centric would not exist if not for the impunity with which these companies currently operate. Profit must never be placed above the safety and dignity of our citizens.
We should have ensured that Ofcom had the powers and legal backing to enforce accountability years ago. It must be equipped to prevent smart glasses-enabled abuse online, with tangible consequences for the companies that fail to comply. The Liberal Democrats have also called on the Government to create a new online crime agency to effectively tackle illegal content and activity online, and build a digital world where women and girls can live safely and without fear.
As we have heard, it is important that we acknowledge that developments in technology can still be harnessed for the better. Smart glasses act as genuinely life-changing technologies for blind and partially sighted people. As we have heard, by providing hands-free access to information, object recognition and descriptions of surroundings, they can dramatically increase an individual’s personal independence. However, that is all the more reason for action. As other hon. Members have mentioned, the Royal National Institute of Blind People has reported that users are becoming increasingly hesitant to wear smart glasses for fear of a backlash and of others becoming angry or suspicious towards them. Preventing smart glasses from being used for predatory and covert filming will not only protect women and girls from abuse but help to protect legitimate users from suspicion so that those who benefit from this technology can use it with confidence.
I hope the Minister will take very seriously today’s cross-party calls for much stronger action to tighten the law to prevent the monetised online harassment of women and girls, to give Ofcom real teeth to regulate social media companies and ultimately to provide a stronger legal framework for smart glasses, so that those who genuinely benefit from them are not subject to suspicion or threats.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) on securing this very important debate, and I thank hon. Members from across the House for their very thoughtful contributions. Counterpoint Research estimates that global sales of AI glasses rose by 263% in the first half of 2026, and the market is predicted to reach $44 billion by 2032—like other hon. Members, I expect the stockings this Christmas to be filled with AI glasses. It is essential that we examine how to keep women and girls safe as this market expands.
Technological innovations are too often accompanied by consequences that harm people, including women and girls. As a catalyst, technology can take the worst behaviour that already exists in our society and accelerate it, whether it is the pervasive use of early cameras, which resulted in the exploitation of women and young girls in a way that we look back on in horror, or the explosion of the internet and smartphones, which created a new range of problems that I know the Minister and others are trying to combat, day in, day out.
There are, of course, design issues with these smart glasses—we have heard about some of those today—but that does not mean that the technology itself was designed to cause harm. Rather, the problems arise from how it is used and exploited by those with the worst motivations in our society. That is why it is important to recognise that smart glasses are part of that wider pattern and present acute problems that impact women and girls. There have been numerous stories, some of which we have heard today, that illustrate the need to ensure that these glasses are not being used to harass women and girls in our country.
John Slinger
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) on digital product safety is worth considering? In a white paper that he published in July, he makes the point very effectively that, just as we require physical products to be regulated so that they are safe for users—for example, lift shafts have to be safe—we should insist, through a process that he sets out in his White Paper, that digital products are safe and that the manufacturers of those products must ensure that they are safe. I think this issue would come within that scope.
Blake Stephenson
I have to say that I am not familiar with the work the hon. Gentleman refers to, but I will undertake to look into it. Perhaps he could send me a copy of it—I will be glad to read it. His broader point that safety should be built into the design is important. The Government would be wise to consider that, and I have no doubt that they are doing so.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) brought up an incredibly important issue in his intervention, and when the Minister comes to speak, she might address that methodology for bringing regulation. We are focusing, as we should, on why people are taking advantage of smart glasses and using them illegally and criminally, but in my speech I mentioned the health workers who, when they go to visit people in their houses, use smart glasses for the purpose of their job. If we want to regulate them, should we not ensure that people who use them for the right purposes are able to do so?
Blake Stephenson
I think the hon. Member is saying that in anything that they do, the Government need to strike the right balance, because there are perfectly legitimate uses for these glasses that are useful to society, but of course there are harms. The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) also talked about some of the cultural issues and problems and the education that is needed, particularly for young boys. I hope that the Government will be looking to strike the right balance.
Covert filming and online harassment of women are real harms that deserve a serious response. It is particularly concerning that people have used these glasses to record young women without their knowledge, and then used that footage for their own benefit, including commercial benefit. That is an absolutely despicable violation, and it should not be tolerated. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) referred to it as “monetised misogyny”, and I agree with her entirely, so there is cross-party agreement on this issue.
Refuge has reported that referrals to its specialist technology-facilitated abuse and economic empowerment team rose by more than 62% in 2025. The Science and Technology Committee has launched a call for evidence on technology-facilitated abuse. I hope that the Committee will use this important opportunity to help us all understand the prevalence of abuse in our society.
It is important to recognise that this issue is complicated by UK laws on filming. As hon. Members will be aware, it is not inherently unlawful to take photos or videos of people in public without their permission, but it can, of course, cross over into criminality. That is why the Home Office worryingly released a poster warning illegal immigrants about the legality of recording people without their permission. The fact that such a poster needed to be produced by Government in the first place is difficult for many to comprehend. The criticism it received from the National Union of Journalists illustrates the challenge of balancing protecting existing rights with stopping the unscrupulous use of technology.
That makes it all the more necessary to examine the issue and work closely with companies to ensure that new technology does not increase the prevalence of crimes against women and girls. In 2019, Parliament considered the disgusting practice of upskirting and passed the Voyeurism (Offences) Act, which created targeted offences related to upskirting. That provides a useful example of Parliament addressing a particular harmful act without outlawing everyday cameras.
If changes to legislation are necessary, they must be based on evidence, and we must ensure that we create the best policies we can. I would therefore appreciate the Minister setting out what evidence the Government are gathering on the prevalence of covert filming with smart glasses, its harms and the effectiveness of existing safeguards. We must be able to recognise the public’s concern when they see people using these glasses, while also distinguishing between their wrongful use and their use for genuinely important reasons, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said.
I understand that the Norwegian Government recently announced their intention to restrict the use of these devices in specific locations. To the point of the hon. Member for Chelmsford, women and girls should be safe everywhere, but it is important that any action here supports clear policies for genuinely sensitive environments, such as changing rooms, schools and clinical settings. There are existing laws that cover some of those matters, but we must be explicit about how we keep people safe in those environments. If we do not, we undermine those who seek to use this technology to truly improve people’s lives.
One example, as we heard already this morning, comes from the Royal National Institute of Blind People. It has recognised concerns, as reflected on by the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset, but has also commented on how some blind and partially sighted people use smart glasses to benefit from enhanced access to information. Paul Arnold, the chief executive of the Information Commissioner’s Office, spoke about his experience using these glasses as a severely visually impaired person. The combination of AI and audio feedback has helped him to better understand his surroundings, access information and navigate the world with greater confidence.
This technology may also help those suffering from other serious health conditions. CrossSense, which makes AI smart glasses, recently beat 174 other inventions from around the world to win the prestigious £1 million Longitude prize on dementia. Furthermore, it is easy to see the uses for journalists working in the public interest, or the potential long-term benefits if the police could use the technology in a similar way to body-worn cameras or use facial recognition technology, an effective tool for identifying and catching criminals who commit violence against women and girls. I do not seek to downplay the risks posed by these devices with those examples, but rather to encourage the Government to consider those beneficial uses before introducing any blanket bans.
I recognise that the Minister’s Department is committed to the violence against women and girls action plan and to working across Government to encourage safety by design in smart and connected technology, which was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Rugby. There are concerns about delivery, however, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) raised concerns about missed deadlines in the development of the plan. As Dame Nicole Jacobs told the Home Affairs Committee last week,
“I do not believe that, to date, this strategy has been implemented in a way that shows that it is at the top of the priority list, in terms of resource and all those things.”
Can the Minister set out what measurable progress has been made on that commitment? Presumably, it involved the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology—a Department that no longer exists given recent changes at the top.
To conclude, all too often we have seen new technology used in a manner that puts women and girls at risk. I hope that we can find proportionate, sensitive and sensible policies that enable the continued use of that technology, while ensuring that we can prevent it from being used to facilitate the abuse and exploitation that we have seen throughout our society.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Satvir Kaur)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) for securing this important debate and to all Members for their powerful contributions. There is a lot that we can agree on.
It is fair to say that today’s discussion reflects a truth about the age in which we live: that, sadly, the rapid development of technology has presented new ways to exploit and abuse women and girls. While today’s discussion mainly centred on smart glasses, I recognise that many of the issues raised go much further than any single device. They speak to a broader challenge to ensure that innovation develops alongside the safety and protection of everyone, including women and girls.
Our response must be unwavering on that, and under this Government it is. Tackling violence against women and girls is everyone’s business, and that includes tech companies taking their responsibility to keep people safe seriously. Where they fail to do so, we will act. An example of that is our recent announcement on device-level controls legislation. The cross-Government tackling violence against women and girls strategy addresses online and tech-facilitated abuse head on, setting out clear action to tackle it. That is a 10-year strategy, and with the one-year anniversary coming up, important measurables should be assessed and reviewed.
As mentioned, we know that when used responsibly, new technologies like smart glasses can be hugely beneficial. For example, smart glasses have been a game changer for those who are visually impaired, helping them navigate the world around them. However, we expect all tech companies to be designing and deploying products responsibly, with privacy and safety considerations built in from the start. The hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset asked an important question about whether those glasses were designed just with blind people in mind. I think the honest answer is probably not.
The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), said that companies have made it too easy for perpetrators, and I agree. Companies must consider the risks of their products being misused by those determined to abuse women and girls, and mitigate those risks through design. Safety by design of smart and connected technology means that we can better protect victims and survivors and stop perpetrators misusing technology.
On the question of a complete ban or restrictions of smart glasses, the benefits of smart glasses must be weighed against the harms that they can cause. The Government are already looking into options to restrict smart glasses in certain settings and restricting the sale to certain users. That work is happening at pace. Some settings have clear restrictions on taking images or videos, such as courts and tribunals, which is why the use of smart glasses in those settings is already prohibited. Other settings, such as healthcare and education, have existing safeguarding or professional policies that are relevant to smart glasses and any kind of digital recording. Both NHS England and the Department for Education are currently looking into wearable technology in certain settings as well.
The Government also recognise the concerns raised about the use of smart glasses on the parliamentary estate. These concerns are serious and I share them. Appropriate next steps are currently being considered, notwithstanding the decisions that a parliamentary Commission and Speakers of both Houses can make on the matter.
Everyone, including women and girls, has the right to feel safe going about their daily life without worrying that images or videos of them are being made and then potentially shared online without their knowledge. The Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023, which was brought into force earlier this year, makes it illegal for someone to harass someone else based on their sex or presumed sex, and perpetrators are already being held to account as a result. This could include taking images or videos without a person’s consent, and it can be a one-off offence.
Equally, stalking protection orders can be used to tackle stalking that is facilitated by technology, including devices such as smart glasses. That work is supported by Project Vigilant, which the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton), who has now left the Chamber, mentioned. The project, which is funded by Government, is a proactive policing tactic used by trained officers to identify and disrupt perpetrator behaviour in public spaces.
Marie Goldman
The Minister is making some important points; I am pleased to hear that the Government are listening. I gently say to her that posting an image or some video footage online of a woman who has been recorded without her knowledge often does not meet the threshold of stalking or harassment in itself, yet the effect on the woman can be absolutely awful. That is what the police are grappling with at the moment—they do not feel that they can prosecute. Even when the victim asks the platforms to take the footage down, the platforms do not do anything about it. What more can the Government do to tackle those specific points?
Satvir Kaur
The hon. Member is right to focus on the victim. This should not just be the responsibility of the victim. We need to design out the issues so that it does not happen in the first place, and platforms 1000% have a responsibility and should take down any images that were put up without a person’s consent. The sharing of those images without consent is illegal.
As I was about to say, where content captured using smart glasses is illegal and uploaded or shared, the Online Safety Act 2023 provides important protections. Platforms must remove non-consensual intimate images, prevent users from encountering them and prevent their services from being used to carry out an offence.
Edward Morello
I had the dubious pleasure of questioning representatives of the social media platforms during the Foreign Affairs Committee’s inquiry into misinformation and disinformation. Although I take the Minister’s point that there may be online safety regulation that directs them to remove it, the problem is that spreading engaging content is fundamental to their business model.
By the time someone has gone through the process of flagging something to a social media company and having it removed, it has already been spread by a dozen different accounts. These companies are monetising it; it is inherent to their business model. Until we start tackling the profitability of sharing this content, we will never force them into action. Can we please get some provision that allows us to fine the hell out of them for sharing this information, so that it stops making them money?
Satvir Kaur
Ofcom is fining platforms, but I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member. Do I believe that all platforms are doing everything possible to root this out? Absolutely not. Do they need to go further? Absolutely.
Shockat Adam
Further to the intervention by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) about profitability for social media platforms—and going back to what the shadow Minister said about how the manufacturers of these products intend to be good—I think we may be being a little naive. The company that makes the most popular smart glasses on the market is worth £28.5 billion. These are very smart people, and they know how these things can be utilised. Does the Minister agree that the product manufacturers hold a great deal of responsibility, and that we must be able to legislate for that as well?
Satvir Kaur
The hon. Member will have heard me talk at the beginning of my speech about designing out the problem. That is really targeted at manufacturers—an Apple or a Google—rather than the platforms themselves. One example of us going further where tech companies have failed is device-level controls. We need to nip this in the bud rather than allowing it to get out of control, and one way to do that is designing out the problem in the first place.
Blake Stephenson
I want to take the opportunity to clarify that I did not make the point that manufacturers were intending to do good. I said that they were not intending in their design to cause harm to women and girls, which is different. I do not think they intend to cause harm, but through their design, harm is being caused. I just wanted to clarify that; maybe the Minister agrees with me.
Satvir Kaur
I do, although I would add that tech companies are very clever, and while they may not intend harm, they absolutely should feel their responsibility when producing and designing these products to safeguard women and girls. I know the shadow Minister and I agree on that.
I was asked directly about this, so let me be clear: sharing or threatening to share an intimate image without consent is a criminal offence. That includes creating or requesting the creation of deepfake intimate images of adults without consent. The Crime and Policing Act 2026 strengthens those offences further.
Marie Goldman
I thank the Minister for giving way; she is being incredibly generous with her time. I feel that this is how debates should work in this place—it is really good to have this back and forth, and lots of Members are making really good contributions.
The Minister has talked a couple of times about intimate images. I want to make the point that these are not all intimate images, but it is nevertheless really distressing when they are shared across social media. I am worried about that focus on intimacy, because it is not always about intimacy in the way that we might understand it.
Satvir Kaur
No, absolutely. Irrespective, if someone’s image is out there without their consent, that is a problem.
I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for sharing the harrowing story of Isabella, and I thank Isabella for allowing him to do so. It is completely unacceptable. Stories like that, which I sadly now hear on a very regular basis, make me and the Government even more determined to tackle this issue and focus on supporting the victim. We have heard so many times about how women and girls can act differently, and nothing frustrates me more. We really need to go for the perpetrators and for those that are creating the harm—big tech companies.
I want to reassure the hon. Member that misogyny, and particularly online misogyny, is being taken seriously by this Government. That is why we have created the national taskforce for tackling misogyny, which received £15 million in the Budget to do its work. Healthy relationships are now being taught about in schools. I have been part of one of those sessions, which I found really insightful and powerful. It was a bit sad hearing about teenagers’ experiences and what they think is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. We sit here and think, “Surely children must know,” but actually they do not, because of what they are seeing online.
To reassure the hon. Member for West Dorset further, the Government have looked at domestic violence protection orders to ensure that they are not just about violent behaviour but that we broaden the scope to include abuse, which is why they are evolving into domestic abuse protection orders. There is already a pilot, and we are hoping to roll it out nationally by the end of this year. It will better protect victims, and it covers not just violence but things such as coercive control and stalking. To date, the pilot has resulted in the introduction of more than 2,000 police-led DAPOs, so I see it as a turning point that will widen the scope, increase our understanding and result in the police being given more powers.
I again thank the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset for securing the debate, and I am grateful to Members for their invaluable contributions. This is not the end of the journey; it is very much the beginning. The Government are committed to this agenda, and I am personally determined to ensure that everyone—especially women and girls—can live their lives without fear of abuse. Our response must include a clear and robust response to the technological advancements of our age, whether in the form of smart glasses or any other product. Safety must be prioritised.
Tech companies have a responsibility. This Government will hold them to account, and we will not hesitate to act where they are failing. The scale of the challenge is vast, and we will tackle violence against women and girls only if everyone plays their part, but I am confident that together—including by working across parties—we can do that.
Anna Sabine
I will not rehash everything that everyone has said, but I genuinely think that this has been a really useful discussion. I appreciate the way that everyone has been so generous with their time; it has made the debate much more conversational and useful.
The Liberal Democrats and I are not calling for a total ban on this technology; I just worry that we are sleepwalking into finding that it is out of control before we have managed to do anything about it. MPs can feel rather exposed when we are out and about in public spaces; we wonder who is looking at us and clocking what we are doing. Once a number of MPs have been covertly filmed by this tech, I wonder whether we will suddenly find that it is shoved up the political agenda, but I would like it not to get to that point. I welcome the cross-party consensus on this issue and the Minister’s desire to work across parties—we would certainly like to do that.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) will pass on our thanks to Isabella for sharing her story. It is only when people like her and her mother share their stories that the issue becomes personalised and we can effect change. [Interruption.] I have just seen a mouse running behind my hon. Friend, so I will draw my remarks to a close and exit the Chamber as quickly as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered smart glasses and violence against women and girls.
Lifelong Learning Strategy
(1 day, 6 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
Pete Wishart (in the Chair)
I will call Paul Davies to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. I remind other hon. Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge and from the Minister, which I know has been negotiated in advance of this debate. As is the convention in 30-minute debates, there will be no opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of a national lifelong learning strategy.
This debate is well timed, as we are midway through Get the Nation Learning Week, a national campaign co-ordinated by the Learning and Work Institute. The campaign, backed by more than 230 organisations, marks a rare opportunity for adult learning to be pushed to the forefront, and for employers, community organisations, learning providers and Parliament to highlight the importance of the issue. What is more, today is the Get the Nation Learning awards ceremony, one of the biggest celebrations of lifelong learning in England.
In our fast-changing digital world, there has never been a time in history when the need to learn continuously throughout life has been greater. Many Governments have used education as an enabler for national renewal, a policy to call upon when the country requires radical social change. Today, we see the Government highlighting the need to radically rewire the state, foster true cross-departmental working and shake up Whitehall for good. However, there is, I believe, a gap in this plan. National renewal as lifelong learning needs to be incorporated across Government agendas within a national lifelong learning strategy.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this issue; I spoke to him before the debate. His proposal is something that I have been seeking as well. Does he agree that a successful national lifelong learning strategy must include all regions across the United Kingdom, including my Strangford constituency, where local colleges and community groups do phenomenal work retraining older workers? Continued adult education keeps the mind sharp, tackles isolation and directly reduces pressure on our health services. Does he agree that modular training should be shared equally across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland so that no worker is ever left behind?
Paul Davies
The hon. Member must have been reading my speech. I will get on to some of his comments, but I totally agree with them; they were very well put.
Across the country, including in my constituency, people desperately want to see good growth in every postcode. I believe that that cannot be achieved without access to lifelong learning in every postcode. Lifelong learning has been an instrumental driver of social change at key periods in our history. In 1919, the Ministry of Reconstruction’s landmark report on adult education provided the foundations to make lifelong education a permanent national necessity. In the 1970s, the Right to Read campaign raised the profile of adult literacy across the nation. Lifelong learning has been a catalyst for social progression throughout our history, and there are important lessons to be learned. I encourage the Minister to reflect on the Ministry of Reconstruction’s foundational principle from more than 100 years ago, which is just as important now as it was then:
“adult education is a permanent national necessity, an inseparable aspect of citizenship, and therefore should be both universal and lifelong”.
An institution that helped to shape the report was the Workers’ Educational Association, which is still the largest provider of community adult education. Its history shows us how the course of working-class lives can be changed for the better when people have access to lifelong learning. The WEA shaped and was part of the history of workers’ education throughout the last century and continues to do so in this century. As one of the largest lifelong learning charities in the country, the WEA campaigns to bring learning within the reach of every adult, no matter what their circumstances are.
Learning has multiple cross-cutting outcomes. Participating in learning is shown to improve wellbeing and health. It improves connections, brings people together and reduces social isolation. It increases understanding and empathy for people from different backgrounds or cultures. It ripples out to strengthen whole communities. Furthermore, the WEA has found that more than 84% of people with pre-existing mental health conditions say that taking part in adult learning improves their wellbeing, signalling the extent to which learning helps one to lead a happier, healthier life. The WEA knows at first hand how lifelong learning brings communities closer together and helps to build confidence and agency for individuals.
Just as the evidence base for health and wellbeing is strong, the link between lifelong learning and connecting communities is powerful. Learning helps people to become more active and combats isolation and loneliness: 80% of learners say that they meet people on their courses they would not otherwise meet.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
For young people with special educational needs and disabilities, the transition from education to further learning and employment can be really challenging. Does the hon. Member agree that a national lifelong learning strategy should prioritise dedicated pathways and support for young people with SEND, particularly in rural or hard-to-reach areas, so that opportunities after education are equal across the country?
Paul Davies
Absolutely. A lifelong learning strategy provides tremendous opportunities to take account of individual needs, particularly when we look at local implementation. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on tackling loneliness and connected communities, which spoke to young people a number of weeks ago. The key thing they talked about was individualised support, and many of them talked about SEND issues.
Not only do 86% of people who attend learning courses say that they make new friends as a result, but the volunteers also benefit: 77% of WEA volunteers feel more connected to their community following their involvement. From my perspective as chair of the APPG, that connection and that aspect of tackling loneliness are especially powerful merits of lifelong learning.
Despite the clear benefits, lifelong learning has steadily slipped down the political agenda for decades. England still lacks a national lifelong learning strategy to ensure that people have access to learning no matter where they live or what their circumstances are. That is concerning. The Government are spending £1 billion less on adult skills in England than in 2010. Employers are spending 36% less on training per employee than in 2005. The UK figure is well below half the EU average.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing a debate on this important issue. He is presenting his case wonderfully. I want to highlight the point about the fall in investment and the vital role that both employers and trade unions play. We have seen a culture of decline in lifelong learning. As a young man, I did not go to university, but I had the great fortune to attend WEA courses in my village that were run by Ray Hudson and Huw Beynon, who came from Durham University and are now professors. That inspired me to go on to day release and night classes and to get vocational qualifications in that way. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital for employers to play a greater role alongside Government and trade unions, and that the restoration of the union learning fund by this Government is an important step towards rebuilding that partnership?
Paul Davies
I absolutely agree: that is a vital step. We have to look at creating partnerships right across our communities, and trade unions are a vital part of that.
Unfortunately, enrolments in publicly funded adult qualifications from the most deprived areas have fallen by 27% since 2010. That is not a situation we want to be in. More than 8 million adults still lack essential literacy, numeracy and digital skills. That is nothing short of a national tragedy. A strategy for something as fundamental and universally needed as access to learning should not be considered a luxury; it is essential infrastructure for a thriving society and economy.
There is no doubt that the UK is facing multiple skills crises. Following the Milburn report, we hear a great deal from Government, rightly, about the challenges that young people face. Significant work is under way to address them, and I am grateful for Alan Milburn’s efforts to bring together Departments and develop a cross-Government response, but the conversation must not stop at young people. Adults of all ages also need opportunities to learn for joy, to retrain and develop new skills throughout life, whether by adapting to changes in the labour market, navigating new technologies or remaining active and connected in their communities. Lifelong learning is just as important for individuals at all stages of adulthood. To unlock the merits of adult education, lifelong learning needs its Milburn moment.
Earlier this month, the APPG on further education and lifelong learning released the report of its inquiry into adult education. It recognised the lack of an overarching vision for adult education. A national lifelong learning strategy could help to overcome that; it is something that the WEA has called for and which forms the centrepiece of its lifelong learning labs campaign. The campaign started at the beginning of this year, collecting more than 2,000 pieces of evidence and bringing together more than 100 organisations, ranging from the TUC and trade unions to institutes of adult learning, charities working across prisons and with asylum seekers and refugees, and organisations looking to shape society for all ages, such as Intergenerational England. The final report and recommendations of the year-long campaign will be published on 15 December and launched in Parliament. I encourage the Minister to meet the WEA to learn more about the campaign and explore the recommendations, which could support the Government’s mission on delivering growth in every postcode.
We want to be a nation where learning is valued, where it is accessible and flexible for people to choose what is right and best for them, where adults can pick up learning at any age, where people have fun learning and want it to be part of everyday life, and where both informal and formal learning are valued and their contributions to wellbeing and productivity are understood. We know that it is not a magic bullet for all our social and economic challenges, but access to lifelong learning offers a way into a wider network of support and connection. Importantly, it improves confidence and self-worth in individuals. Finally, it will unlock greater empathy and understanding of others.
A national strategy would clearly signal that the Government value lifelong learning right from the top and see the connection across civil society. Once it is in place, regional and local leaders and providers can be empowered to deliver it and focus on local needs and priorities; I emphasise that looking locally at individual needs is crucial.
I am grateful that the Government have made positive steps in the area of learning and training. The creation of the lifelong learning entitlement, the Milburn inquiry and the youth guarantee are sensible interventions, but we need to build on them. There are issues to be addressed in the lifelong entitlement, which begins only at level 4; it automatically excludes level 1, 2 and 3 qualifications. To reap the rewards, we need to take the protocol across all levels. The strategy should provide a clear national framework with the learner at its heart, recognising that the best delivery is often local. It needs to empower regional leaders, fitting alongside the Government’s devolution agenda, to deliver community-led lifelong learning provision.
In 1919, the Ministry of Reconstruction’s report made it clear that
“adult education is a permanent national necessity, an inseparable aspect of citizenship, and therefore should be both universal and lifelong.”
More than 100 years later, that principle remains just as relevant. We have the evidence, we have the organisations and we have the opportunity to make a difference. Now we need to apply the political ambition to match it.
Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on securing this important debate on lifelong learning and on his incredibly powerful contribution.
I pay particular tribute to the extraordinary work of the u3a, both nationally and across my constituency. I recently had the pleasure of speaking to more than 120 members of Arnold u3a, and I want to thank all the wonderful u3a groups across Gedling, which collectively support more than 2,000 of my constituents. Their contribution to lifelong learning, friendship and tackling loneliness is truly inspirational.
The importance of that came home to me particularly powerfully last weekend when I attended a new friendship group in Mapperley in my constituency that was established by the inspirational Sarah Klotschkow. Sarah tragically lost both her beloved parents to cancer, yet out of the heartbreak of bereavement, she found the extraordinary strength and compassion to create something positive for others, bringing people together, building friendships and tackling loneliness and isolation. I pay a special tribute to Sarah today. She reminds us of the extraordinary difference one person can make to everybody else’s lives.
I was also delighted to speak at the recent parliamentary launch of the u3a’s excellent “Retirement Rewired” report. Drawing on the experience of more than 10,000 of its 438,000 members across the country, it found that 95% had said that u3a had improved their lives, 90% said it had helped them continue lifelong learning, and 45% said it had reduced loneliness or isolation. Those remarkable findings remind us that retirement should never mean retiring from curiosity, ambition, learning or contribution to society.
I therefore ask the Minister how a national lifelong learning strategy could better support organisations such as the u3a alongside grassroots initiatives like Sarah’s in my constituency, because surely the measure of a learning society is not simply how well we educate our young people but how successfully we enable every generation to continue learning, contributing and flourishing throughout their lives.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on securing this important debate and highlighting the opportunities that lifelong learning presents for learners, education providers, employers and our economy.
I particularly want to thank my hon. Friend for setting out the historical context of this debate and for drawing Members’ attention to the efforts of previous Governments during reconstruction and some of the economic tumult that the UK has experienced in recent years. It certainly makes the historic comparison very relevant. I also want to thank the Workers’ Educational Association, representatives of which are in the Public Gallery for this debate. The association has been in existence for 123 years, following an inspirational mission. I start my contribution by confirming that the Government would very much welcome working with the WEA on these matters and many others.
The world of work is changing, and our education and skills system must change with it. New technologies and changing skill needs mean people will benefit from more opportunities to learn, retrain and upskill throughout their working lives. We need to move beyond the idea that education happens just once, at the start of life. People should be able to return to learning as their lives and careers—and the economy—change. If we want to grow our economy, we need a workforce who are able to adapt as industries, jobs and technology change. Lifelong learning helps people to develop the skills they need to seize those new opportunities.
There is a clear case for action. Recent polling indicates that nearly half of adults in England are considering a career change, but for many, finding the time to retrain around work and family life remains a major obstacle. That is why this Government are delivering a more flexible post-18 education and skills system with the lifelong learning entitlement at its heart, giving people greater flexibility over what, when and how they study. Student finance in England is changing to reflect that, and this debate is timely, because last Friday 30 October, the application service for the new student finance system, the lifelong learning entitlement was launched. The policy was announced by the previous Government just over six years ago, and I want to acknowledge the cross-party working that has been pivotal to achieving the successful launch of the lifelong learning entitlement.
Grahame Morris
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for addressing these issues. I did not want to break his flow, but on that specific issue, there are regional disparities. My constituency is in the north-east of England and many people in that region are denied opportunities, not through lack of ability but through lack of opportunity. Will the youth guarantee include the opportunity to access lifelong learning, particularly for younger people who have been denied that opportunity previously?
Josh MacAlister
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for highlighting the need for both the youth guarantee—which is a separate but related policy area to the LLE—and the LLE to ensure greater flexibility over not just what can be studied but where people can access those opportunities. If someone is in a rural or more remote part of the country and physically further from a higher education institution, that should in no way be a barrier to being able to access those units of study that the LLE is designed to give people the right to access.
Alongside full qualifications and degrees, learners will, for the first time—this is the crucial thing about the LLE—be able to access student finance for individual modules of higher education. People need that kind of flexibility to fit around their work, family life and other commitments, while others may want to return full-time to upskill or retrain. Ultimately, the LLE is about creating an education system that keeps pace with people’s lives and our changing economy. It will help people build the knowledge and skills they need throughout their careers and support the workforce and economy into the future.
The Government’s response to lifelong learning, however, is broader than that single programme. We are building a system of post-18 education, skills, adult learning, career advice and higher education. Adult education helps people access new opportunities, enables employers to find the skills they need, helps the economy and builds stronger, healthier and more resilient communities. A number of Members have referenced the impact on isolation.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
On the Minister’s point about building stronger communities, does he agree that lifelong learning should also include civics education? Having a detailed knowledge of our political system is not and never should be the criterion for having the vote. None the less, gaining a better understanding of the political system, the different roles within it, and people’s rights and responsibilities would enhance our democracy. Perhaps further education colleges or schools could offer opportunities across the country for adults to dip into that civics education throughout their lives, and we could have a healthier democracy as a result.
Josh MacAlister
As a former secondary school citizenship teacher, that is music to my ears. Understandably, the current focus of the LLE and the adult skills agenda is, rightly, very much on ensuring that people can get that route into the dignity, pride and security that comes from work. Given some of the threats and challenges that our democracy faces, there are wider debates about how we ensure that not only our institutions, but our society is more resilient and deeply democratic. Education is crucial to that.
As a Government, we are investing in education and skills training through the adult skills fund, which has been referenced by a number of Members. It is worth £1.4 billion a year and supports adults to access skills training up to and including level 3, so it sits just below the LLE. That covers a broad range of provision. By fostering adult learning through the ASF, we are not only supporting learners to gain the literacy, numeracy, digital and other vocational skills that they need for meaningful employment, but driving sustained economic growth and innovation.
I welcome news highlighted in this debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) of the restoration of the union learning fund by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in September. It aims to generate 180,000 learning opportunities through the restoration of that fund and speaks to not only the values of the Labour party, but the demonstrable evidence of collaboration between industry and workers when it comes to the pipeline of future talent and skills that are needed in the economy. As the Member of Parliament for Whitehaven and Workington, I am very proud to represent those people who work at Sellafield, which has a very strong history of union engagement in learning opportunities.
Good careers advice is an essential part of lifelong learning. It gives people the confidence to make informed choices, whether they are leaving school, moving into work or retraining later in life. For young people, we are strengthening careers guidance and expanding meaningful work experience opportunities. Strong careers provision is associated with an 8% lower likelihood of becoming not in education, employment or training, with twice the impact in the most disadvantaged schools. That is why we the Government are turning that evidence into practical action.
We want every young person to benefit from two weeks’ worth of meaningful work experience built up over time during secondary school, rather than through a single placement. That will obviously have an impact later in those young people’s early adult lives. Careers hubs have already been testing that approach with more than 2,500 young people, 66 schools and 114 employers. For adults, the developing jobs and careers service will bring careers and employment support together. It will help people find work, progress or retrain as jobs and skills change in the economy.
There is a whole range of other matters that we have not had time to cover in this debate. Those include the role of devolution in adult skills funding, changes that were made by this Government to the funding formula for adult skills in 2024, and changes to the apprenticeship levy. All of those will help in the effort that my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley has highlighted by securing this important debate. I also put on record my thanks to the u3a organisation highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Michael Payne).
To wrap up, I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley for securing this debate and thank all of those who have contributed to today’s discussion. Although we have not had time to cover every base, it has been an important debate and one that needs to continue in the months and years ahead. I welcome further discussions and engagement on the issues considered today.
Question put and agreed to.
Heating Oil Prices: Rural Areas
(1 day, 6 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
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of heating oil prices on rural areas.
I thank all the many Members who have come along to this important debate on addressing the growing impact of rising heating oil prices on rural households. I am very grateful for the opportunity to lead the debate.
This issue is causing real anxiety the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, and particularly in my far-north constituency of Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. For many people in the highlands of Scotland, using heating oil is not a choice, but the only practical way to heat their homes—especially during the winter months, when it is a lot colder than in other parts of the UK—because homes are scattered across a vast geography and the main gas grid is not really accessible; there are not many access points in my constituency. Lots of households that rely on heating oil do not benefit from the same protections as those connected to the main gas grid and electricity networks—that point has been made several times in this place. The regulatory safeguards do not really cover those people, and they are very much hit by sudden price increases.
My office tells me that across the UK, about 1.5 million homes, a substantial proportion of which are in rural communities, rely on heating oil. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has highlighted that rural households typically spend 10% to 20% more on everyday essentials than their urban counterparts. They are also susceptible to higher levels of fuel poverty, because they often live in older, detached properties that are more difficult to insulate, meaning that they have poor energy efficiency.
As Members will be aware, the conflict in Iran has caused severe disruption to global energy markets.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
As usual, the hon. Member is making an excellent, well-informed speech. Does he agree that it is rather sad that, given the absence of any support in the Budget, people in our constituencies are looking to the mid-term elections in America to lead to peace in the middle east and a reduction in prices?
Jamie Stone
The hon. Member makes a characteristically interesting point, in which there may be some truth.
The price increases because of the war in Iran have led to some households having their bills doubled or even trebled. Age UK has given me some stats, and here are a couple of examples. One 80-year-old man with serious health problems saw the cost of filling his heating oil tank double from £400 in January to £800 in March. Imagine that.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Last week, a constituent got in touch to say that she had had to make a minimum order of 500 litres of oil at the cost of £560, meaning that she was out of cash for the rest of the month. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to bring down minimum orders as well as look at issues affecting the price of oil?
Jamie Stone
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend.
Let me give one more example: a couple in their 70s, for whom the increase has been equally alarming. Their bill rose from £300 to £700, despite one of them having suffered a stroke and needing to be kept warm, for obvious health reasons. These are not abstract stats, but real people—vulnerable people who are trying to manage their household budgets, pay the bills and keep their houses warm. I have talked several times in this place about elderly and vulnerable people having to make the invidious decision either to freeze or to switch on the heating and worry about running into debt.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman; he has done a great service in bringing this matter to the Chamber for our consideration. In my constituency, as in his, the vulnerable people are often in isolated communities; I think of Holbeach Hurn, Holbeach St Johns, Gedney and Fleet Hargate. Those people depend on heating oil, and they do not enjoy the same kind of protection that other energy users do. It is as simple as that. The Government need to act.
Jamie Stone
The point is extremely well made.
Being a cheeky chap from the north of Scotland, I thought it would be wise to write to the Chancellor ahead of the Budget to make the case for targeted support for heating oil customers. I am a little disappointed that the measures that were announced did not go quite as far as I had suggested, but—
Lara Bird (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this incredibly time-sensitive and critical debate, and for the points that he has made so far. Does he agree that it was incredibly disappointing for the people in our constituencies who rely on heating oil who were looking to the Budget to provide them with solutions that not a single penny was allocated to support them? Furthermore, does he agree that the UK Government should take lessons from the Scottish Government, who have implemented the emergency heating oil support fund, which so far has helped more than 7,000 people?
Jamie Stone
The hon. Member makes a good point. She may be cornering me into agreeing with something that the Scottish Government have done, which does not necessarily go with the grain of my psyche. Let me put it this way: the United Kingdom Government will be hearing from me again in yet another of my letters.
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
I agree with the hon. Member that households reliant on heating oil, including those in my constituency of West Lancashire, face particular issues, especially around price volatility and the absence of the consumer protections that users of electricity and gas might have. But does he not welcome the Government’s previous £50 million investment in supporting the sector, including working with Ofgem, the industry and consumers to bring forward consumer protections? [Interruption.]
Jamie Stone
Thank you very much, Mrs Barker; aren’t these Divisions annoying things?
The hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) made an extremely fair point in her intervention. I have previously welcomed the Government’s commitment of £53 million, which she mentioned, to help households struggling with soaring heating oil prices. That was a move in the right direction, and I give credit where it is due. The support was well meant, but the trouble is that, balanced against the 1.5 million homes that use heating oil, it is only about £35 per household.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. Thousands of my constituents rely on heating oil. Although the Government are taking VAT off electricity and have announced the removal of standing charges for electricity customers, those things do nothing to help heating oil customers. Does he agree that the Government really need to focus on those customers to ensure that they are getting the help they need?
Jamie Stone
I do agree. Hopefully, a debate of this nature will gradually, through good will on all sides and among all political parties, shift the focus on to the sort of people we are talking about.
There is also concern about the take-up of the schemes and the practical difficulties involved in identifying households. Age UK has highlighted the challenges facing organisations and local authorities in reaching out to people who desperately need the help. Perhaps we could all collectively work with the Government to ensure that steps are taken to support people to get what they desperately need.
Turning to my own party’s specific proposals, we have called for three months of zero-rated VAT on domestic heating oil. I appreciate that a VAT reduction would not necessarily reverse the international price increase that is so bedevilling this issue—it would not solve the underlying problem—but it would provide practical assistance at a time when households are facing exceptionally high bills. To quote somebody more august than me, it would be a “breathing space”. For that reason, I encourage the Government to properly assess the cost and practical implications of a temporary reduction in VAT. We will see what comes of that, but I make that appeal to those on the Government Benches.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I support the idea of a VAT freeze. Hundreds of my constituents rely on heating oil. A pensioner couple in my constituency ordered oil at 60p a litre in February; the order dragged on and was cancelled, then they were told that they could reorder at 124p per litre—more than double the price. Although a VAT freeze would not roll that back, it would go a long way towards helping those people out.
Jamie Stone
Yes, that is absolutely correct.
I live in an old, stone-built house in the highlands, and its only source of heating, apart from anything electric we put on, is an oil-fired boiler. People have raised with me issues around price transparency and whether the quotation is really what it says, because the quoted price and the final delivery price are not always the same thing, and we do not seem to have a proper complaints or redress process. For older and vulnerable people—the people I have talked about, who worry about whether to put the heating on and run into debt or what to do—it can be particularly difficult to navigate.
I welcome the Government’s acceptance in principle of the Competition and Markets Authority’s recommendations, and their commitment to bring heating oil customers within Ofgem’s regulatory remit. That can only be a good thing, but I ask for a clear timetable, because households have waited a long, long time. Hon. and right hon. colleagues will know that this is not the first time that I have gone on at some length about this particular issue, so that would be handy.
As many Members wish to speak—I thank each and every one for coming—I will make one final point: we must look beyond the immediate crisis to the long-term solution. I think we would all agree with that. It is not sustainable simply to respond every time international events cause heating oil prices to rise. We need to make rural homes warmer, more energy-efficient and cheaper to heat.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The challenge is compounded by the nature of the housing stock in rural constituencies. Friends of the Earth says that in my constituency, 12% of people are living in fuel poverty and 62% of homes have an energy performance certificate rating of D or lower. Does he agree that part of the solution is making our homes more sustainable in terms of energy?
Jamie Stone
I entirely agree. As we know, doing this work on some older properties is incredibly difficult. I am bound to say—I return to where I started—that when I ask my constituents in the highlands, in the very far north, “Well, what about a heat pump?” many laugh at me and say, “You’re joking—in this old croft house? That is not feasible at all.” We have to be practical about what we can do.
I am very grateful to the many Members who have turned up to the debate. I believe it is the start of a discussion, and we are all on the same sheet. Let us make it happen and see what we can do for some of the most vulnerable in society.
Several hon. Members rose—
Paula Barker (in the Chair)
Order. I will be imposing an immediate two-minute limit on speeches.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this important debate.
I pay tribute to the Labour Government for putting heating oil on the agenda for the first time; for a long time, most Governments have ignored off-grid homes. I know that the hon. Member would recognise a peat turf if it were thrown at him. Peat is how most homes in my Na h-Eileanan an Iar constituency were heated traditionally, but of course most have now been converted to oil. Forty-eight per cent of homes in the Western Isles rely on heating oil. Because of the age and condition of the homes, the Atlantic weather and the demographics of the population, 40% of households are in fuel poverty. In fact, it is worse than that, because 24% of households are in extreme fuel poverty: they spend over 20% of their income on keeping their homes warm in winter. Heating their homes is a huge challenge.
That is why the £53 million heating oil support scheme, and the £10 million to Scotland, was very welcome. The Scottish Government added £5.4 million to the £4.6 million from the UK Government. They had to do it bigger and better, and they centralised it. The result, of course, is that none of the money is getting to the Western Isles. Only 324 of the nearly 13,000 households there—3%—have received support, and another 337 have been turned down. The picture in Scotland is no better: there have been 13,900 applications, but only 7,000 have been declared eligible, and there are 169,000 households in Scotland that rely on heating oil, most of them in rural areas.
Instead of bleating about the mid-term elections or what the Budget can do for them, I think SNP Members should do what I have done: write to the Scottish Minister and ask for the eligibility rules for heating oil support to be expanded to take into account rurality, isolation and insularity, and for a reduction in the 500-litre minimum order, because some households cannot afford 500 litres. We call on the Scottish Government to extend the criteria to take in rurality and insularity, and to ensure that this money gets out the door.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing the debate.
When I led a debate on heating oil in April, constituents were being asked to find extraordinary sums just to keep warm. Seven months on, that problem remains. More than 10,000 homes in North Norfolk rely entirely on heating oil. One constituent’s delivery has risen from £800 to £1,400, and others have seen the price jump from 55p to £1.34 a litre in just two months. Households have to find all that money at once; they cannot just put 20 quid’s worth in the tank and hope it gets them through the week.
We know that these extraordinary price rises are a direct consequence of Donald Trump’s disastrous war in Iran, cheered on by Reform and the Conservatives, and ordinary households in North Norfolk are left paying the price. That is why I will not stop calling for a heating oil price cap. I welcome the Government’s response to the CMA investigation and their commitment to stronger regulation, but regulation alone will not protect people from the next price shock. Gas and electricity customers have a cap, but my constituents do not, simply because they live beyond the gas grid. The Government have ruled it out, but I ask the Minister to please reconsider that.
In the meantime, there is something that the Treasury could do now. One constituent’s bill has more than doubled, and VAT is still added on top. For months, I have called for VAT to be removed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said. That would be about 50 quid back in my constituent’s pocket. It would not solve everything, but it would ease the pressure on households facing a huge up-front bill, so I again ask whether the Minister will take that to the Chancellor. People in North Norfolk accept that rural life brings challenges, but they should not have to accept being punished financially for it. I hope the Minister recognises that today.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I have heard from constituents in the rural parts of Cannock Chase that they often feel forgotten in national discussions about energy, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this debate.
For people many in semi-rural constituencies such as mine, heating oil is often the only realistic means of heating their home. Last month, I held a coffee morning in Prospect Village and spoke to Ian and Linda, who are on oil. They told me that the price they were facing trebled over a single weekend. Although they recognise that the cost of crude oil is outside our control, households on oil are effectively left to the mercy of market forces, which is why we need greater regulation in the market. I very much welcome the Government’s plans to introduce that for the first time. I am glad that minimum delivery quantities are being looked at; as has been said, that will help households to manage the massive up-front costs of heating oil.
The present situation underlines why we must accelerate the transition to clean and affordable energy, generated in Britain, to cut our reliance on imports and strengthen our energy security. For rural communities, the transition must be practical, affordable and fair, and we must recognise that not all households are the same, so a one-size-fits-all approach will not work. The enhanced £9,000 heat pump grant for off-grid properties was introduced in recognition of the extra costs that many rural households face when moving away from heating oil. Heat pump uptake is still lower in rural areas, and the subsidy is due to expire at the end of this financial year. I hope the Minister will look carefully at extending it so that rural households have certainty about the help that will be available to them. My constituents Ian and Linda are keen to get off oil, but they need help to do so.
To end where I started, we must ensure that the households we represent that are reliant on heating oil are not forgotten. As we make the transition, I hope Ministers will keep rural households at the forefront of their thinking. These families face unique challenges, but they deserve the same protection, certainty and security as every other household in the country.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member from the very north of the highlands, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), for securing this important debate.
Those of us who own an oil tank have all been there: that dreaded moment when we stick the upside down broomstick into the tank and pray that there is more oil in there than we know there actually is, because we know that means that a big bill is coming. And we put it off—as I did once, which resulted in us running out of oil on Christmas eve. The only occasion forgotten less by my wife is the time I forgot to get the septic tank emptied and it exploded on the public footpath down the side of our house—that was great for my electoral prospects.
I am not alone in Fylde: nearly 10% of houses in my constituency are not connected to the national gas grid, and it is as high as 14% in areas such as Singleton and Greenhalgh.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
In my constituency, a huge number of houses in the Worth valley are impacted by the lack of Government support with heating oil. Does my hon. Friend agree that there was a major missed opportunity in Labour’s Budget to look at the implications of reducing VAT on heating oil?
Mr Snowden
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It was an opportunity missed.
There are 4,765 houses in my constituency alone that are not connected to the grid. In Fylde, 28% of people are over 65, compared with a national constituency average of about 18%. That means we are dealing not just with rural isolation and rural poverty, but with the health and wellbeing of older people. As other Members have said, households with oil tanks often have septic tanks and other infrastructure that is far more costly to operate and maintain than being connected to the grid in the traditional way. That compounds the issues that are being felt now.
As the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said, the funding the Government set aside works out at £35 per house. The average price of oil has gone up by about £1 per litre and the average home uses about 2,000 litres of oil, meaning that support covers less than 2% of the cost increase facing the average household. Many of my constituents have made that point to me. I encourage the Government to move faster and find more ways of supporting those people who are reliant on oil to heat their home, as the bills they face will be crippling over the winter period.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for bringing about this important debate.
With the conflict in Iran and the blocking of the strait of Hormuz, the price of crude oil shot up, which directly impacted about 2,700 homes in my constituency. The UK Government provided £4.6 million of targeted support to be administered by the Scottish Government to help families, so it is disappointing to see that only half of that money has been spent. I call on the Scottish Government to urgently review the criteria and the process to get the Scottish emergency heating oil payment out. It has been far too slow to get to those who need it most.
Since prices began to spike, I have heard deeply concerning accounts from families who budgeted for one price, only to find themselves facing skyrocketing costs after orders were cancelled and costs tripled. That has left too many of my constituents feeling held hostage by fuel suppliers in an unregulated market. I welcome the action taken by the Competition and Markets Authority to secure compensation for affected customers and to recommend stronger protections for heating oil users. I also welcome the removal of the 4% tariff on kerosene announced in the Budget last week.
The Government and regulators must ensure that we have a robust and fair framework for families and businesses that rely on off-grid energy supplies. We need robust regulation and zero tolerance of companies that exploit their customers. Those who exploit heating oil consumers should face tough penalties and public scrutiny to ensure that my constituents get a fairer deal now and in the future.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
I congratulate the Member across the Moray Firth from me, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), on securing this debate.
In Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey, 44% of homes are off the gas grid, and over 60% rely directly on oil central heating—more than triple the Scottish national average and nearly six times the UK average. Across Scotland as a whole, 142,000 households depend on heating oil to keep warm, yet while grid-connected homes have an energy price cap, which in itself is going to see a huge increase, off-grid households have no such protection.
Heating oil is an unregulated market, leaving consumers massively exposed to price volatility. When prices reached 123p per litre, an average household using 2,000 litres faced an annual bill of nearly £2,600—more than £869 higher than the main energy price cap, and that does not include electricity on top. A pensioner in Findhorn wrote to me after paying £1,205 for just 1,000 litres of kerosene, describing it as simply unsustainable. Pensioners with severe medical conditions report orders exceeding £900 per tank, forcing them to choose between heating their homes and buying basic essentials.
Powers over energy market regulation and consumer protection remain with Westminster, yet Ministers refuse to institute price caps or regulate minimum delivery thresholds. That underscores a fundamental truth: Scotland is an energy-rich nation, yet under Westminster control, forgotten homes are left out in the cold.
Graham Leadbitter
No, I will finish.
With independence, Scotland would take full control over energy market regulation, price caps and consumer protection, preventing such a crisis from happening in the first place.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
From homes and farms on the outskirts of Stirling to rural communities stretching towards Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, including Aberfoyle and north to Killin, and Crianlarich on the edge of the highlands, heating oil is not a lifestyle choice. It is the main source of warmth for thousands of households across my constituency, and many have contacted me, deeply worried about the sharp rise in heating oil prices and the impact on their household finances. Prices have more than doubled, placing enormous pressure on families, older people and some of the most vulnerable in our communities.
Understandably, there is anger and frustration—frustration that households that are reliant on heating oil do not enjoy the same protections as those connected to the gas and electricity networks, and anger that this long-standing disparity is yet to be properly addressed. There is also a wider challenge that goes beyond the immediate pressures of heating oil prices. It is about fuel poverty, the particular circumstances of rural communities and how we deliver a fair and practical transition to cleaner and more affordable heating.
The support available to households can be incredibly difficult to navigate. Across the four nations of the United Kingdom, we have different definitions of fuel poverty, different schemes and eligibility criteria, and a complicated mix of responsibilities among Governments and energy providers.
Torcuil Crichton
My hon. Friend is making a great speech. When it comes to delivering support, the system is complicated. In Scotland, it is centralised rather than delivered through councils, which means that less than half the £10 million of heating oil support has gone out the door to consumers. Does my hon. Friend agree that the money should have gone to local authorities and areas that would have more efficiently handled it?
Chris Kane
As a former council leader, I can say that councils, regardless of their political colour, are crying out for the Scottish Government to recognise exactly what can be done if local authorities are empowered to deliver good local services—it does not happen enough. I hope that the SNP Government in Edinburgh realise they can do more to empower local communities through local authorities.
How do the Government intend to work with the devolved Governments to deliver a more co-ordinated approach that recognises the particular challenges facing off-grid communities? We need targeted action that gives people greater protection today while helping them to move toward more affordable and sustainable heating in the future. Whether someone lives in Stirling, Aberfoyle or a remote home near Crianlarich, they deserve the same basic reassurance that they can afford to keep their home warm and will not be left behind in the energy transition.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing the debate.
South Cotswolds is one of England’s most off-grid constituencies. One in five households there relies on heating oil, which is around four times the national average. One constituent wrote to me last month that they feel “forgotten about”. Costs have doubled for families already paying a rural premium of 10% to 20% on everyday essentials and living in some of our hardest-to-heat homes. Unlike gas bills, heating oil must be paid for in a large lump sum when the tanker arrives. There is no Ofgem price cap, which leaves households exposed to volatile global markets and decisions made thousands of miles away.
I welcome the Government’s efforts and the work of Wiltshire council and the Centre for Sustainable Energy to get support to those who need it, but £53 million across 1.5 million oil-heated homes works out at just £35 each—enough for about 30 litres. The 4% tariff suspension is welcome, but it hardly compensates for prices doubling, and removing gas standing charges is no help to people without gas.
I have three asks of the Minister. First, will she press colleagues for a clear timetable to regulate the heating oil market? Secondly, will she push for further support through the crisis and resilience fund? Thirdly, will she commit to rural-proofing future energy and cost of living measures so that people are not disadvantaged simply because they live beyond the gas grid. Being off the gas grid should not mean being off the Government’s radar.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
I commend the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this important debate.
As the first missiles went into Iran, bills doubled for the households in my constituency that use heating oil—there are about 5,000 of them. It was a terrible moment, and I am really pleased that the Government stepped in with the £53 million we have been talking about. In March this year, £5 million was given to the Conservative-run Northumberland county council for the crisis and resilience fund, which can be used for heating oil. The CRF can be used for heating homes, but it is very opaque; it is unclear how that money is being used and how much has gone the door. I have been asking, and I have not yet got a clear understanding.
I am pleased that Labour have provided further relief. They are providing £100 for energy bills for households in council tax bands A to D this winter. They are cutting the kerosene tariff—I will be chasing suppliers in my constituency to make sure they pass that on to consumers—boosting the boiler upgrade scheme, and so on. It is welcome that we are bringing in regulation to heating oil.
All the responses we have heard today follow an important principle: do not mess with the market when it is working, and do not let the market mess with people when it is not—that is where we have to step in. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister: what if higher heating oil prices are here to stay? What can we do in the medium to long term? I welcome the short-term measures we are taking.
Last year, I spoke to a development trust in Norham that wants to introduce a local grid in my constituency using renewables, solar and wind. Great British Energy, which I fully support, is supposed to support little communities like that. If we can circumvent this problem and get people off heating oil where possible, and if we can empower communities to have local grids, that is what we should be pursuing. Will the Minister say something about progress on that?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing the debate.
In the brief two minutes I have, I will speak about the situation in Northern Ireland. I remind the House of a stark, unyielding reality: for the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, the energy price cap is a complete myth. The official statistics tell a story of systematic vulnerability: 5% of households in Great Britain rely on domestic oil heating, but 63% of households in Northern Ireland depend entirely on oil central heating. In the rural community of Strangford, where I live, dependency skyrockets to an astonishing 82%. I doubt that there is anywhere else in the United Kingdom where the figure is 82%. In Strangford and the Ards peninsula, people cannot flick a switch and rely on a regulated utility grid; instead, they are forced to watch the price of a drop of kerosene like a hawk. When the price of crude spikes, off-grid families face an immediate, brutal financial penalty. In a matter of just three weeks, we watched the average cost of 500 litres of home heating oil almost double.
What does that mean for a working family, small farmer or pensioner in Strangford? They are looking at an up-front lump-sum demand of more than £1,000 just to keep the radiators warm. If they cannot find the cash, they are left with an empty tank and a freezing home.
Mr Snowden
There is a perception that a lot of the households on oil are rich or in large houses, but in rural communities a lot of the houses that depend on oil are actually smaller properties, where there is rural poverty and isolation.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman is right. The Minister will be listening to the facts.
In Northern Ireland, fuel poverty stands at 22%—nearly a quarter of the population. Our people are being disproportionately punished simply because of where they live. We need an urgent, comprehensive strategy that bridges the gap between off-grid rural communities and the rest of the United Kingdom. I implore the Minister and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to work urgently with the Northern Ireland Executive to deliver sustained structural protections. We must ensure that a child growing up in rural Strangford is afforded the same basic right to a warm home as a child living in metropolitan London.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. In my constituency, 3,603 households are not on the gas grid, and rely on either heating oil or alternative fuel for their heating. One Belton resident who recently contacted me lives in an older house that is not connected to the mains network. They rely entirely on oil to heat their home. A year ago, it cost £864 plus VAT to fill up their heating oil tank. This year, they were quoted £1,700 plus VAT—almost double.
Traditionally, households have tried to manage the costs by filling their tanks in September, when prices are often at their lowest, but prices this high mean that, even with careful planning and budgeting, the money only goes so far. A full tank will last my constituent only till the end of January, before winter is even over, and they will then face another, potentially even higher bill. My constituent said that this is simply impossible to afford on their household income. The price has doubled, but their income has not. They are not protected by the energy price cap. Rather than being able to spread the cost across monthly payments, they have to find thousands of pounds up front to cover the uncapped cost.
I welcome the Government’s recognition of the particular challenges facing heating oil customers, including through their recent of announcement of plans to introduce stronger consumer protections. Heating a home is not a luxury; it is a necessity. People should not face additional financial insecurity simply because they live in a rural community without access to the mains gas network. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how we can ensure that households across Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme, including the one I just mentioned in Belton, will benefit from the proposed improvements to consumer protections, particularly when it comes to managing the substantial up-front cost of heating oil.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. During the autumn recess I had the opportunity to tour villages in my constituency. Heating oil costs were the issue that came up time and again. Over 30% of households in Waveney Valley are off the gas grid—the highest percentage of any constituency in the east of England. As many hon. Members have said, heating oil is unique because, unlike households that use mains gas and electricity, heating oil users are not protected by the energy price cap and are therefore exposed to global energy shocks, geopolitics and market volatility. Hon. Members have all heard cases of people having to choose between heating and eating, and of pensioners and children going to bed at night cold. That simply cannot be right in 2026. We cannot allow large swathes of our citizens to have to make, at the whim of Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin, that choice between heating and eating.
The Government’s response so far has not been adequate. As we have heard, the £53 million that was invested last April amounts to only £35 extra for each household. That hardly scratches the surface. Even scrapping VAT on heating oil, which would be welcome, would save only £50 for a £1,000 purchase. What do we need most? First, regulation of prices in the sector; secondly, far more significant assistance through councils, which are having to stretch the funding they are given further and further; thirdly, as other hon. Members have said, proper investment in home insulation measures. Announcements in last week’s Budget that seemed to suggest cuts to the warm homes plan take us in the wrong direction. We also need investment in things such as renewable heating systems that can work in rural communities. Those green measures are essential but they are, of course, not enough for this winter. Efforts to reduce costs and to help people right now are absolutely needed.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this debate. The cost of heating oil has been very much at the forefront of the minds of my South West Norfolk constituents over the last seven months. Some 25% of homes in my constituency rely on heating oil; that is thousands of properties. The sudden increase in price left many in a desperate situation. My constituents, like the constituents of many hon. Members in this debate, are already paying a rural premium, given the additional costs linked to rurality. I was pleased that the Government responded quickly with the £53 million national support package. In Norfolk we got a larger share of that package than any other county council in the country, with more than £3 million for our county. However, I am furious that Reform-led Norfolk county council has barely lifted a finger to promote that support service. I have looked at the council’s social media and could barely find mention of the fact that the fund is available. My team and I have been working flat out to encourage people to apply. Many people in Norfolk who rely on heating oil are in the west of the county, and we are particularly affected.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
Some 11% of my constituents in Banbury rely on heating oil. Like my hon. Friend, they welcomed the £53 million provided by the Government. In our case, Oxfordshire county council has also done very little to make people aware of that money. Does my hon. Friend agree that national and local government need to do more to make people aware of the help that is already out there for people who rely on heating oil?
Terry Jermy
The Oxfordshire example is a huge shame. It seems that there are many examples around the country. There is money sat waiting in council bank accounts that could be put to use to support local people.
Torcuil Crichton
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a devolutionary lesson here? When money is handed out from Departments, there must be transparency and accountability from devolved Governments such as that of Scotland, from councils and from local authorities?
Terry Jermy
I am sure that the Minister will reflect on my hon. Friend’s point. There absolutely needs to be learning from this process. This is a desperate situation. The money needed to be spent quickly and here we are, months later, with it sat in bank accounts, not being used.
Andrew, one of my constituents, lives in Welney, a very small village in my constituency. At the time of the crisis his wife was going through breast cancer. He was completely unaware that the help was available. We managed to get him £350-worth of support. I hope that, in her response, the Minister can talk more about what the Government can do to pressure councils to get that money out the door to help my constituents and those of other hon. Members in this Chamber.
Several hon. Members rose—
Paula Barker (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that we are on a tight timeline. It is up to colleagues if they wish to accept interventions, but they may want to be mindful of that.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
When heating oil prices go up, rural communities across Yeovil really feel the impact, yet as Trevor from Hardington Mandeville and many other constituents pointed out, the Chancellor did little to nothing to support heating oil issues. Heather put it best:
“The weather is getting colder and yet again people in rural communities seem to be forgotten.”
Many constituents have also written to me about how the biggest impact of heating oil cost rises comes from minimum-value orders. Residents have described having to order 500 litres at a time, which is totally unaffordable. I have also heard from residents in Haselbury Plucknett and North Perrott who are facing fuel poverty yet still do not qualify for Government support. As a result, they are having to dramatically cut usage, but being pushed to use less misses the bigger point. When prices are so high and there is no particular alternative to heating oil, there is only so much people can do before it begins impacting their quality of life, particularly over the winter.
Catherine from Chard’s last order cost her just shy of £2,000 for 1,500 litres. Both Catherine and her tenant are retired and would have liked to have kept the heating off and worn jumpers to save money. But Catherine says she cannot do that as her tenant is struggling to recover from a stroke, and she refuses to risk their health to save money on bills. Their property is off grid and upgrades are difficult or impossible without serious work.
Too many heating oil users like Catherine are stuck between a rock and a hard place and need Government support. I hope the Government will look to improve targeted support so that struggling constituents in Yeovil are not left out. If the Government really want to give rural communities breathing space, we need a price cap for heating oil. Rural communities simply cannot afford to bear the rising cost of heating oil any longer. It is all well and good having No. 10 North, but what we really need is No. 10 rural.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this debate.
In Truro and Falmouth, 5,000 homes are off the grid. Like others, I welcome the £53 million of support and the regulation of the market for the first time. Similarly to other councils, Cornwall council was given £1.53 million and is handing it out in pockets of £300 for people who get council tax support. However, only £402,000 has been handed out so far. The council is doing a second round of funding and putting it into the crisis and resilience fund, but people need to know that is available. We need to push that out further.
In Kehelland village in Cornwall we have piloted hydrotreated vegetable oil—a renewable fuel that is not from the middle east. It simply needs technical consultation with heating oil suppliers and a statutory instrument for that renewable fuel obligation to be rolled out in a similar way to how it is for transport. That could really help. Many villagers in Kehelland are pleased with what they are getting and would like to see it rolled out further.
The warm homes plan will of course help people move to renewables, but in Cornwall, many houses are listed properties or in conservation areas and people struggle to make differences to their homes that will enable them to keep the heat in and make the use of the warm homes adaptations.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. First, let me say to the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) that we have all been there, but we use a runner bean stick rather than an upturned broom.
The cost of heating oil is a major issue for my constituents in Caerfyrddin, and I welcome the Government’s decision to include off-grid households in the £100 energy support payment, which has been implemented by the Plaid Cymru Welsh Government. Unfortunately, most rural homes are not in bands A to D. In Wales, heating oil prices have risen by 103% since January, increasing the annual cost from £605 to £1,620. Rural communities are bearing the brunt of those increases.
I ask the Government for more support with those costs. Will they consider reducing VAT on domestic heating oil to provide direct and immediate relief to households, as others have asked? In the long term, we need to ensure that schemes that support the transition away from oil heating are properly funded, as the majority of rural homes are pre 1910 and cladding is not an effective option.
I am proud that Caerfyrddin ranks 16th in the UK for heat pump uptake, demonstrating that households are willing to make the transition when support is available. The MCS Foundation has warned that if installations continue at their current rate, next year’s budget could be exhausted within six months, and with the off-grid boiler upgrade scheme grants due to fall from £9,000 to £7,500 in the next financial year, it is vital that households are made aware that applications must be submitted before 31 March to secure a full grant.
Too often, rural communities are an afterthought in energy policy. The reality is that families who have no access to the gas grid are paying the highest prices to stay warm this winter. Rural communities, including those in Wales, need action now.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I commend the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing such an important and timely debate. It is a pleasure, as always, to stand alongside my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), as well.
I want to start by speaking about a family who work four jobs between them, a tenant who cannot insulate her own home because she does not own it, two pensioners who do not qualify for further support, and a full-time worker on a modest salary. In rural communities, those are the people who are used to falling through the cracks and who are used to the system simply not working for them.
I have limited time, so I want to focus on what I would like to see the Government do: that is, to consider rural communities when making policy. For far too long, possibly because of the complacency with which some of these communities were represented by their constituency MPs in the past, rural areas were not particularly advocated for. I urge the Minister to consider in particular the importance of protecting those consumers and of doing what the Conservatives never did in government: to look at fixing the roof while we can. We must fix things before the crisis occurs and a time-sensitive decision is needed.
I want to praise the Government for seeing a problem and taking swift and immediate action. When the missiles started flying in the strait of Hormuz, it was a matter of days rather than months before money was committed, but the Government need to think about future crises and what we can do to avert them. I welcome the points made by colleagues on decarbonising houses. It is an open question. I urge the Minister to find ways to support rural households, as well as the businesses and community spaces that communities rely on. They might be off grid, but they must not be shut out.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone)—my dear friend—for securing this important debate. In North East Fife, about 14.6% of households are off the gas grid. It is not as remote as my hon. Friend’s, but it is a rural constituency.
I want to share the experience of one of my constituents that illustrates the reality facing many households today. My constituent uses an electric heater in her daughter’s bedroom rather than turning on the boiler in order to preserve her remaining oil supply for hot water. Her energy costs mean that she has less money to spend on her overall costs, and she is now building up a credit card debt that she is trying to service. She told me:
“I can’t take my daughter to visit her grandparents because I have to ration fuel for school runs and food shopping. I make excuses because I’m too embarrassed to admit I can’t afford the 80-mile round trip.”
No family should be forced to make choices like those.
I have met with Ministers to discuss the impact not only of heating oil prices but of the rising costs of liquefied petroleum gas and red diesel. That is creating additional pressures for rural households, farmers and local businesses. I agree with other Members that while immediate support is essential, we need to focus on long-term solutions. The answer to helping people to cope with high-energy costs cannot simply be to mitigate those costs; we need to do things permanently.
That is one of the reasons why my Scottish Lib Dem colleagues in Holyrood, and indeed colleagues in Westminster, continue to advocate for an emergency home upgrade programme. I have to say, however, that constituents’ experiences with schemes such as energy company obligation 4 are really damaging and have eroded consumer confidence in making the move to more zero carbon, zero emission and better heating.
Older homes need to be heated to be maintained. It is a real challenge for people. We need to reduce that reliance in the longer term because, as we have heard, families across North East Fife and other rural constituencies absolutely deserve better.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
My constituency covers St Austell bay, the clay country and Newquay, and it contains many households who are not connected to the gas grid and remain heavily reliant on heating oil. For those families, fluctuations such as those we have seen in oil prices can have a very stark impact on household budgets, particularly through the winter months. We need a practical solution and a transition towards cleaner heating.
I know that switching to a heat pump like the one I have in my home will not be right for everyone, but for those who do wish to go down that route, substantial support is available, including the £7,500 boiler upgrade scheme and the warm homes loans, which should go some way to dealing with what is sometimes, but certainly not always, a significant up-front cost. For now, there is of course the 4% tariff abolition. I will follow the lead of my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) and ensure, with local companies, that those savings are passed through to the consumer. We will need to push the Minister for crucial industry reforms, such as a reduction in minimum order volumes.
I would like to hear whether the much-needed Government crisis and resilience fund, which previously gave £53 million to users of heating oil, can be extended, and whether more similar support can be given to councils. If so, I would like to see our local council in Cornwall ensure it reaches a broader base of users.
I know there is more to do, such as greater support for insulation and solutions that work for off-grid homes. Clean liquid fuel such as HVO can play a huge role, as we have heard. I am interested to hear the Minister’s view on how to support those fuels and what steps the Government can take to provide additional support for heating oil users right now.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I congratulate my southern neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing time for today’s debate.
Orkney and Shetland have the highest levels of fuel poverty of any community in the country. I have heard colleagues complain about having a number of homes with no access to the gas grid. I share their pain, but we have absolutely no homes connected to the mains gas grid. That is something of a bitter irony because, for the past 40 to 50 years, the gas that has heated homes in the rest of the United Kingdom has for the most part landed in either Shetland or Orkney, only to be shipped south. When we heard the Chancellor last week in the Budget abolish standing charges for gas but not electricity customers, that felt like another kick in the teeth.
Given the shortness of time, I have a few asks of the Minister today. When will we see the extension of the abolition of standing charges for electricity as well as gas? Those not relying on heating oil, rely largely on electric storage heating. When will we see meaningful regulation of the heating oil market? At the very least, that regulation should include a reduction in minimum orders and introduction of a price cap, which would allow some certainty in budgeting for those who rely on heating oil.
Finally, as we move towards reliance on renewable energy, when will we see a meaningful package for community benefit and assistance with bills, so that those who live in the shadow of pylons and turbines are given access to the cheaper electricity they desperately need?
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Ind)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing the debate. In my remote coastal constituency of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle, more than 5,500 homes rely on heating oil as their only source of central heating. In villages such as Kehelland, Mawnan Smith and Port Navas, it is closer to half.
I warmly welcome the two-year kerosene tariff suspension announced in the Budget, alongside the previous Chancellor’s £53 million crisis and resilience fund for low-income households, and plans to strengthen consumer protections and tackle price gouging. For many, heat pumps are an answer, but they are rarely practical or cost-effective for older off-grid remote homes. Fortunately, Cornwall has part of the answer.
As mentioned, residents in Kehelland have been trialling the use of HVO for the past five years. A 20% HVO blend can reduce carbon emissions by up to 90%, while cutting consumption by around 18%, without a costly retrofit for a heat pump. The legislation already exists for a renewable liquid heating fuel obligation, which would enable HVO to be deployed at scale, but we still await the necessary technical consultation. I therefore urge Ministers to examine the Kehelland trial in depth, to reassure themselves that the supply issue they have imagined does not exist, and to set out specifically what further evidence is required, so that HVO can be realised as a low-carbon, efficient option for remote off-grid homes.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing this important debate. Since March this year I, like many Members, have been inundated with pleas from my constituents, including 79-year-old Barbara from Launceston, who said:
“Will the Government please do something about the soaring prices of heating oil? I already can’t afford to put fuel in my car. If things don’t change,”
she is not sure how she will make it through this winter.
In some of the most rural parts of North Cornwall, in villages such as St Breward and Blisland that surround Bodmin moor, up to 97% of households are completely off the mains gas grid. The cost of their heating oil per tank has gone from around £400 up to around £1,200 or even £1,500. Many also rely on liquefied petroleum gas, with no specific support or targeted support outlined so far. They often have no option to switch to a cheaper provider, and when the cold sets in, as it is right now, many face a long and perilous winter of damp and freezing cold.
Finally, in the words of an elderly constituent from Nanstallon:
“Many elderly folk like us, who have lived off grid all their lives, cannot afford solar panels or heat exchangers—we are stuck with oil and LPG.”
Will the Minister please address our concerns and our calls for a price cap on heating oil and LPG, for a free month with zero VAT on heating oil and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) already said, the removal of standing charges on electricity, as well as extra support for rural households to insulate and upgrade their homes?
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Mrs Barker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing this debate and on his tireless work on behalf of the off-grid households in his constituency. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken today.
The issue is not just a highlands problem, or even a Somerset problem. It is a problem for all rural households across the UK. Around 1.4 million homes are off the gas grid, and many of them have no choice but to heat their homes with oil. The war in Iran and Donald Trump’s reckless trade wars have sent shock after shock through global energy markets. This week, at the mid-term elections, the American people rejected the politics of division and voted for hope. They also rejected a President whose answer to every energy question is, “Drill, baby, drill”, and who pulled America out of the Paris climate agreement. But a weakened President is not a more predictable one and rural households here are still desperately exposed.
Since the war in Iran began, the price of heating oil has risen by around 80%, and yet not one of the 1.4 million households is protected by Ofgem’s energy price cap. The result is a two-tier energy system: one set of rules for homes on the gas grid and another for rural Britain. Behind the figures are real families facing a very difficult winter. A household on mains gas pays as it goes, protected by a price cap with a regulator to turn to. A household on heating oil has none of that. They have to pay in bulk, often many hundreds of pounds in a single bill just as winter sets in, so families are forced to make impossible choices. They heat one room and close off the rest. They go to bed early just to keep warm, or they put off ordering and run the risk of their tank running dry. Too often rural Britain is an afterthought when policy is made, and heating oil is yet another example of that.
Phil and Jenny, who live in North Barrow, paid 77p a litre in February. They are now paying nearly double that and cannot afford to heat their home this winter. The Government have announced three measures on energy costs. Not one of them properly reaches a home like theirs. The first is removing unfair standing charges; that is the right thing to do, but it does nothing about the cost of heating oil. The second is removing tariffs on kerosene. Again, that is welcome, but the UK trade policy observatory at the University of Sussex has found that 83% of kerosene imports already come into Britain tariff-free. So, I ask the Minister: will she publish the Department’s own estimate of how much this tariff cut will save a rural household?
The third measure is the £100 rebate that was announced last week. Any help is welcome, but will rural households actually get it? Oil-heated homes tend to be bigger, older and harder to heat, and many fall outside the scope of the rebate altogether. How many households that are reliant on heating oil does the Minister expect will receive the rebate? This is a two-tier system, so will the Minister commit that every future energy support scheme is properly rural-proofed, with a published assessment of how many off-grid homes it will reach?
My constituent Jill is a pensioner who lives in Horsington. She is the legal guardian of her grand-daughter and, apart from child benefit, she receives absolutely no help at all. She wrote to me recently to tell me that she cannot afford to fill her oil tank, so her grand-daughter will be coming home from school to a cold house.
Following pressure from the Liberal Democrats, and from many other hon. and right hon. Members present, £53 million of support was made available in March. However, that equates to about £35 per home, so that support was really limited, and delivery through local councils has created a postcode lottery for rural households. Will the Minister publish details about how much of that £53 million has been spent and by which councils? Will any unspent money be topped up and reallocated before the coldest months arrive?
Heating oil is only one part of a wider cost of living crisis in the countryside. The rural premium means that rural households spend 10% to 20% more on everyday essentials. With few buses and longer journeys in rural areas, a car is not a luxury; it is a lifeline. Rural households already face a fuel poverty gap of £987 compared with households in towns and cities.
Many rural communities have found their own way to fight back, through oil clubs and consortia. Across the Glastonbury and Somerton constituency, oil-buying clubs are a lifeline for rural communities. By clubbing together and placing one combined order, they secure customers a better price and a more reliable service, and in addition fewer tankers need to travel along our rural lanes. However, that only works if suppliers honour the price they quote. When the war in Iran began, some suppliers refused to honour quoted prices or to quote a price at all, so oil clubs were forced to suspend trading just when households needed them most. The Competition and Markets Authority found that around 1,700 customers had orders cancelled, and many were forced to reorder at higher prices or simply go without.
I welcome the Government’s decision to accept the CMA’s recommendations: a code of conduct now and a new regulatory regime to follow. However, will the Minister set out a clear timescale, so that rural families and oil clubs are protected this winter, not next winter?
I believe the CMA got one thing badly wrong: its decision not to recommend a price cap. It argued that a cap could reduce competition, but in too many rural areas there is very little competition to protect. On the Isle of Wight, for example, households have just one supplier. Where there is no competition, a price cap does not damage the market; it protects the consumer. Will the Minister commit to zero-rating VAT on heating oil for three months and to a price cap mechanism that protects off-grid homes this winter?
Emergency support must get families through this winter, but without urgent action on how rural homes are heated, we will be debating this same crisis every winter, and rural families will keep paying the price. As long as our rural homes depend on imported oil, they will be at the mercy of global events, whether that is the war in the middle east or the decisions of a volatile President, which can drive up the price of filling an oil tank in Somerset overnight.
Energy security is national security, which means speeding up the transition to renewable energy—the cheapest and cleanest new power, which is generated right here in Britain. For rural households, it means an affordable way of getting off heating oil, but by July, the warm homes local grant had upgraded just 5,470 homes—0.1% of its target. Yet last week’s Budget cut £1 billion from warm homes plan grants. The Liberal Democrats would instead deliver a 10-year emergency home upgrades programme, starting with free insulation for low-income households. Will the Minister ensure that the new home energy model properly reflects older, off-grid rural homes, so that they are not wrongly assessed and shut out of support?
In an unstable world, rural households face a cost of living crisis, and they cannot be treated as second tier again this winter. I have three asks of the Minister. First, will she publish the figures on what the tariff cut will really save rural households? Secondly, will she zero-rate VAT on heating oil for three months and introduce a price cap mechanism for off-grid homes this winter? Thirdly, will she reverse the cuts to the warm homes plan and give rural households an affordable route off heating oil? Rural Britain has been an afterthought for far too long this winter. The Government have a choice: stand with rural households or leave them out in the cold.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this important debate and for his thoughtful and eloquent speech. We have had a good debate this afternoon, which has highlighted the additional costs that fall upon our rural communities. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) for his contribution, and I trust that he will not forget to top up his tank before Christmas. The hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) highlighted the need for local councils to take a proactive approach to getting Government money out the door as quickly as possible. It seems that some councils are not doing that terribly effectively.
About 1.4 million households across the UK rely on heating oil, predominantly in rural areas, including many in my constituency. For those households, using heating oil is not a choice. Most are not connected to the mains gas network and have little practical alternative when it comes to heating their homes. They face particular challenges. They are exposed to unpredictable delivery costs and the burden of paying hundreds, sometimes thousands of pounds, up front to fill their oil tanks. Many are older and more vulnerable households, which simply cannot absorb sudden price shocks.
Recent international developments have demonstrated just how exposed those households have become. Disruption to oil supplies and shipping routes drove up household prices, with consequences quickly felt here in the UK. Households that had been paying £300 for 500 litres of heating oil suddenly faced quotes of between £600 and £1,000. For many families, that was simply unaffordable.
The Conservatives raised these concerns with the Government at the time and, after rather too much delay, some support was eventually provided through the crisis and resilience fund. While welcome, it addressed the consequences rather than the cause of the problem. That is why the Competition and Markets Authority’s investigation was so important. Following reports of cancelled orders, sudden price increases and demands for additional payments, the CMA identified significant concerns in the way that parts of the market were operating. The CMA intervened where suppliers may have breached contractual obligations by cancelling orders after prices surged, and secured compensation for affected customers. I welcome that intervention. However, investigations after the damage has already been done do not fix the issue.
I know that the Minister will refer to the Government’s intention to regulate the heating oil sector. I welcome the fact that action is finally being considered, but households deserve more than good intentions. Can the Minister tell us when the Government expect to implement the CMA’s recommendations and when consumers can expect to see tangible improvements? What timetable has been set for the Government’s work on price transparency and consumer choice, and when will Parliament be updated on the progress? Those questions matter because winter does not wait for reviews, assessments or consultations.
Some of the announcements in the Budget may have sounded impressive on the day, but for many households they will hardly be noticed. There may be £100 for certain households, but when some people’s energy bills are set to rise by more than £500, many will reasonably ask, “What was the point?” It is clear, however, that the Chancellor has at least noticed the Conservatives’ cheap power plan. Cutting VAT and scrapping carbon levies on energy bills—I find myself wondering where he might have got those ideas from. The broader problem is that the Government appear more interested in managing the consequences of high energy prices than in addressing their causes.
David Smith
On the hon. Member’s point about managing consequences, I welcome his positivity about the things that the Government are doing, but does he agree that it was a terrible idea for the last Government to abandon the UK’s gas storage in 2015?
Sir Ashley Fox
That is a complicated issue, because of course the cost of managing Rough would have meant a levy on gas bills, so it is not quite the easy solution that the hon. Member proposes. It is not as if gas storage automatically reduces all gas bills; in the long term, it may actually lead to higher costs for gas consumers. It is an important issue, but that is not the simple fix that the hon. Member claims.
The United Kingdom possesses significant oil and gas resources, world-class expertise and a highly skilled workforce, yet key decisions continue to be delayed. The decision on Jackdaw, for example, was delayed for months. I wonder why. Could it possibly have been an inconvenient by-election in Holborn and St Pancras? The future of Rosebank remains uncertain. Time and again, Ministers have chosen hesitation over action.
Good policy is not simply making an announcement; it is having a plan, delivering that plan and achieving results. That is the test by which households reliant on heating oil will judge this Government: are their energy bills lower? For millions of people, this debate is not about regulation or market design; it is about whether they can afford to keep their homes warm this winter. Rural families should not be disadvantaged simply because they live beyond the gas grid. Affordable energy should not depend on someone’s postcode, and far too often this Government forget our rural communities.
The Government talk repeatedly about managing expensive energy. That is not enough. People do not want expensive energy to be managed; they want energy to be made affordable. Let us therefore have clear deadlines, measurable commitments and action, not an obsession with process. If Ministers cannot tell households when they will feel the benefit of those reforms, all they are offering is more process and more delay. Families facing another winter of high costs cannot afford to wait. Those households need lower bills, warmer homes and a Government focused on making energy cheaper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ms Polly Billington)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank everybody who has spoken in the debate, and indeed their correspondents and constituents, for raising the issue of heating oil and the powerful ways in which they have conveyed it here in this Chamber.
It will be of little comfort to those people that the situations that I hear about in my own correspondence regarding heating oil keep me awake at night. The reality is that, for far too many families in this country, our exposure to the global energy crisis is felt most strongly by people who simply thought that this was the way they would be able to heat their homes for good. That change is a profound and difficult transition for them, which we as a Government have a responsibility to support them through.
Others have mentioned those 1.5 million homes and talked about the thousands of people affected in their own constituencies, and we recognise those particular challenges. It is worth while, however, thinking about how we are addressing that in the context of the wider global energy crisis and the efforts that we have already made.
This is an extremely difficult international backdrop. Some Members have mentioned how hopeful they are because of the midterm results overnight, but I tell this Chamber that, even if there were to be a full and complete ceasefire in Iran now, we would not see a return to the comparatively low prices we had before. Half of the recessions since 1973 have been caused by fossil fuel shocks. I have enormous respect for the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), but if we are to protect these families in the future, we need to get off the fossil fuel rollercoaster, not simply talk about drilling more—anywhere at all, frankly. Oil and gas will continue to be part of our energy mix for some time to come, but continuing to allow these families to be exposed to the fossil fuel rollercoaster would be a dereliction of duty.
That is why it is so important that we have committed to the boiler upgrade scheme, for example. I slightly correct my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), as the scheme actually provides £9,000 for off-grid homes. The last quarter saw a 120% increase from this time last year in the number of people applying. That indicates that people can see that, if they want to reduce their exposure to the appalling consequences of this fossil fuel crisis, the best thing to do is to take advantage of the scheme and adopt cleaner heat technology.
I reassure those colleagues who mentioned that the housing stock in their communities is possibly not suitable. The Department has done a significant amount of work on this, and it suggests that more than 90% of households will be suitable for heat pumps. That will include many of the households that are currently exposed. This is not, in any way, shape or form, enough on its own. We have an emergency, bearing in mind that it is early November.
Wendy Chamberlain
I mentioned the ECO4 scheme. I accept the Minister’s statistics on suitability for heat pumps, but one of the key challenges is that we have few fully qualified tradespeople capable of carrying out this work. That is why my constituents have been left with completely substandard work when they have tried to implement changes.
Ms Billington
I am sure the hon. Lady will agree that it would be helpful if the Scottish Government understood the importance of devolving the responsibilities for this kind of thing to local government in Scotland, and ensuring that local government has the skills, powers and potential to deliver the jobs and skills that will be required. That is part of our commitment under the warm homes plan. I would like to see that fully implemented in co-operation—I believe in problem solving, not point scoring—with our partners north of the border.
It is important to think about this in the context of the other things we have done. The £100 household energy payment will be made to everyone with a house in council tax bands A to D from January, and 19% of those homes—that is 3.9 million—are in rural areas. The idea that this will not reach those people is not true. Remember that the temporary zero VAT rate on domestic electricity will extend to 98% of people who use heating oil, because they are also on the electricity grid. That will benefit them.
Mr Snowden
The Minister has just quoted the number of houses in council tax bands A to D in rural areas. Does she know how many of those houses are not connected to the grid? We need to know whether these are people in small houses in villages, or whether the measure is actually getting to the people who use heating oil.
Ms Billington
I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to clarify that 19% of the people who will qualify are in rural communities and off grid. I am pleased that they will benefit.
Remember also that everybody who is on the electricity grid will benefit from the reduced policy costs on bills, which is worth £150. We have also extended the warm home discount, a £150 rebate for people on means-tested benefits, to 6 million households. These are not inconsequential efforts in taking some of the pressure off people and creating the breathing space that is required.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for her comprehensive and confident approach to the questions. She is right that this is about solutions—life is about solutions. I mentioned that 82% of my rural community need oil to survive, so they are greatly impacted by this. The Minister and the Government have given some help, but when such a large proportion of my constituency, and 65% of households across Northern Ireland, entirely depend on heating oil, do they have any other ideas for how help and alleviation can be given to those who entirely depend on heating oil?
Ms Billington
We have allocated £17 million to Northern Ireland for precisely the reason that so many people there depend on heating oil. It is also important to make sure that the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive take up the opportunity to shift and accelerate people away from dependence on heating oil by using schemes similar to the boiler upgrade scheme that we have in England and Wales.
A lot of Members talked about the Competition and Markets Authority recommendations, and how we are accepting the recommendation to regulate. This is a long time coming. I remind the hon. Member for Bridgwater that we had an oil crisis when his party was in charge, and there was neither a decision to call in the CMA nor a decision to regulate. In fact, people who have been involved in energy campaigning and strategy for a long time are saying, “Thank goodness! This has been decades in the making.” The fact we have not had regulation in this space has caused significant problems for decades.
Through the Energy Independence Bill, which has been published today, we will be able to bring forward a new general authorisation regime to take the powers needed to bring heating oil within a proportionate regulatory framework and to strengthen protections for consumers, particularly vulnerable households. It will take time to get that regulation right, and I am sure that hon. Friends and colleagues will be aware that there are large risks in regulating at speed unless we are absolutely clear that we have ironed out all the potential risks. For this winter, we need to ensure that there is voluntary co-operation with the UK and Ireland Fuel Distributors Association and the Northern Ireland Oil Federation to ensure that providers sign up to voluntary codes of conduct and behave properly this winter.
Remember, it was the Competition and Markets Authority that enforced and secured compensation for consumers who ended up either having their orders cancelled or being charged excessively at the beginning of this conflict. That is the kind of regulation we need to see in future, and I am keen that we will be able to do that, including on minimum order volumes, which Members have talked about, and payment schemes. It is unconscionable that, for electricity, one can have a fixed tariff, a direct debit or a prepayment meter, if they are really struggling, yet people on heating oil cannot manage things in the same way.
I am extraordinarily grateful to everybody who has contributed to debate today. I am conscious of time, and I want the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) to be able to sum up, but I assure people that the concerns of rural communities around heating oil, exposure to the fossil fuel rollercoaster and the global energy crisis are absolutely at the forefront of my mind as the Energy Minister for consumers. It is absolutely essential that we establish an energy market that works for people. Notwithstanding the particular things that are helping at the moment, in the long term we will reform the energy retail market not only for those on heating oil but for everyone, so that we can benefit from the clean energy we are generating ourselves and give ourselves resilience and security that we have not previously had because of our exposure to fossil fuel shocks.
Jamie Stone
It is most encouraging, to be absolutely honest, to see a Minister who seems to be on top of her brief—a generally good impression has been made. I thank each and every hon. and right hon. Member who has spoken. The collective discussion we have had today advances our cause in the right direction. That is one of the better things we do in this place, and I hope people watching this debate will take some comfort from it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of heating oil prices on rural areas.
Illegal Off-road Bikes: North-east
(1 day, 6 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
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered police powers for tackling the use of illegal off-road bikes in the North East.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank all the Members who have come to support the call for more police powers, police resources and a multi-departmental approach to tackling the scourge of e-bikes, battery-powered bikes and off-road bikes on our streets. Since I was elected with this Labour Government in July 2024, it has become increasingly clear that battery-powered bikes are the getaway vehicle of choice for those who do not respect the rule of law.
I alert the House to my constituent Julie Francis, who is in the Public Gallery today. Her mother, Gloria, was killed in Sunderland by a teenager illegally riding an off-road bike. Julie is as determined as I am to get more resources, and to get justice for Gloria, herself and the family.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Gloria Stephenson was my constituent, and her tragic death in Ryhope really affected our community. Does my hon. Friend agree, as the number of Members present suggests many of us do, that we need swifter action to prevent such tragic deaths in future?
Lola McEvoy
I absolutely agree that we need more powers, more action and more police on our streets to tackle this. I have some points on powers and resources that I ask the Minister to address in her remarks. She and I have previously met to discuss this. It is a cross-departmental issue, and as a group we will be meeting the Department for Transport to address some of the licensing issues, but this debate is about what the police need now.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for raising this issue, and she is absolutely right. I share her concerns, which we have back home, too. We have been working on a cross-party basis in the Assembly to ensure that the Justice Bill enables the Police Service of Northern Ireland to seize scooters and bikes right away, without warning. Does she agree that the Minister should commit herself—I know she will—to sharing best practice across the regions to stop those reckless riders turning our public parks into dangerous racetracks?
Lola McEvoy
As always, the hon. Gentleman makes a clear and coherent point.
I ask the Minister to consider bolstering police powers to support our communities, which regularly report antisocial behaviour in the form of balaclava-clad battery bike riders. The police’s problem is that they do not have the resources to send out a police helicopter and a full squad to chase down those people every time antisocial behaviour is reported. The issue in Darlington and across the north-east is that e-bikes are also the vehicles of choice for organised crime.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
My hon. Friend and I have worked very closely on this issue. It is helpful to highlight that we are talking about two types of bike: dirt bikes, which have been around for more than 100 years, and e-bikes. The problem is that dirt bikes are unlicensed, so riding them on a road, in a park and so on is illegal. Similarly, when a non-compliant electrically assisted pedal cycle is ridden on a road or in a park, it immediately becomes illegal.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the sale of non-compliant e-bikes and the horrible kits that create them should be banned? A number of police, fire and crime commissioners across the country have asked for that. Does she feel that the solution for dirt bikes is that they should have a registered keeper when they are sold and that, if they are going to be used off road, they should have a statutory off road notification?
Lola McEvoy
My learned and hon. Friend is the expert on this issue in the House, and I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree. In the interests of time, I will not reiterate the points I agree with, because I agree with all of them, and they were part of my speech, but I ask the Minister to please address them.
I agree that we need to ban the sale of e-bikes, but I am concerned about the use of antisocial behaviour as a reason against the police being forced to take action on this issue. I would like the prolific use of off-road electric bikes in our communities to be increased to a criminal offence.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
One way we can help the police is to better educate the public. We are in the run-up to Christmas, and it is generally misunderstood that e-bikes are not legal in our parks, on our roads or on our pavements. One young constituent found that out to his cost: he had owned his e-bike for only a couple of weeks, but he rode it on the road, and it was seized and crushed. Should we not say to parents, “Do not buy them this Christmas, because you are likely to lose them”?
Lola McEvoy
I absolutely agree. I have written to some high-street retailers that sell battery-powered scooters, which are popular among the younger generation. Children also use them to copycat and mimic the criminals that we see across Darlington. That is an escalation in antisocial behaviour, and it is really dangerous for those children.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we should ask the Minister to consider targeted funding? The shoplifting element of the safer streets programme, and the police operation we had, were really successful. We need targeted funding with better intelligence and transparent data about where bikes are being seized and crushed.
Lola McEvoy
I agree that we need targeted funding, including for police vehicles in Durham and constabularies across the north-east. Having the ability for a police team to use a motor vehicle or a motorbike is an effective way of catching these criminals. The problem is that it is a game of cat and mouse. The police have to go round all the alleys in Darlington and across the north-east, and they do not have enough power. We need deterrents too.
Lola McEvoy
I will make some progress. One of the deterrents I ask the Minister to consider is repeat reporting in hotspots. Neighbourhood policing needs more resources if it is to act as a deterrent. We would like to see increased police resources in estates or parts of the town where there is repeated antisocial behaviour involving off-road bikes.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. I thank her for her tireless work on this issue. At a recent meeting that I convened on this issue at Beamish museum with stakeholders including the police, local authorities, emergency services and community groups, a key theme raised was the need for stronger enforcement powers. Will my hon. Friend join me in urging the Minister to extend to police community support officers, as well as police officers, the power to stop and seize these bikes and report road traffic offences? That would give them the tools they need to tackle this persistent antisocial behaviour.
Lola McEvoy
I agree that PCSOs need further powers to be able to tackle the use of these bikes and to seize them. I attended a crushing, if that is what it is called—that word is new to my vocabulary—of 70 of these vehicles, which was incredibly satisfying; I really enjoyed myself. However, it is not enough to confiscate them. The public do not want to see them. They do not want them on the streets. We need to probit their sale, impose consequences for those selling them and strengthen community powers to ban them from areas.
Adam Dance
On community, a lot of residents in my constituency are scared to leave their home because of people with masks and balaclavas on riding scooters and e-bikes. I spoke to a resident who has not left her home in three weeks because she was knocked over the last time she did, and the police are just not doing enough. Will the Minister write to Avon and Somerset police to give PCSOs the authority to have handcuffs? We are one of the only places in the country where PCSOs do not have handcuffs.
Lola McEvoy
Unfortunately, I do not know enough about that bit of the legislation, but I am sure the Minister does and will address that point.
The use of balaclavas to evade detection is intimidating. The fact that the bikes are not licensed, plated or chipped means that the riders have a getaway vehicle. If the police were to catch and prosecute them, they could confiscate and crush the bikes, but that is not enough of a deterrent and the balance is weighted in favour of those using them.
I would like the Minister to consider our points. We are seeing an increase in blatant disregard for the law. There are reports of these criminals wearing balaclavas, drug dealing in plain sight in the street, and carrying machetes and other very dangerous weapons. It seems that they are willing to take the risk because they do not think they will get caught. As I said, the police are making incredible headway with Operation ORB, which is about seizing and crushing these bikes, but things seem to be weighted in favour of the criminals.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
In Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme, this problem destroys not just lives, but livelihoods. We are giving grants to community centres to get people out, but people are scared to go. Farmers and rural communities are having their livelihoods swept away by this horrible scourge. Will the Minister give us some reassurance that we will give our police more preventive measures to catch these people?
Lola McEvoy
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.
Will the Minister consider addressing the powers around this use of off-road vehicles, including antisocial behaviour orders? Using a public spaces protection order to ban the use of balaclavas and off-road bikes in Darlington town centre, for example, which I have called for, would mean that a police officer had to go and find somebody who was not committing a crime, but who was wearing a balaclava and using an off-road bike, and then issue them with a £100 fine for being in breach of the PSPO. Will the Policing Minister address the concerns about the deterrent being skewed, and not in favour of the public? A £100 fine is not enough of a deterrent, and the person has to be caught. We need to make sure that there are other deterrents in place, such as confiscation.
There are also problems with the licenses for riding these vehicles and with who is buying them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) mentioned, these scooters can be bought on the high street, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) knows well, kits can also be bought online to change what could be seen by a parent as a pretty safe and fun vehicle into a really dangerous vehicle. We need to address that with more deterrents and tougher punishments.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for leading the debate and for her national leadership on this issue. She makes important points about additional powers, but those powers need policing resource. Just a few weeks ago, we debated Durham constabulary’s financial challenges in meeting the requirements of increasing crime. Does she agree that, as well as additional powers, Durham police must have the proper funding they need to lead a crackdown on this appalling problem?
Lola McEvoy
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. The funding formula is not in Durham police’s favour. We need funding formula reform, and we need it soon. I would also say that it is all well and good funding neighbourhood policing, which will act as a deterrent, but we simply do not have the resources to tackle the organised and very serious crime that is often masked as antisocial behaviour. I would argue that the scourge of balaclava-clad people on electric battery-powered bikes and dirt bikes on our roads is encouraging a more blatant flouting of the law in other areas.
I ask the Minister to address the fact that although communities are making a comprehensive attempt to report the use of these off-road bikes, by the time the police turn up, the culprits have obviously fled on those vehicles wearing a balaclava, and go completely unidentified. I therefore ask for some investigation into tracking the sale of these bikes or into other ways we can identify the wearers, who are blatantly dealing drugs in the town and surrounding areas.
I know that the Minister will be meeting the Department for Transport to address lots of these issues in a cross-departmental approach, but I ask that the Durham and north-east police forces, which are on the frontline, are seen as a pilot for any interventions. We have been given drones by our police and crime commissioners, but they are only as good as the police officers on the ground who follow them. It is all well and good seeing where the bikes are going, but if officers cannot then go and identify those using them, because it is seen as too little of a crime to drive one on the road, then it is not in their interests to use those resources to follow them. It is also not in the police’s interests to engage in a very dangerous high-speed chase down the main roads, because they know that that will endanger pedestrians.
I ask the Minister to understand some of the challenges we are facing in Darlington and the surrounding areas. I urge her to see what I have said not as an MP clutching her pearls and saying, “We are a lovely town”—which we are—“and we deserve better,” but as a canary down the mine for what criminals think they can get away with. If it is happening in Darlington in the north-east, you can bet your bottom dollar that it will happen right across the country.
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) for securing a very timely and important debate.
I will start by making the basic point that I absolutely recognise the challenges my hon. Friend describes. As an MP in Croydon, I have very similar challenges, and there are similar challenges across the country with this emerging nasty problem with off-road bikes, e-bikes and e-scooters. It is probably safe to say that every MP in the country has a challenge with them.
It was a privilege to meet my hon. Friend and her constituent to talk about the awful death of her mother. It was an impactful experience that made me think about the need for us to act and do more. I hope that those who have lost loved ones or been injured, and the MPs who have had conversations with them, can be reassured that we are looking very carefully at this challenge in the Home Office and across Government.
On the wider issue of funding and how we tackle these challenges, I am acutely aware, as my hon. Friend said, of how important it is to have police presence in our communities, and I am very aware of the wider challenges in the north-east with police funding and numbers.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way?
Sarah Jones
I know exactly what my hon. Friend is going to ask me, but I will happily give way.
Luke Myer
The Minister will be sick of me raising this, but I promised my constituents that I would continue to bang on about it. I urge her to remember Cleveland police in all the conversations she has around police funding, and of course the wider north-east, which hon. Members have mentioned.
Sarah Jones
The funding situation for Cleveland at the moment is that we have secured the money to cover the mutual aid costs that Cleveland has borne—just over £5 million. Durham and Cleveland have both applied for what we are calling exceptional finance for next year and are both through to the next stage, where the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy does an analysis of the challenges. It will look at the financial resilience of the organisations and the context within which they operate, so both those forces will be going through to that. We are doing a lot of internal work on the funding formula, which we will say more about soon, but the exceptional finance will be for this financial year. The year starts in January, but the announcements will be made in December, so we are looking at those issues now. Obviously, within the funding window, it is important to say that local police are operationally independent, so it is for them to make the decisions on the tactics they want to pursue.
There have been many questions about what we can do at a national level to support the tackling of this challenge.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I emphasise that my constituents want to see extra resource and devolved powers to our local authorities to address the scourge of e-bikes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) eloquently put it. I also want to make the Minister aware, if she is not, that a consultant at the Royal Victoria Infirmary told me that the hospital’s 36% rise in open leg fractures in the last three years is due to increased e-bike use. There is a cost to young lives and to the NHS. Is she working with her Department of Health and Social Care colleagues to look at the costs and at how they can be addressed by the policy she can put in place?
Sarah Jones
That is a shocking statistic. We will certainly take that away and see whether that is replicated elsewhere. We will ask our NHS colleagues to see whether there is data on that and how it is gathered, but that would be useful.
On what more we can do, I am having a series of conversations with MPs and I will do a couple of roundtables. I know a lot of MPs are interested in this space—I understand there is a WhatsApp group—and want to give their views. We have obviously taken some steps, such as the powers to seize these vehicles and not have to give notice, and the powers to extend dispersal orders, as well being able to dispose of these vehicles quicker than before.
On the point my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington made about PSPO breaches, we have increased fines to £500. It is not the answer to everything, but it is at least something, going from £100 to £500. We are looking at a number of different areas, and all the things that have been suggested are things we are looking at. I cannot promise that there will be magic money and, although I would like to, I cannot wave a wand and give all police forces extra money to tackle this problem, but we are very much looking at this challenge in the round and I know that the Home Secretary is very interested in this area, too.
There are legal changes we can think about, which obviously involve the need for legislation and to go through that process, so what are the things we could do sooner rather than later? How much can we corral police forces that carry out big operations that take these vehicles off the streets and dispose of them, and look at that nationwide? There are issues around training for officers, which we are looking at. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington talked about the dangers of pursuing someone, but to be able to pursue, officers need a level of driving training. We need to look at whether there is an issue with the number of officers we are training. I talked only today with the new inspector of His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services, who has just started his new role—he was the head of the College of Policing—about the things in this space that we can think about doing.
There is obviously a big piece of work to be done across Government about the rules for how these things can be used. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington about people not understanding that a lot of this is illegal is absolutely right. The existing legal situation is messy when it comes to what someone can and cannot do, and we need to work across Government to address that.
Lola McEvoy
I would have liked to have addressed a few easy wins, but in the interest of time maybe the Minister could address them now. One issue is that a lot of people who are caught are under 18 and do not have a driving licence. Is there any avenue to addressing that through the parenting orders? For example, if someone’s child is caught riding one of these on the road, there could be knock-on consequences for their driving licence.
We had an incident in Darlington where parents were ringing up the police and asking when they could get the confiscated vehicle back. It is not the same thing as when a teacher confiscates a child’s phone for using it in school; these bikes are illegal and dangerous and have no place on the road. We need to differentiate that for parents by applying some consequences, if we cannot do it for the young people themselves.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend raises a good point about what to do with under-18s. We have just introduced respect orders, which are useful in this space because people who are consistently antisocial and driving these bikes are prime suspects for respect orders, which can result in a criminal offence—people can end up in prison if they breach their conditions. But respect orders do not apply to the under-18s. We need to look at our under-18s and make sure that, whatever the antisocial behaviour is, there is deterrence and interventions, as well as support where the child is vulnerable and may need it. I will take that away and commit to looking into it.
We need to look across Government and the consider the different laws that exist around these vehicles. In the Home Office, we need to be thinking about what bit of legislation, what change, or what corralling in policing we can do, and how we can send out messages about what is and is not legal. We are considering all of these issues in the Home Office. Now is the time to have these conversations, and we are looking at what we can feasibly do.
There is a general point around bikes and antisocial behaviour, which is that post covid there has been a big increase in antisocial behaviour that policing has not kept on top of, largely because of resources. This is a symptom of that. We have to make it clear to our communities that there is a way to behave and a thing to do, and that there will be consequences if people do not stick within the law. The message to all our fair, law-abiding citizens should be, “You are abiding by the law, and we are grateful for that. These other people will not get away with what they are doing.”
I am thinking about what the quick wins are, what longer-term wins we need through legislation and how we can make sure this is not seen as in any way acceptable.
Lola McEvoy
I thank the Minister for being so generous with her time. Something that comes up a lot on the doorstep when we talk about this issue is that it is the same small group, and everybody knows who it is. They might say, “Everybody knows who it is and they are always driving these bikes in and out the house.” Obviously, I do not know because they will not tell me who it is, so there is an issue there with the neighbourhood policing.
Is there any support that the Minister could give police around repeated multi-problem hotspots and families, where it is known by the community? This is driving down public confidence in the police, as well as how people feel on a day-to-day basis, as has been raised by many hon. Friends across the House. It is making people feel intimidated, scared and miserable, as well as being a danger. Can the Minister address that?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is the wider issue here of the years of austerity that ripped away services that supported parents and families to be the best they can be, whether Sure Start or the various iterations of family interventions over the years that have been ripped away. The police can do only so much. There is an infrastructure issue around our other public services. That is something we will look at.
I want to touch briefly on PCSOs because they have been raised a couple of times. Certain powers are given to PCSOs by each force. Different areas do different things with their PCSOs. Some, for example, are able to use drones, but others are not. On a basic level, they cannot arrest people or carry weapons. There are certain rules about what PCSOs can do, but within that local forces have some flexibility. I will take away the questions about that. I am always keen to encourage more PCSOs and their use as much as possible. I am very happy to take that away and look at it.
Lola McEvoy
Let me put on record the stellar job being done by PCSOs on the beat in Darlington, across the north-east and in every other constituency. I am sure that everyone will agree with that. PCSOs take huge personal risk for very low pay, and they work often gruelling shifts.
One PCSO—she would not like me to name her—was incredibly brave when she found two people on an off-road bike. She followed them, jumped them and got the bike; but when they turned around and realised that she was on her own, they got the bike back and assaulted her. It is deeply disturbing that that is the level we are at in the lovely town of Darlington. It is not right that the balance is so skewed in favour of those who do not respect the law. Will the Minister keep her in mind when increasing the powers of PCSOs?
Sarah Jones
I will certainly keep that in mind. There are lots of extraordinary examples of PCSOs showing great bravery and being really important crime-prevention agents as well as fighting crime in our local communities. It would be wrong of me not to say that three police officers have died in my hon. Friend’s region over the past year. We pay tribute to them and what they have given for their country. We will continue to do that, and we are very grateful for what the police do.
I absolutely hear and am having lots of conversations about the need to look at this challenge, recognise it and see it. The Home Secretary recognises and sees it, and we are very much in the market for the things that we can do. It is, therefore, a very helpful time to have this conversation and debate. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed and encourage them to keep talking to me and others in the Home Office. I will convene some roundtable sessions, and we need a proper cross-Government session as well. I thank my hon. Friend for raising such an important matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Potholes: Suffolk
(1 day, 6 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
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered potholes and road maintenance in Suffolk.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker, and I thank everybody for staying a little bit later as the House rises and everyone disappears on recess.
I will be honest: upon being elected, my focus was fighting for better schools in Ipswich and rural NHS services in Suffolk, as well as supporting small and independent businesses. I never for a moment imagined that I would become immersed in the issue of road maintenance—but, of course, events changed that.
Over the past 12 months, the condition of roads across my constituency has deteriorated massively, largely as a consequence of three major problems that have perfectly converged. First, extreme weather exacerbates fractures in the road surface. This is commonly known as the freeze-thaw cycle, and involves rainwater seeping into cracks before freezing in sub-zero temperatures, expanding in the process. In November 2025, there was some 107 mm of rain across Suffolk, followed by a significant cold snap; temperatures on the night of 20 November dropped well below 0°C and overnight frosts continued for the rest of December, somewhat unsurprisingly for that time of year. Those conditions wreak havoc on our roads.
Secondly, there has been a significant uptick in heavy-duty traffic across Suffolk roads, a consequence of increased activity at the Sizewell C site as well as increased housing construction across the county. On any day there can be between 500 and 600 heavy-duty vehicles, some with police escorts and carrying abnormally large loads, using the A12 between Martlesham and Leiston. Then there has been a proliferation of new housing developments, bringing more activity of heavy goods vehicles along quiet country roads. East Suffolk’s housing target has gone from approximately 800 homes per year to more than 1,600. Mid Suffolk has also seen its housing target more than double. Grundisburgh, Framlingham, Wickham Market and Debenham are all expanding towns with ancient road networks connecting them to the outside world.
The point of my speech is not to bemoan the impact that construction is having on residents—that is for a different day. Nor is it to question the ongoing commitment by Sizewell C to managing congestion on the A12—a topic it is very much alive to and trying to manage. It is to highlight the impact that development and other things are having on the road surfaces around our county.
The third cause of poor road conditions across Suffolk in recent years, in my opinion, is a shift in the way we allocate capital. The A12 was partially de-trunked in 2001, meaning that everything north of Ipswich fell in strategic importance and priority. It joined the A1120 and other arterial roads under the responsibility of the local highways authority, which spent years dealing with short-term funding arrangements, and then inflation eroded longer-term pay deals.
I said this morning to the BBC that this debate should not be about point scoring, so I pay credit to Suffolk county council: progress has been made in recent years in dealing with the problem. Between 2021 and 2025, the council repaired some 88,329 potholes. Each year, more potholes were repaired than were reported, showing that the council was not only responding to new issues, but dealing with existing defects.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman is bringing forward an issue in Suffolk, but the fact of the matter is that potholes are a major issue in all our constituencies. Is he aware of a new system for repairing potholes? I understand that there will be a cost outlay, but the return is that it fixes the potholes more quickly, more efficiently and better. If we have a better system of doing it, is it not time for the Government to encourage all councils to use that new system, to ensure that potholes are repaired better and more quickly and the issue for the motorist is taken away sooner?
Patrick Spencer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment; either he has read my speech or, as usual, he is far ahead of the curve, because I will get on to talk about the Dragon Patcher and the JCB Pothole Pro later on. He is absolutely right.
To get back to where I was going, today only 3% of Suffolk’s A road network is in poor condition. That is better than the English average, with the proportion in good condition broadly aligned to national figures. Suffolk’s B and C roads also outperform national averages, with a high share in good condition and significantly fewer in poor condition. Of course residents are still angry about the state of the roads and disruption caused by roadworks. I am one of those residents. I have to drive on those roads—fortunately not every day of the week, because I am here. We use our country roads to get our children to and from school every day, so I know exactly what it is like to regularly dodge potholes. That is why we are debating how we can improve the situation.
As I said recently, I recognise that the Department for Transport has substantially increased—actually, astronomically increased—funding for potholes. That should be recognised. However, I also know that the Department gave Suffolk county council a red warning for road maintenance performance in January 2026, as part of its new accountability mechanism for highways authorities. I am in favour of holding public bodies to account—it is a good thing—but it is unfortunate that in this situation the Department managed to make a slight mess of the methodology. What lessons have been learned from that process? I am wary of a system that ranks a local authority as failing when the condition of its road network is above average. I am aware of the same fraught issue in the school system, where schools that achieve very good grades are ranked as failing by Ofsted, so I understand that it is complicated.
The traffic light system includes a decarbonisation test. Councils lose five points from their best practice score if they fail to provide evidence of plans to decarbonise maintenance operations and increase climate resilience. What remedial support will be made available to local authorities that do not fare well on the interactive map? There have been confusing stories of support given to high-performing local authorities, while failing ones are offered expert advice. Expert advice is almost always useless when resources are not meeting demand. Will the Minister confirm what steps the Government will take to help local authorities such as Suffolk when they are judged to be not fulfilling their statutory role?
The purpose of this speech is to look to the future and probe this Government’s position on a number of ways in which our road network—not just in Suffolk but across the country—might be remediated in the long term. As I said, I recognise that the Government have provided more than £7 billion for road maintenance over the next four years, and that that will kick up slightly to £2 billion a year. It is absolutely right that we recognise that that is a significant increase in funding. Much in the same way, it is right that we recognise that it is still less than what the Conservatives committed in their 2024 manifesto, which would have delivered more than £2 billion per year straightaway.
I wish to ask the Government whether they will go further on a raft of issues. First, will they take reasonable steps to ensure that highways authorities have access to technology and machinery that are imperative to the quick remediation of potholes in country settings? Suffolk county council has recently deployed a JCB Pothole Pro, which I believe is on loan from JCB, and before that it leased a Dragon Patcher. These are short-term and unstable arrangements. If we want to deal with the proliferation of potholes, it strikes me as eminently sensible that local authorities are given the financial support to use the best technology available. It is worth noting that the Conservative plan for drivers, launched by the Leader of the Opposition in April 2026, commits to a national pothole patrol, with a national taskforce deploying hundreds of specialist repair units and using technology such as the JCB Pothole Pro, to fix roads faster.
Secondly, there is no doubt that British roads are in a worse condition than European comparators. RAC Europe published a survey in 2024 in which six in 10 motorists said that local roads in Europe were in better condition, with fewer potholes, than the equivalent roads in the UK. Only a fifth thought that UK roads were in better shape than those on the continent, and 57% of all drivers believed that there were fewer potholes on the motorways in Europe relative to high-speed motorways in the UK. Plenty of people therefore wonder why we do not deploy the same road maintenance strategies as other countries. Germany, the Swiss and the French have more efficient and more technologically advanced approaches to managing road maintenance.
However, the British Government do not hold data on how long councils take to repair potholes. Ministers cannot tell us whether drivers are waiting longer than they used to for repairs. We rarely deploy road maintenance teams overnight on country roads. While we give utility companies the power to start work immediately through immediate emergency permits, we do not hold contractors to account for fast delivery of road maintenance works.
I am inundated, as I am sure other Members are, with complaints from local residents who see traffic management mitigations in place way before and way after workers are seen tending to remedial works. Our roads are already clogged up with utility companies carrying out work on gas pipes or broadband wiring, under strict regulations, at low cost and involving different teams over long periods.
This all strikes me as a classic example of British bureaucracy having a hugely negative impact on the state of British roads and our economy. The BBC published a report in 2026 that stated that traffic disruption linked to roadworks cost the UK economy £4 billion between 2022 and 2023. What can the Government do to relax the rules and regulations around road maintenance, so that companies can carry out works at night, quickly and with as little disruption as possible?
Thirdly, I think that everyone, whichever side of the House they sit on, recognises that a lack of skills is blighting the road infrastructure network. A 2023 report by the Local Council Roads Innovation Group said that training budgets had dwindled—unsurprisingly, in the face of prioritisation for other areas of the road maintenance budget; that the quality of technical training was considered substandard, with a bizarre over-emphasis on net zero; and that the road infrastructure sector struggled with an image problem, such that fewer young people considered it as a potential career option, resulting in an ageing workforce.
Thirty-six per cent of people in the road infrastructure construction sector are aged 55 or over. I read in a report online that there are some 140,000 vacancies, despite a population of people not in education, employment or training of more than a million. I cannot believe that there is not an easy solution to the problem of skills in the road maintenance sector, considering the underlying structure of our labour market at the moment. If we do not have the people, we will not be able to tackle an issue where scale is the major challenge. What are the Government doing to encourage young people into the transport infrastructure sector and specifically the road infrastructure sector?
Lastly, I want to probe the Government’s position on the long-term de-trunking of strategically important roads. I said at the beginning of my speech that the A12 north of Ipswich was de-trunked in 2001. I am still perplexed as to why it has not been redesignated as a critically important road, given that we are building two nuclear reactors just off it. The German road network is more centrally managed than ours—and, by the way, it is far better managed as a result. If National Highways has longer-term funding visibility, as it now does, why would it not want to broaden its remit and look after more elements of our road network?
Before I conclude, let me tie all this up into what I think is an increasingly obvious perspective: all of the above is futile if our economy does not grow. I will say that this Government—the Labour Government—made the right decision by increasing funding. It was a mistake—a fundamental mistake, albeit a consequence of the economic situation we faced in 2010—to cut budgets. I am sure that all Government Members are raring to go after my speech identifying a load of problems with our road network that began before 2024; that is not lost on me. I implore the Minister, and all other Members, not to give me an easy time, but to take this opportunity to rise somewhat above the “it was all down to cuts, innit?” attitude. I know the Minister comes from a place that believes borrowing to spend on infrastructure will drive long-term growth, but growth will not emerge without this Government getting to grips with debt, the deficit, our welfare budget and bringing down taxes on businesses.
We have a proud history of being at the forefront of the revolution that transformed road use, when Thomas Telford and John McAdam started building roads with all-weather surfaces. There is no reason why we cannot repeat history and become the best country in the world for roads. I thank hon. Members for their time.
Several hon. Members rose—
Paula Barker (in the Chair)
Order. Due to the earlier Division, the revised end time for this debate is 5.40 pm.
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) for securing this debate.
I would like to invite all Members to take a journey along the A143 between Ixworth and Stanton in my constituency. I would recommend a sturdy vehicle with good suspension and at least one spare tyre. This summer, the road made headlines all over the world, because it was literally melting. After months of closures, disruptions, repairs and long diversions, residents might reasonably have expected a road they could drive on, but I am sad to say that the potholes are already back. There are slices of Swiss cheese with fewer holes than the A143. Sadly, convention in this place does not allow me to show the drone video created by my assistant Mr Tom Howard, but it is available on all good social media channels. I urge hon. Members to take a look.
The Reform administration at Suffolk county council came into office promising a war on potholes. Several months into the war, I have to report that the potholes are winning convincingly. How frustrating is that? The Labour Government delivered a record £7.3 billion for local road maintenance for four years, giving councils the funding and certainty to deliver lasting improvements. The money is being provided and the tools are there, yet in Reform-run Suffolk we still see the same roads being repaired again and again. Residents do not care much for party politics or party political slogans when they are dodging potholes on the school run. They simply want safe roads, lasting repairs and value for money.
I wrote directly to the leader of Suffolk county council asking for answers and a permanent solution. We need to know why the repairs have failed so quickly and who is accountable. Is Suffolk county council demanding compensation from the contractor? The people of Suffolk are not asking for gold-plated roads. They are simply asking for roads where the tarmac stays down and the potholes stay filled.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I think this is the second time my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley) has invited Members of this House to visit his constituency. I am a regular visitor—it is a beautiful part of the world—and I thank him for all that he is doing on the issue and on Haughley junction, which I will come on to.
Every week, I am out talking to local residents who raise the same issue over and over again: potholes. People in Ipswich and Suffolk are fed up. Frankly, they have every right to be. This is not something that has occurred just in the past year; this comes after years of under-investment. As my hon. Friend articulated so well, it is leaving rough and unpredictable surfaces that leave drivers with burst tyres, buckled wheels and expensive repairs. Cyclists are forced into rush hour traffic to avoid dangerous craters. Parents are late to work because the school run has revealed a new hole in the road.
For people across Ipswich and Suffolk, the state of our road network is not merely an inconvenience; it is a daily source of frustration, cost and, in some cases, genuine danger. That is why the publication of the Government’s road maintenance audit earlier this year was so important. For the first time, we have an objective measure of how councils are performing in maintaining our roads. Results for Suffolk were incredibly disappointing, although not surprising for anybody who uses our roads. Suffolk received an overall red rating, placing it among the worst-performing highways authorities in the country.
We have to be honest about what, and who, is culpable. Is it the Conservatives at Suffolk county council, who until May this year were in power for more than two decades? Was it their incompetence that led to one of the worst ratings in the country, or was it the Conservative Government here in Westminster who were in power for 14 years and starved Suffolk and its roads of the investment it needed? This is not just a little bit of rain; it is huge underfunding. Between 2011 and 2020, Suffolk’s annual highways allocation was cut from more than £22 million to £17.5 million.
I can only presume that whatever fantasy unicorns might have been in the 2024 general election manifesto should go in the same bucket as the unfunded hospitals and the Ely-Haughley upgrade that was announced three times but never funded. We cannot really believe any of it, given that the Conservatives had 14 years in power and their record was one of cutting funding. Admittedly, it crept up a little towards the end of their time in office, as the general election loomed, but by then it was too little, too late. The result was entirely predictable: short-term fixes became the norm, roads deteriorated and taxpayers ended up paying more in the long run. That is the consequence when incompetence and lack of interest are married with a complete lack of funding.
I am pleased that our Government are taking a fundamentally different approach. To make that possible, as I am sure the Minister will mention, we are investing £7.3 billion in local roads over four years and doubling national road maintenance funding by the end of this Parliament. That is the biggest investment in road maintenance our country has ever seen, and it includes record funding for Suffolk. Over the next four years, our county will receive £219 million to improve and maintain local roads.
By 2029-30, funding will reach nearly £65 million a year, nearly quadruple what it was under the Conservatives in 2020. That is not a modest uplift, tinkering around the edges or a temporary sticking-plaster; it represents a fundamental change in how our roads are funded. Instead of the hand-to-mouth approach of yearly settlements that we had under the Conservatives, this is a long-term funding commitment so that councils such as Suffolk county council will know exactly what they are getting for the next four years and can plan ahead. Instead of endless patch-and-mend repairs, they will have the certainty and resources to plan long-term improvements and prevent potholes in the first place, which is what we all want to see. That is the difference between the managed decline that we saw under the Conservatives, and the investment and renewal under our Government.
Investment alone, however, is not enough; delivery also matters. I will slightly depart from the assessment of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket. The new Reform administration at Suffolk county council did not create this mess—that lies squarely with the Conservatives, locally and nationally—but it has inherited record road maintenance funding and now has the responsibility to right the wrongs that have been evident in the system for years. It has the resources and now the certainty, and residents rightly expect to see results.
Pothole-riddled roads in Suffolk are not the county’s only transport challenge. I am delighted about the package of measures that the Government have allocated to our county, including £9 million to improve bus services, the biggest upgrade since 1998. They are investing £4.5 million for active travel, which includes improved walking and cycling provision, and committed nearly £55 million in funding for upgrades around the A12/A14 Seven Hills roundabout. These are significant investments, but of course I want more. On Ely-Haughley, for example, there is a single point of failure in Suffolk, which is the Orwell bridge—
Paula Barker (in the Chair)
Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman to remain within the scope of the debate, please?
Jack Abbott
I was about to say that road maintenance relies on transport infrastructure, which is why Ely-Haughley is so important. The Ely-Haughley scheme will take 100,000 HGVs off the road, which is incredibly important, but it is not a like-for-like replacement for the Orwell bridge, which is crossed by more than 12,000 HGVs a day coming from one of the world’s busiest container ports. That is a crucial piece of infrastructure. We have a job to do locally to make sure we renew the business case, which is now half a decade old, and see whether we can reduce the number of level crossings. The scheme has my wholehearted support, and support across the House, but we have a job to do in our local system. I am pleased that Transport East in particular has grasped the nettle.
Patrick Spencer
I have a sense of déjà vu. I feel I have said this to the hon. Member before, but it is incumbent on me to remind him that his party is now in government, with a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer. Last week was the third opportunity for this Government to fund Ely-Haughley. I accept that it was not done by the previous Government, but he cannot just repeat some tired line like “You didn’t do it, so I shouldn’t be expected to do it either.” If it is so important, why is the hon. Member sitting here shouting at all of us, when it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer he needs to make this point to?
Jack Abbott
I appreciate that the hon. Member has not been in Parliament for a while, so he may not be aware of the conversations that we have been having across the system. He is absolutely right to point out that the previous Conservative Government pledged three times to move ahead with Ely-Haughley but did not allocate a single penny of funding. It is also the case, however, that we have met consistently with the Rail Minister about this issue. The business case that was put forward for Ely-Haughley is now half a decade out of date. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) can continue shaking his head, but this is the reality, and I am giving strong feedback. This is feedback, by the way, that Transport East has grasped, that the Cambridgeshire mayoral authority knows and that our chamber of commerce knows, so it seems that everybody apart from the hon. Member is aware of the detail here.
We have been asked, as a local system, to update the business case, because how can we reasonably ask the Government to fund something half a decade out of date, from before the Liz Truss mini-Budget? How can we reduce the number of level crossings along the Ely stretch, which will also reduce the cost of this important infrastructure scheme? Is there any private investment that we can put into it, in a similar way to the lower Thames crossing? Can we build up wider regional support for the scheme? The ball is in our court. Every single stakeholder locally knows that and is advancing with that.
The other thing I would say is that Suffolk has to get serious. Collectively, we have to get serious when we pitch for funding. We are competing against every single region and nation in this country. To sit there and amateurishly keep demanding the same thing, over and over again—[Interruption.]
Paula Barker (in the Chair)
Order. Can I remind Members to be mindful of their tone, please?
Jack Abbott
Absolutely. But to make the same amateurish demands time and again, without doing any of the straightforward things that have been clearly asked of us, is not feasible. That is why, collectively, the local system is heading towards the spending review and is making sure that we are doing the things that have been asked of us at a local level.
I hope that the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich will listens to some of this and reflects on it, and that he will join with Transport East, the mayoral combined authority, the chambers of commerce and Members of all parties across the House on this. It does not look as though he is going to do that, which is unfortunate, because we could use all power to the wheel.
What I was going on to say, before I was interrupted, was about the fact that the Ely-Haughley upgrade is incredibly important. We want to move freight from HGVs on to our rail network. However, that is not a silver bullet for our local road system. As I say, 12,000 HGVs a day cross the Orwell bridge. We also have the Copdock junction, which I have talked to the previous Roads Minister about on a number of occasions. It is a crucial pinch point in our local road network, and one that impacts on Felixstowe. I am really hoping that we can move it forward in a future road investment strategy programme, after it was pushed from RIS3 to RIS4.
However, we have structural weaknesses within our road network. Although those schemes are incredibly important, there still seems to be a single point of failure in the Orwell bridge. Every time the bridge closes, Ipswich and the surrounding area grind to a halt. That pushes HGVs on to our country roads and unsuitable road networks, which creates an even bigger problem for road maintenance. Residents sit in traffic for hours, businesses lose money, emergency services are delayed and our local economy pays the price too.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s significant investment in potholes—£7 billion across this Parliament—but we have not yet talked about the impact that potholes have on pedestrians. In my constituency, residents have fallen in potholes while walking across roads, and wheelchair users and people with visual impairments have been injured while trying to traverse potholed roads. Does my hon. Friend agree that when we talk about investment in potholes, we need to consider accessibility and pavements as well? Issues have been raised with me about Owston Ferry, Norman Drive and Coppice Road. We need to tackle those with our investment too.
Jack Abbott
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that it is about not just the roads but the surrounding infrastructure, including our pavements. I walk the streets every weekend and the roads and pavements alike are in an incredibly poor state, so I hope the whole road maintenance network is looked at.
It is incredibly important that the Reform county council gets to work fixing those potholes, but we will keep coming back to this place time and again if we do not also deliver major infrastructure, such as the Ely and Haughley junctions and the Copdock interchange. As I say, I welcome the investment in the Seven Hills roundabout too.
To finish my point on the Orwell bridge, we also need to address that single point of failure, which is impacting our local economy. It is not just a bit of traffic; HGVs are being pushed on to unsuitable roads, including through our villages. That is why a northern bypass for Ipswich is so critical, not just for our town’s traffic but for the long-term future of Felixstowe and our surrounding economy.
A northern bypass is the only credible solution to that single point of failure, as a WSP report has previously outlined. It is incumbent on our local system to deliver it. The Reform county council has finally reopened work on it, six years after it was shelved with no credible alternative put forward. I hope that when that work reports back in the spring, we can go to Ministers and push ahead with that vital project.
For now, our residents deserve safe, reliable, well-maintained roads, and our businesses deserve infrastructure that supports growth rather than holding it back. The Government are doing their part, and the funding and opportunity are there for our county council. However, the new administration must now get on with the job and deliver the roads that the people of Ipswich and Suffolk deserve.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) on securing this debate. Incidentally, he may find the Transport Committee’s recent inquiry into street works of interest; the Committee considered the issue in depth and made a number of recommendations to the Government, which I ask the Minister to refer to in his remarks.
Despite being a Norfolk MP, I am very pleased to represent the Liberal Democrats in this important debate. I feel perhaps uniquely qualified, thanks to the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley), who advised thick tyres and a robust vehicle for Suffolk’s roads; I have indulged myself in an agricultural vehicle to get around Norfolk for the same reason. I am only too pleased to speak about the challenges we share with our neighbours south of the border.
I have been shocked by the evidence of the deteriorating state of Suffolk’s roads, which, unbelievably, are even worse than Norfolk’s. According to the BBC, pothole reports rose by nearly 5,000 in a single year and, as I think the hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) noted, earlier this year Suffolk was rated red in the Government’s road maintenance ratings. For locals, that is just not good enough, and I think they know whom to thank for it.
I will be gracious in responding to the request from the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich that I be gentle—he has at least turned up to propose this debate—but the Reform administration at the council, and his colleagues who preceded it, have presided over this abject failure in recent months and years. Drivers already facing soaring prices at the petrol pump thanks to the war in Iran—which Reform and, I gently say, the Conservatives were cheerleading—now face the cost of repairing cars damaged by potholes on local roads too.
[Valerie Vaz in the Chair]
What is even tougher for Suffolk residents is that it does not have to be this way. Colleagues in this room might all be dashing for the same train back to East Anglia this evening, but I gently encourage them to look across the border to Liberal Democrat-led Cambridgeshire county council, which is fixing four times as many potholes as Suffolk. That is a prime example of how communities that elect Lib Dem local champions get better services, better roads and a better council. My worry is that, instead of learning from Cambridgeshire, Suffolk might learn from the Reform administration in Norfolk, whose management of the highways budget is frankly laughable. Reform swanned in and abolished the ring-fenced £11,000 fund that each member had for highways projects in their division.
From my time as a county councillor—I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—I know the impact that that funding had in local communities. It was not just about fixing potholes: we supported village gates for Melton Constable, a bus shelter and lay-by in Saxthorpe, speed awareness message, or SAM2, cameras for the A148, which has led to a project to cut the speed limit on that dangerous road, and much more. That local members’ fund was instrumental in improving road quality in Norfolk, and it should be preserved and extended in Suffolk.
The Reform administration claimed that robbing the ringfenced funding from Norfolk was needed to fund general highways maintenance and repairs, but in recent days we have seen its budget consultation, which proposes cutting a further £500,000 from highways maintenance and reducing the verge cutting on some rural roads to only once a year. That is disastrous mismanagement of our county’s roads, and the Reform administration, propped up by Restore Britain, ought to be ashamed of itself. I share that tale as a word of warning to colleagues in Suffolk; on this occasion, they should ensure that they do not listen to their friends in the north in Norfolk.
It is unclear whether there is much friendship left between the administrations. Rather than focusing on fixing the state of Suffolk’s roads, the Reform administrations in our two counties have been locked in a battle about when to hold elections for the future mayor of Norfolk and Suffolk. That is highly pertinent to road safety, given the powers that will be bestowed on the office. Our endlessly delayed devolution deal faces yet more hold-ups, because Reform administrations are fighting one another, and residents are paying the price. They are watching on as the people’s front of Reform and the Reform people’s front stand off, shouting, “Splitters!” across the border at each other while the potholes grow, the road markings wear away and the services paid for by residents’ council tax are simply not delivered to the standard that they expect.
Poorly maintained roads are a misery for motorists. In rural communities, where there is no choice other than greater car use, they will see this issue impact on them even harder. It causes issues for public transport delivery, as poor-quality roads make it harder for bus operators to run reliable services to the rural villages that need them the most. This is not just a clichéd moan; this is one of the ways in which Government failure wears people down in rural areas and makes them feel that they are being given a worse deal than people in cities.
I will bring my remarks to a conclusion, as I know that colleagues from Suffolk are keen to hear how the Government intend to address the challenges that they face. Let me end with a message of solidarity from their friends and football rivals over the northern border. We are suffering with a Reform council too, and the best cure that I can see is to elect a Liberal Democrat council instead.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that the debate is about potholes and road maintenance.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I pay credit to the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker), who chaired the debate earlier. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) on securing this important debate. He is a true champion for his constituents, and I am sure that they will appreciate his work in bringing the challenges that they face with potholes to this place.
Let me reflect on some of the speeches that we have heard. I find myself sitting opposite the Minister for not the first time this week, as we were in the Highways (Financing) Bill Committee earlier this week. We previously sat together on what was then the Business and Trade Committee, and I sit on an all-party parliamentary group with the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley). I want to reflect on some of the real positives of cross-party working, as Westminster Hall has the ability to demonstrate to our constituents how well we can work together.
The speeches that we have heard today were a little honey and vinegar—that is perhaps the best way of putting it. I think that honey, rather than vinegar, tends to achieve the desired results. It was absolutely delightful to go on a journey in my imagination of melting Swiss cheese in Suffolk with the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, although perhaps that journey is not delightful for the people actually doing it. It was disappointing to hear the hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) be less parliamentary and collegiate. I felt rather let down by that, given the way in which Westminster Hall can really bring this place together.
The conditions of our roads have a direct impact on the lives of all our constituents. Many depend on our roads to get to work, take their children to school, attend medical appointments and run their businesses. In rural communities such as those in west Suffolk, there is often no alternative to travelling by car, yet for many drivers dodging potholes has become part of the daily routine.
Every journey brings the frustration of trying to avoid another jolt or an expensive repair bill. The RAC estimates that hitting a pothole can leave motorists—I include myself—facing a bill of up to £590 for damage that is simply not their fault. For cyclists and motorcyclists, the consequences can be much worse. When the same potholes remain week after week, people understandably wonder when anything will be done. They put up with diversions and road closures while repairs take place, only to see the surface break up again. They want repairs that last.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich raised the particular challenges that face west Suffolk. He rightly praised the excellent record of Suffolk county council’s previous Conservative administration, which repaired more potholes than were reported each year.
Jack Abbott
I appreciate what the hon. Member is saying about the previous Conservative administration at Suffolk county council, but they were the ones who received a red rating while in charge—one of the worst ratings in the whole country. That is not much of a record to be proud of, is it?
Alison Griffiths
I thank the hon. Member for his point. I simply refer him to the speech that I am making. My point is about potholes. The council demonstrably repaired more potholes than were reported each year.
Recently, the issue in west Suffolk has got worse, and pothole reports across the country rose from just under 14,000 in 2024-25 to more than 18,000 in 2025-26. It is a familiar picture in my West Sussex constituency. The county council received almost 24,000 pothole reports last year, up by more than a quarter on the year before. My constituents in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton want roads they can rely on. When they report a pothole, they expect it to be fixed and for that to be that. They should not have to report the same issue again a few months later. It is all the more frustrating when the council’s own figures show that the average cost of repairing a pothole rose from about £82 in 2024-25 to £118 in 2025-26.
Returning to Suffolk, the A143 between Stanton and Ixworth was resurfaced in September last year, as we heard from the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Member is slightly beyond the conventional time limit of five minutes. I ask that she bring her remarks to a close.
Alison Griffiths
I have two questions for the Minister. First, what assessment has he made of whether Suffolk and other rural counties have enough funding to maintain the roads their communities depend on? Secondly, where councils have discretion over how they spend their maintenance funding, how will the Minister use the existing incentives to make sure pothole repairs are a priority? When his Department judges the results, will it look at how long those repairs last?
As we have heard throughout the debate, potholes are a nuisance that touch the lives of constituents across the country, in west Suffolk and elsewhere. Our roads keep the economy moving and enable all of us to go about our lives. The Government must heed the vital points that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich has made today. I congratulate him once again on securing this important debate and I am sure, like me, he will hope to hear the vision from the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) on securing the debate. He spoke with real passion about the condition of the roads in his constituency and around Suffolk more generally—and rightly so, because this is not an abstract issue. All Members, whether they are present for this debate or not, know that the issue matters to people every day. Getting to work, taking children to school, reaching essential services, supporting local businesses—none of that can happen if we do not have roads. As we have heard, for too many people across Suffolk, those everyday journeys are harder when roads simply are not good enough or safe enough.
The poor state of roads is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) mentioned, the product of over a decade of under-investment in our local road network. Potholes have been left unrepaired, surfaces have deteriorated and preventive maintenance has been deferred again and again. We are now dealing with the consequences of that, as we have heard, and we are determined to turn the situation around. The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich complained about the short-term funding fixes of the past. It was fair to say that, and he was gracious enough to acknowledge that we are now on a different path.
We are providing a record £7.3 billion of funding for local highways maintenance over the next four years. We are giving not only record funding, but the long-term certainty that councils need to plan properly to resurface roads and tackle the pothole plague, which will hopefully become a thing of the past. It is worth saying that Suffolk county council will receive more than £219 million over those four years, including over £45 million this year alone. That is a significant increase on the £31 million that it received in 2024-25, and a further increase on the £43 million it received last year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich said, the funding received from central Government was as low as £17.5 million in 2020. By 2029-30, that figure will rise to £64 million—almost a quadrupling. All Members would rightly acknowledge that as our giving the necessary resources.
My hon. Friend raised a number of other projects in his constituency and throughout the wider Suffolk area that he would like to see dealt with. It is important to bring all stakeholders together to present credible business cases to try to bid within what he rightly acknowledges is a competitive environment. Every constituency and local authority has lots of projects that they want to be funded.
The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), asked whether there has been an assessment of funding for rural councils. We have confirmed that we will review the formula ahead of the next highways maintenance funding cycle so that any potential changes can come into effect from 2030 onwards. We will engage with local highway authorities as we consider any changes to the formula, because if it is decided that one area and one type of road network is more deserving, another, by definition, has to lose out. We know that every area has its own challenges, whether geography, climate, traffic levels, or, indeed, as we have heard in the debate, the nature of the local network. That is why funding is currently allocated using established national datasets such as road lengths to provide a fair and, importantly, consistent basis for distribution across England.
Of course, funding is only one part of this; delivery is also important. We have done our part, and it is now up to councils to turn that record investment into visible improvement. That is why we have introduced a strengthened system of transparency reporting, updated ratings and incentive funding. That has a number of elements to it, the first of which is transparency. Local highway authorities published updated transparency reports in September, setting out how they will spend their funding and maintain their networks. That will allow residents to see what their council plans to deliver and it will enable them and hon. Members to hold councils to account. Secondly, ratings measuring road condition, capital spending and adherence to best practice will provide the public with an accessible assessment of how well each authority maintains its roads.
As we have heard, Suffolk county council received an overall red rating for 2025-26. In the light of that, the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich asked what support would be provided to the local authority. I can confirm that all red-rated authorities have received support, including peer reviews by sector experts and practical advice tailored to their needs. Of course, we will publish updated ratings in early 2027, drawing on this year’s strengthened transparency reports. We are working with local highway authorities and sector bodies to refine the approach, and we have given councils the opportunity to check their submitted figures before ratings are finalised. We therefore hopefully will not have a repeat of the debate we had with Suffolk county council, whereby one set of figures was submitted to the Department and another was relied on by the council at a later date.
On incentives, to receive their full funding allocation, local highway authorities must meet certain requirements aimed at driving best practice and continual improvement in highways maintenance. This helps to ensure that our record investment is supported by sound planning, professional capability and a commitment to best practice.
Building on that, last month saw the publication of the updated “Well-Managed Highway Infrastructure: A Code of Practice”, which underpins highway asset management across the sector, with input from local authorities and, importantly, industry partners. This approach is already bearing fruit. This year’s transparency reports show that nationally we are starting to turn a corner. Councils report that they are spending almost £5 billion on highways maintenance this year, more than £800 million more than two years ago. They plan to resurface nearly 7,000 miles of road—the distance from London to Singapore, should anyone wish to drive that far, although I would not recommend it—which is a 10% increase on last year.
We also know that 94% of authorities are now planning preventive treatments, which is up from 76% previously, and the focus is increasingly on stopping potholes from forming in the first place and not simply on patching them up. It is so important that we are able to move to that preventive model, because improving maintenance is about not just smoothing rural journeys, but actually making them safer. The more preventive work that we can do, the safer the roads will be.
In 2024, rural roads accounted for 60% of road fatalities, despite carrying only 45% of traffic. Road users are six times more likely to be killed or seriously injured on rural roads than on others. That is one of the reasons why our road safety strategy sets out targets to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on roads in Great Britain by 65%, and by 70% for children under 16, by 2035. Good maintenance is not merely a question of convenience; it contributes to a safer and more reliable network.
I have already tried to deal with some of the points that hon. Members made, but I will now try to address any remaining ones. I must say that I am intrigued about what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley) got up to with the Opposition spokesperson and this cheese business. No doubt when we re-engage with the Highways (Financing) Bill next week, she can tell the Public Bill Committee all about that particular—[Interruption.] Perhaps Hansard will just have to be left guessing as to what exactly went on there.
My hon. Friend made important points about the A143 and its issues over the summer. Decarbonisation is in the metrics, but this about not just decarbonisation, but taking action to ensure that roads are more resilient to climate change by using road surface materials that can withstand extreme heat. The new transport resilience strategy that was published on 2 November strengthens how the transport sector anticipates, prepares and responds to disruptions. Of course, it is fair to say that asset owners—in this case, Suffolk county council—are indeed responsible for ensuring that such matters are dealt with.
My hon. Friend cited an interesting phrase when he said that this is a war and the potholes are winning. I am sorry to hear that that is the case. However, with the record funding that we have delivered, the transparency that we are requiring and the support that we are offering, all local authorities should be winning that war.
The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich asked about skills in the road maintenance sector, which is obviously a very important issue. We want to ensure that we have continuity and succession planning in this vital sector, so the incentive framework is about improving the adoption of best practice. There is a training requirement on local authorities, and how organisations offer training is reflected in an increased interest in training since we introduced that requirement. Actually, 10% more preventive maintenance has resulted from increased training. As I have said, we will give support to those authorities that are red-rated.
The hon. Member asked whether we hold data on how long it takes to fill potholes. He is correct that we do not hold that data, but we do collect data in the transparency reports about whether residents can tell their council about potholes and whether the council then responds about the action it has taken. From a public-facing perspective, that is an important metric. He also asked whether councils could have more access to technology, particularly councils in rural settings; I suggest to him that, because we have set a long-term funding strategy in place and given certainty to local authorities, they will have greater capacity and ability to plan ahead and invest in some of that new technology. He may also want to refer his local authority to the Live Labs 2 innovation programme, which includes several trials of innovative practices in rural areas.
I think I have probably covered hon. Members’ main points. The record funding is all good, but it is incumbent on local authorities—particularly, in this case, Suffolk county council—to use that funding effectively to improve their performance and deliver what I think we in this House all expect: safer, smoother and more reliable journeys. I close by thanking the hon. Member for securing this debate.
Patrick Spencer
It is good to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz.
I thank the Minister for a very spirited effort. I appreciate that I had not sent him my speech in advance, so many of the issues I brought up were new to him. I appreciate his point about machinery and Live Labs 2. I will probably write to the Department, reiterating some of the points I have raised, and continue the process. I am not here just to continue to frustrate his inbox, but I feel there is more that can be done beyond simply talking about funding.
The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley) raised a very interesting point that often turns up: failed remediation work. I am sure he, like me and like most MPs, has an inbox full of messages from residents who are frustrated when, if a pothole emerges and is resurfaced, it then re-emerges. When I asked Suffolk county council about the failure rates, it insisted that the rate was 1%. Whether that is true is rightly for debate, but I would also say that 1%, when we are dealing with 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000 potholes, is still a lot of potholes. It could be the case that that 1% figure is true—although it might not be—but it is a point well made.
I also thank Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), for an interesting insight into life in Norfolk, and I appreciate his point about street works. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) made a speech that reminded us all what life is like driving along roads covered in potholes—it is predictably miserable and it never seems to end. I also thank the Opposition spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), for some very worthy points. I know she takes this issue seriously and that, whatever mistakes were made in the past with prioritising roads, the Conservative party’s work will prioritise road maintenance and transport infrastructure.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered potholes and road maintenance in Suffolk.
Written Correction
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministerial Correction
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Transport
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Lightwood
Looking ahead, Great British Railways will address resilience across track and train as one system, while the long-term rail strategy will highlight climate resilience and adaptation as a clear priority, building on the £2.9 billion being invested between 2024 and 2029.—[Official Report, 3 November 2026; Vol. 792, c. 357WH.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood):
Simon Lightwood
Looking ahead, Great British Railways will address resilience across track and train as one system, while the long-term rail strategy will highlight climate resilience and adaptation as a clear priority, building on the £2.6 billion being invested between 2024 and 2029.
Written Statements
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Changes to the UK Designs Framework: Consultation Response
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Science, Innovation and Investment (Chris McDonald)
Today, the Government are publishing and laying before both Houses of Parliament their response to the consultation on changes to the UK designs framework. This publication marks an important step forward in ensuring that the UK designs framework supports designers and is fit for the digital age.
According to a Design Council report, the UK’s “design economy” makes a significant contribution and grew at nearly twice the rate of the UK economy between 2019 and 2023. Of the £136.7 billion that the design economy contributed to the UK in 2023, digital design accounted for 59%. It is vital that the designs system is modernised to support the digital design sector.
The design sector is made up predominantly of microbusinesses, which are businesses with fewer than 10 employees. Accessible and effective design protection is essential to help designers and businesses to thrive and continue contributing to economic growth.
In the autumn of 2025, the Government published a consultation on changes to the UK designs framework. The consultation set out proposals to create a designs system fit for the future, one that is simpler, more effective, and better able to support UK creativity and innovation, in a rapidly evolving digital landscape.
The consultation received responses from design businesses, legal professionals, academics, and representative and trade bodies. We have analysed each of these responses which have shaped a package of targeted reforms.
Today, the Government set out their intention to:
Modernise the designs system for effective protection of digital designs, including animated designs and graphical user interfaces.
Simplify aspects of the legal framework for unregistered designs, without reducing the breadth of protection that is a strength of the UK system.
Introduce a statutory 30-month deferment period for designers to keep their design confidential whilst making commercial preparations. This will align the UK more closely with EU and international design systems.
Allow supplementary unregistered designs to arise following global disclosure anywhere in the world.
Allow the registrar to conduct a targeted search and examination of design applications, to prevent registration of designs that are not new. This will reduce the burden on third parties to challenge invalid design registrations.
Widen access to enforcement by exploring how registered design disputes can be heard in the small claims track of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the UK is a world-leading environment for design and technology-driven innovation. We will continue to work closely with parliamentarians and stakeholders on implementation of these measures. Our aim is to build a designs system that protects creativity, supports growth and enables designers and businesses to make the most of their intellectual property.
[HCWS450]
Responsible Business Conduct
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
In the trade strategy, the Government committed to an evidence-based review of the UK’s approach to promoting responsible business conduct, to assess whether our current framework remains fit for purpose. This highlighted areas where the UK’s approach could be strengthened, and today I am updating the House on the Government’s proposed action to address those findings.
In our review, we found the UK’s current framework for preventing forced labour to be fragmented and overly reliant on voluntary action and reporting measures. While the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was world leading at the time of its introduction, international standards and legislative practice have since moved on, leaving the UK out of step with G7 partners and other major trading economies. While plans to strengthen the Modern Slavery Act through the Immigration and Asylum Bill are an important step, we recognise that further action is needed to bring us into line with key partners. Having carefully considered our findings, alongside the Government’s commitments on economic growth, reducing administrative burdens and maintaining the integrity of the UK internal market, we have concluded that a phased and proportionate approach is appropriate. The Government’s priority is to focus on those interventions most likely to deliver tangible improvements for workers, consumers and businesses, while ensuring that reforms are practical, targeted and capable of being implemented at pace.
We will legislate to introduce a mandatory human rights due diligence regime across the UK for services, and in Great Britain for goods. Only the largest businesses, with the capability and leverage to manage these risks within their supply chains, will be in scope. It will apply to UK businesses with a global turnover of over £350 million, as well as non-UK businesses with a UK-generated turnover of over £350 million. These businesses will be required to identify, assess and address risks of human rights abuses and labour exploitation within their operations and supply chains. The regime will be risk-based, proportionate and reflect how responsible businesses already manage risk by aligning with established international standards, including the OECD guidelines for responsible business conduct and the UN guiding principles on business and human rights.
Under this due diligence regime, we will introduce powers to be able to remove goods made with forced labour from the Great Britain market. A regulator will be empowered to investigate businesses suspected of placing such goods on the market and, where due diligence obligations have not been met and forced labour is identified, direct their withdrawal. This will provide a clear and targeted mechanism for tackling some of the most serious abuses in global supply chains and protecting responsible businesses from unfair competition.
In Northern Ireland, we will apply the EU’s forced labour regulation—EUFLR—under the Windsor framework. Both regimes ensure that goods made with forced labour can be withdrawn from the market and aim to deliver a similar effect in practice.
Alongside this, we will establish a centralised responsible business conduct guidance hub on gov.uk, bringing together guidance, tools and templates in a single location. This will support businesses, particularly those developing due diligence processes for the first time. We will work closely with stakeholders on the design and implementation of these measures and introduce them as soon as parliamentary time allows.
The Government are clear that reform must be proportionate and pragmatic. Requirements will focus on larger businesses best placed to manage supply chain risks, prioritise action over unnecessary paperwork and align with international standards.
This package will safeguard the competitiveness of responsible businesses, strengthen confidence in UK markets and help ensure that goods linked to forced labour do not reach UK consumers. The British public rightly expect that products sold in the United Kingdom are not tainted by forced labour. Responsible businesses should not be undercut by those that turn a blind eye to exploitation. And this Government will not countenance exploitation in the supply chains that serve the UK market.
[HCWS454]
Integrated Security Fund: 2025-26 Annual Report
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
I have today published the Integrated Security Fund’s 2025-26 annual report, which sets out how the fund has supported delivery of the Government’s national security priorities over the past year. The integrated security fund is the Government’s cross-Government national security fund, helping to tackle the most significant threats to the United Kingdom’s security at home and overseas.
The UK’s security environment is becoming more contested, complex and unpredictable. The threat from state-linked actors, terrorists and organised criminals is evolving rapidly, while advances in technology create both opportunities and new risks. In response, the Government must act early, work across departmental boundaries and bring together the full range of national security expertise. The fund enables that approach, investing more than £800 million during 2025-26 through programmes delivered across over 20 Government Departments and agencies to strengthen UK security, build the resilience of partners, and develop capabilities for the future.
This report demonstrates the tangible impact of that investment. At home, the fund strengthened resilience against cyber, economic and state-based threats, helping to protect critical national infrastructure, improve cyber-defences across Government and enhance intelligence sharing through the Government cyber co-ordination centre. It also supported action against cyber-enabled crime, fraud and organised criminal networks.
Overseas, the fund supported UK interests and partners facing the most acute security challenges. This included support to Ukraine and other partners in Eastern Europe in response to Russian aggression and hostile activity by foreign states, helping to strengthen cyber-security, counter disinformation and sustain essential services for vulnerable communities. The fund also enhanced maritime security in the middle east and helped partners tackle illicit finance and other threats to economic security.
The fund is also investing in the capabilities that will underpin the UK’s long-term resilience. Through programmes such as CyberFirst and TechFirst, it is developing the next generation of cyber and technology specialists, while investment in biosecurity is strengthening the UK’s ability to identify and respond to emerging biological threats.
As threats continue to evolve, in 2026 and beyond, the Government are using the fund to focus resources where they can have the greatest impact. From supporting Ukraine and strengthening cyber-resilience, to addressing challenges in the middle east and countering state-linked threats, the fund remains a vital instrument for protecting our country’s security, prosperity and interests. Through an integrated, agile and forward-looking approach, it will continue to play an important role in keeping the UK safe in an increasingly challenging world.
[HCWS451]
Northern Ireland Act 1998: Windsor Framework Decisions
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations (Mr Hamish Falconer)
On 10 November, I will be meeting with the European Commissioner for Trade and Economic Security, Maroš Šefčovič, for this Government’s third meeting of the withdrawal agreement joint committee. As part of this important meeting, the UK and the EU will take decisions to support our commitment to the Windsor framework.
This joint committee marks an important milestone in the lead up to the UK-EU summit on 20 November in Brussels, where we aim to strike important deals that will boost our growth in every postcode, cut red tape and provide more opportunities to young people. On the table are deals covering agrifood and drink products, emissions trading, a youth experience scheme and deeper co-operation on illegal immigration. The agreements we hope to strike at the summit will have further specific benefits for Northern Ireland—removing a wide-ranging set of sanitary and phytosanitary and agrifood requirements for goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. The decisions we make at the withdrawal agreement joint committee will be taken in line with the Government’s wider objectives.
At the joint committee, we will sign a joint declaration with the EU. The effect of this will be to ensure that “not at risk” parcels—that is, those sent to consumers in Northern Ireland moving under the Windsor framework facilitation schemes—will not be impacted by the recently introduced “handling fee” in the EU, ensuring they pay no fees or charges. These arrangements are the result of close UK-EU co-operation to protect Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market, while supporting its privileged dual-market access to the EU.
The Government will also agree specifically to decisions that will add two acts to the Windsor framework. This Government are committed to tackling barriers to trade for businesses across the UK. Northern Ireland has a special trading relationship with the EU under the Windsor framework, and it is therefore only right that the Government review all elements of Northern Ireland’s regulatory arrangements to ensure that it can make the most of its unique dual-market access.
In accordance with paragraph 18(3) of schedule 6B to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I am setting out in this statement why I am of the opinion that the conditions are met for these particular measures to be agreed, on the basis that neither of those acts would create a new regulatory border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so the condition in paragraph 18(2)(b) of that schedule is met.
Forced Labour Protections—Regulation (EU) 2024/3015
This regulation will apply in Northern Ireland in order to preserve Northern Ireland’s unique and vital dual-market access to the EU and the rest of the UK internal market.
The decision to add the EU forced labour regulation to the Windsor framework is made in tandem with the Government’s decision to further eliminate human rights abuses and forced labour from UK-wide supply chains. This has been outlined in the Government’s written ministerial statement regarding their approach to responsible business conduct. These measures will introduce a mandatory due diligence regime across the UK for services, and in Great Britain for goods, with the aim that this will take effect alongside the application of the EU rules in December 2027.
This will include a targeted power to withdraw goods from the market in Great Britain where they are made with forced labour and a business has failed to meet the required standard of due diligence. As these measures aim to achieve the same outcome in practice as the EU forced labour regulation in Northern Ireland, supply chain risks should be intercepted and resolved in Great Britain before goods move to Northern Ireland.
This regulation’s application will not create a new regulatory border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Available trade data indicates that annual Northern Ireland imports involving potential forced labour risks represent a minimal proportion of overall trade. Furthermore, the EU forced labour regulation relies on intelligence-led investigations, rather than routine border checks. Any practical effect is expected to be minimal. As such, this regulation will have no material effect on the flow of goods within the UK internal market, preserving Northern Ireland’s unique and vital dual-market access to the EU and the rest of the UK internal market.
Artificial Intelligence Act—Regulation (EU) 2024/1689
This regulation will apply in a limited and targeted way in Northern Ireland. That is necessary to maintain an open border on the island of Ireland. Full application of the AI Act in Northern Ireland would not have been in line with the Windsor framework, or acceptable to the Government, given Northern Ireland’s integral role in the UK’s AI strategy—demonstrated by the £7.5 million investment for the Centre for Secure Information Technologies cyber AI hub at Queen’s University, announced last week at the Budget.
Following lengthy and constructive discussions with the EU, the AI Act as applied in Northern Ireland will apply only to the placing on the market of physical products with closely integrated AI systems. This is in contrast to the application in the EU, which also includes regulation of wider AI systems and stand-alone software incorporating AI, such as web-accessed applications and general purpose models.
The AI Act regulates AI systems based on the level of risk. Some systems are prohibited, such as those intended for social scoring, emotional manipulation or non-consensual nudification. Other systems are “high risk”—for example, because malfunctioning of AI could cause risks to human safety—and must meet certain requirements, such as those relating to data governance, technical documentation and risk and quality management systems. “Limited risk” systems engaging directly with people or generating synthetic outputs face lighter-touch requirements. Some AI systems do not fall into any of these categories.
This regulation will not create a new regulatory border. Its limited application means that Northern Ireland businesses that adopt or develop AI software, applications and online tools, will generally not be within scope of the AI Act, except when those AI systems are closely integrated in physical products. The regulation will mainly apply to physical products in scope of the Windsor framework that already adhere to EU law. This provides Northern Ireland manufacturers with certainty about their unique dual-market access to the EU market and the rest of the UK market. Furthermore, our assessment is that products subject to prohibitions or high-risk requirements are currently relatively rare, and that in any case, in many affected sectors, businesses supplying Northern Ireland are typically EU-facing, meaning that they will comply with EU law requirements.
The Government remain fully committed to ensuring that the UK maintains its position as a world leader in AI, and to supporting innovation while ensuring that a proportionate regulatory regime ensures that AI-enabled devices are safe, with risks being addressed by existing expert regulators and at a sectoral level. The Government have been clear in our ambition to support innovation and growth across the whole of the United Kingdom.
Next steps
The Government will shortly submit explanatory memoranda to Parliament pertaining to each of the two decisions that we will make. These will set out in further detail the Government’s view on any impacts that the above-mentioned regulations would have on Northern Ireland, as well as additional evidence I considered when reaching my conclusion that none of them would lead to a new regulatory border.
We are steadfastly committed to protecting the UK internal market and Northern Ireland’s place within it, as well as promoting growth in Northern Ireland through its unique dual-market access. These objectives will be realised not just through the decisions made at the joint committee, but through the agreements that we aim to secure at the UK-EU summit later this month.
I can confirm that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is writing to the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly personally to update him on these next steps. I will place a copy of the Secretary of State’s letter to the Assembly Speaker in the Library of the House for future reference.
[HCWS455]
National Savings and Investments
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
On 19 May 2026 I updated Parliament on the steps being taken by National Savings and Investments to address historical failures in the handling of some bereavement claims and the remediation scheme established to reunite affected estates with funds that should have been returned earlier—HCWS44. I reported that up to 34,000 estates had been affected by this issue, with a total value of £367 million.
The Treasury instructed NS&I to put this right swiftly and fairly, requiring a delivery plan detailing how they intended to do so to be published in May1. It also appointed Sir Jim Harra, former first permanent secretary at HM Revenue and Customs, to take over as chief executive of NS&I on an interim basis, to provide a fresh start. Today, NS&I has provided an update on its delivery of its remediation programme, which it will continue to do on a quarterly basis until completion2.
As detailed in its update, NS&I has continued to analyse its data to establish how many estates have been affected by its bereavement claims issue. As such, the total number of estates affected has fallen to 30,300 cases, with a total value of approximately £181.9 million. Of these, NS&I is in the process of contacting all affected estates with holdings of £10 or more to reunite them with the full value of their holdings that should have been returned to them earlier and to compensate them. As reported in the update, this will see up to 15,600 estates with a total value of up to £181.83 million contacted.
The remediation programme remains underway, and NS&I continues to expect to complete this programme in the first half of 2027.
In addition, I have today laid NS&I’s annual report and accounts and product accounts 2025-26—HC 703. Alongside this, NS&I is also publishing an accounting officer assessment relating to its transformation programme3.
The annual report and accounts include a provision for the estimated costs of the remediation scheme. As the issue emerged after the supplementary estimate process had concluded, NS&I was unable to seek sufficient additional provision through that process. As a consequence, the Comptroller and Auditor General has issued an excess vote qualification on the accounts.
Today’s publications also provide an update on NS&I’s transformation programme. An updated business case setting out the delivery of a simplified solution has now been approved, and NS&I has published an accompanying accounting officer assessment setting out the rationale for proceeding with the revised approach and the steps being taken to address issues identified by independent reviews, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. To increase its oversight of the programme, the Treasury has established a sponsor and oversight board that will act as the principal governance forum for considering and determining material programme trade-offs affecting cost, timelines, scope and benefits, and will provide Ministers with an assurance that the programme remains on track.
NS&I continues to be key to the Government debt financing programme. However, this has been a challenging year for the organisation. As I committed to the House, NS&I’s interim chief executive, Sir Jim Harra, has undertaken a review into the background to the bereavement claims issue and what lessons must be learned. That review will be published by the end of the calendar year. I have also appointed Luke Jensen as permanent chair of the NS&I board, further strengthening the organisation’s leadership and oversight as it delivers its priorities.
1https://www.nsandi.com/about-us/press-releases/2026/nsi-bereavement-claims-delivery-plan
2https://www.nsandi.com/about-us/press-releases/2026/nsi-bereavement-claims-quarterly-update
3https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-major-projects-portfolio-accounting-officer-assessment-nsi
[HCWS453]
Broadcast Media Mergers
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
On 15 October 2026, my Department wrote to Sky UK Ltd and ITV plc to inform them I was minded to intervene in the anticipated merger between Sky UK Ltd and ITV Media and Entertainment Holdings Ltd under the Enterprise Act 2002 and inviting them to submit representations. Having fully considered their representations, I have decided to issue a public interest intervention notice.
My decision to issue a PUN relates to concerns I have that public interest considerations specified in section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002 may be relevant to the anticipated merger and that these considerations warrant further investigation.
At this stage, the issuing of a PUN triggers the requirement for the Competition and Markets Authority to report to me on jurisdictional and competition matters, and for Ofcom to report to me on the media public interest considerations in section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002, specifically:
the need for free expression of opinion in news media;
the need for, to the extent that it is reasonable and practicable, a sufficient plurality of views in news media in each market for news media in the United Kingdom or a part of the United Kingdom;
the need, in relation to every different audience in the United Kingdom, or in a particular area or locality of the United Kingdom, for there to be a sufficient plurality of persons with control of the media enterprises, serving that audience.
Under section 42 of the 2002 Act, I may include new public interest considerations in an intervention notice for Ofcom to consider in relation to the merger, if I am of the opinion that they ought to be specified. I have informed the parties that I have also decided to intervene on the following public interest ground which is not currently specified in the Act, but which I believe should be:
the need for the availability throughout the United Kingdom of a wide range of (i) broadcasting; and (ii) on-demand programmes; which—in each case, taken as a whole—is of high quality and calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests.
The legislation already specifies a public interest consideration on the need for the availability, throughout the UK, of a wide range of broadcasting which is both of high quality and calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests. As I explained in my written statement dated 15 October, I believe that this consideration should be modified to apply to on-demand programmes as well as broadcasting, in line with modern viewing habits and my specific concerns regarding this merger.
Next steps
The decision letters to the parties, and other relevant updates, will be published on www.gov.uk: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/the-anticipated-acquisition-of-itv-media-and-entertainment-holdings-limited-by-sky-uk-limited
I will bring forward legislation which amends section 58 of the Act to extend the application of the public interest consideration relating to the availability of a wide range of broadcasting, to on-demand programmes.
I have asked both the CMA and Ofcom to report back to me by 27 January 2027. Following these reports, I will need to decide whether to refer the matter for a more detailed investigation by the CMA under section 45 of the Act.
DCMS will update Parliament after both reports from the regulators have been received and considered.
Finally, on the evidence available to me I do not consider that my duty to issue a foreign state intervention notice has arisen. If new or additional information comes to light which suggests that a foreign state newspaper merger situation may be created as a result of the arrangements currently in progress being carried into effect, I will be obliged to refer the merger to the Competition and Markets Authority under section 70A of the Act.
[HCWS452]
UN Biodiversity Conference—COP17
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter)
Nature underpins our food and water security, health, economic resilience and prosperity. The Government remain committed to halting and reversing biodiversity loss and to implementing the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework at home and internationally.
The 17th conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity—CBD COP17—concluded in Yerevan, Armenia, on 31 October. The conference adopted nearly 50 decisions, including the first global review of collective progress in implementing the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework. The review found that, although progress is being made, the world is not on track to meet the framework’s 23 targets by 2030 without accelerated action. The United Kingdom played an active and constructive role in securing the central package of decisions needed to maintain international momentum towards 2030.
The principal outcome was agreement of the Yerevan pathway, the negotiated response to the first global review. It sets priorities for faster implementation, including reforming incentives harmful to biodiversity; increasing financial, scientific and technical support for developing countries; aligning national budgets and economic decisions with the global biodiversity framework; and strengthening planning, monitoring, reporting and review. The UK welcomes this assessment of the implementation gap and will continue to support practical action to turn global commitments into measurable results.
Parties also reached agreement on resource mobilisation. The outcome recognises the need to increase finance from all sources, establishes criteria to guide a financial mechanism for the period after 2030, and provides a voluntary route for additional countries to signal an interest in contributing.
COP17 also advanced the multilateral mechanism for sharing benefits from the use of digital sequence information on genetic resources and the Cali fund. The decision retained the voluntary approach for UK businesses and did not increase the indicative contribution rates agreed at COP16. It established temporary arrangements for allocating funding to developing countries and a programme of further work on the operation of the mechanism. Four UK companies have now contributed to the Cali fund, supporting biodiversity while protecting open research and innovation.
Further decisions enabled the new subsidiary body on article 8(j) to begin its work with the participation of indigenous peoples and local communities, and advanced co-operation on marine and coastal biodiversity, including with the agreement on biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction. The UK also helped secure recognition of the critical contribution of the intergovernmental science policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services, defending independent science and evidence-based decision making.
We were disappointed that not all of the COP’s work was completed within the time available, and that decisions on biodiversity and climate change and language on harmful subsidies were less ambitious than the UK had sought. Nevertheless, the overall package enables parties to continue accelerating implementation. The UK will continue to promote practical synergies between the Rio conventions and the reform of subsidies and other incentives harmful to biodiversity.
Alongside the negotiations, the UK announced £1.94 million to support the Wildlife Trusts’ purchase of the Rothbury estate, helping to secure a nationally important landscape for long-term nature recovery. The Wildlife Trusts and Northumberland Wildlife Trust will work with local communities, tenants and farmers to develop a shared vision for the estate, supporting wildlife, farming and rural livelihoods. Our 30by30 publication “From Commitment to Conservation”, which was launched during COP17, shows how countries, communities and conservation partners are turning the global 30by30 commitment into practical conservation outcomes. This is available online at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/delivering-the-30by30-commitment
The UK also announced that, over the next three financial years, around £6 billion of UK aid will support international climate finance, with around a quarter expected to benefit nature.
This builds on the UK’s £330 million pledge to the ninth replenishment of the global environment facility and our intention to invest £400 million in the tropical forests forever facility, supporting developing countries to protect nature and mobilise finance for standing forests. We have also convened the world’s first climate and nature security taskforce, bringing together expertise from across security, the military, academia and industry to strengthen our preparedness for the risks posed by climate change and nature loss. As the Foreign Secretary recently set out, building resilience to climate, economic and security shocks is a matter of both values and national interest. We will carry that focus into our G20 presidency, working with partners to strengthen resilience, protect shared prosperity and support greater global stability.
The Government also published “Growing Places: Mobilising Private Finance for Local Nature Recovery”, setting out how we will unlock private investment in nature by strengthening demand, building confidence in nature markets and helping local partners to develop investable projects. This is available online at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mobilising-private-finance-for-local-nature-recovery
This will support nature recovery alongside sustainable growth and more resilient communities.
In England, we will drive delivery towards our 2030 global targets through the environmental improvement plan, backed by over £7 billion for nature recovery.
This includes delivering on our commitment to protect 30% of land and sea for nature by 2030—known as 30by30. We will also continue to reform agricultural subsidies, moving from land-based payments towards rewarding farmers for environmental benefits through environmental land management schemes, alongside food production. We will improve protected sites and are investing £26 million to support local nature recovery strategies to target action where it will have greatest impact. We will also invest £25 million in peatland restoration in 2027-28 to 2028-29, prioritising areas at greater wildfire risk, alongside support for land managers to create fire ponds and firebreaks. At sea, we will strengthen protection of marine habitats through fisheries management measures in English waters.
This sits alongside other measures to accelerate our work to drive nature recovery at home, including investing £60 million to support 130 conservation projects across England in 2026-27 to 2028-29, helping to support the recovery of over 350 threatened species. A further £30 million will support species recovery on the national forest estate, and another £30 million will support the creation of wildlife-rich habitat in protected landscapes. We will also support opportunities to reintroduce native species, as we have with bringing beavers back, where there are clear environmental and socioeconomic benefits.
COP17 delivered a balanced but hard-fought package, although it did not resolve every political disagreement. Further work will be required before COP18, which Ecuador will host in 2028. The UK will continue to work with parties and partners to accelerate implementation, protect the integrity of science, mobilise resources from all sources, and ensure that nature recovery supports security, prosperity and resilience.
[HCWS448]
DHSC and NHS England: Organisational Update
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Yvette Cooper)
Over the summer I reviewed the Department of Health and Social Care’s reform plans, the legislation and the work underway across the Department and NHS England to deliver the vision set out in the 10-year health plan. I have been clear that our focus must remain on the health and care of patients and communities across the country, and on supporting the staff who deliver those services.
On 1 April 2027, subject to the passage of the Health Bill, we will bring NHS England back into the Department of Health and Social Care. As set out in the 10-year health plan, we cannot continue with two parallel national organisations carrying out so many overlapping and unco-ordinated functions. This is particularly important as we strengthen partnerships and integration between the NHS and social care, and shift more care into the community and towards prevention.
As we devolve power out to the frontline, the new DHSC must transform into a streamlined and agile organisation executing a core set of national functions effectively. The national centre should offer local areas a single vision, clarity on the future strategy, and a set of national priorities and minimum standards. It should also oversee the execution of a sophisticated and clear rules-based system that rewards success, co-ordinates an overall improvement offer and intervenes where performance falls short.
Before the 2012 reforms, most of these functions sat within the Department of Health. This included the period between 2006 and 2012, when the NHS achieved its strongest performance and public satisfaction levels. Our future model will therefore draw on that experience of effective national leadership and delivery, while reflecting the needs of today’s health and care system.
We will maintain the crucial role of the NHS chief executive and establish an NHS Group within DHSC, focused on NHS operational delivery and working alongside the Department’s other core responsibilities, including policy development, social care and public health.
The vast majority of NHSE’s current national delivery functions will transfer into the NHS Group. Elsewhere, we will bring together existing DHSC and NHSE expertise in combined teams, strengthening our ability to bring policy makers together with operational service delivery experts across a range of issues. This will be particularly important for areas such as neighbourhood health, where delivery depends on close working between the NHS, social care, other Government partners and the voluntary sector.
I want to see greater devolution to local organisations and communities, alongside closer alignment between the NHS, social care, MSAs—mayoral strategic authorities—and local councils.
We will therefore continue work and consultation on how boundaries, partnerships and the alignment of powers should evolve across regions, MSAs and local areas.
NHS regional teams will support this transition, given their knowledge of local circumstances, communities and patients needed to support performance improvement. These teams will not transfer into DHSC on 1 April 2027.
To support the continuing work of the seven existing regional teams, we will establish a transitional special health authority. It will be accountable directly to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, through the NHS Group within the Department.
The transitional special health authority will not exercise national functions. Its purpose is to support existing regional teams, allowing them to remain close to the frontline organisations they support, rather than being centralised within the Department. We have agreed that this should be a temporary arrangement that will support the transition towards a more devolved model.
This can be achieved within the existing legislative framework and does not require amendments to the Health Bill. The legislation already provides for the establishment of the special health authority and for relevant functions of the Secretary of State to be conferred.
I also believe that decisions about care must be informed by the experiences of patients and the public. That is why I have chosen to retain and strengthen Healthwatch, and why the Department will soon appoint a new Patient Experience Director. This role will support patients and families who have experienced harm and injustice, listen to their concerns and help them get answers.
Alongside the voices of patients and families, we must draw more fully on the expertise of those who provide care. I will therefore establish the first clinical council, bringing together a small group of senior clinicians to strengthen clinical leadership across the system and advise Ministers on the NHS’s major clinical priorities. Their experience of treating patients and improving services will directly inform our decisions.
These reforms must help us get back to what the NHS does best: caring for people when they need it most. That is the purpose behind every target and every plan—not changing structures for their own sake, but so that patients get timely care and families get the support they need.
[HCWS447]
Law Enforcement: Biometrics, Facial Recognition and Similar Technologies
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
I am today announcing the publication of the Government’s response to the public consultation on a new legal framework for law enforcement use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies in England and Wales.
The consultation sought views on which types of data, technologies and activities should be covered by the framework, who the framework should apply to, and what safeguards and oversight should be in place to protect privacy and other rights. It received over 13,800 responses from members of the public, academics, industry, regulators, civil society groups, the police and others.
Analysis of responses showed support for a new statutory framework for use of technologies such as facial recognition by the police and others. Respondents emphasised the importance of strong safeguards, transparency, accountability, effective independent oversight and the protection of individual rights.
That is why the police reform Bill will introduce a new framework to underpin use of biometric and overt surveillance systems for law enforcement and some safeguarding purposes, by the police and other public bodies. The framework will ensure that policing can innovate in a repeatable and consistent manner, supporting adoption of emerging biometric and overt surveillance technologies that improve policing effectiveness and public protection. New powers will be supported by a statutory code of practice, and a new independent oversight body will monitor and enforce compliance.
Consultation responses also raised questions about private sector uses of biometric technologies. The police reform Bill will therefore also contain complementary measures to ensure that rules for private sector uses of technologies such as facial recognition for the prevention and detection of crime are consistent with law enforcement use, where this is appropriate.
A copy of the Government’s response and supporting materials will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on gov.uk.
[HCWS449]
House of Lords
Wales: Constitutional and Policy Divergence
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wilcox of Newport
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of constitutional and policy divergence in Wales on the integrity of the United Kingdom.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, devolution allows Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to take different approaches which reflect particular circumstances, while continuing to benefit from the pooling of resources, the sharing of opportunities and the collective strength that comes from being part of the United Kingdom. The integrity of the United Kingdom is best protected when our four Governments work constructively and effectively together on shared challenges. That is what the Prime Minister is committed to, as he made clear to the Heads of the devolved Governments in the National Economic Council meeting last week.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree with me that the true measure of successful devolution is not the accumulation of constitutional difference but whether it delivers better outcomes for the people of Wales while strengthening their place within the United Kingdom?
Lord Katz (Lab)
My noble friend is right; what matters is what works. The guiding principle for our engagement with the Welsh Government is how to deliver better outcomes on the issues that matter for people in Wales. That is why we are supporting people in Wales with the cost of living and by driving good growth and creating thousands of jobs in the process. We were pleased to discuss our ambitions for industrialisation and good growth with the Welsh Government at the National Economic Council and look forward to building on this in the coming months. I agree with my noble friend that this is also about strengthening and championing the contribution that Wales makes to the UK’s collective security and prosperity in bolstering the UK’s defence, producing our steel and leading the way in industries such as compound semiconductors and life sciences—our union is stronger from having Wales in it.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, why is it a problem when Wales chooses to do things differently but not when England does? What assessment have this Government made of the impact of the constitutional and policy divergence in England on the integrity of the UK?
Lord Katz (Lab)
If one thinks about devolution across the whole of the United Kingdom, Wales is at risk of becoming one of the most centralised countries. There are opportunities to deepen devolution in Wales and to take a more place-based approach to growth. That is an ambition that the UK and the Welsh Government share. We are keen to explore that in a respectful partnership with the Welsh Government. This means empowering places right across Wales so that they can realise their own growth ambitions.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
It is the turn of the Lib Dems.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
As the Minister already said, devolution in Wales has given us the ability to do things differently from the rest of the UK if we feel it meets the needs of the people of Wales. That inevitably means divergence. Wales needs to move on and to travel further on its devolution journey. We face a number of choices highlighted in the Senedd Commission’s report: the status quo, Plaid’s independence or the Lib Dem preference for a federal future. What steps do the Government intend to take to progress further powers to Wales?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I agree with the sentiment that the noble Baroness has expressed. Last week at the National Economic Council, the Prime Minister set out an offer on empowering local regions to deliver good growth and thus develop better public services to prevent Wales maintaining its position as highly centralised. This involves all sorts of things, such as devolving more employment support on the condition that it reaches down into Wales’s regions and communities and exploring how we can improve city region deals. Constitutionally, we need to carry on talking respectfully to all our partners in Governments across the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister is looking forward to Cardiff hosting the next meeting of the National Economic Council next spring. I am sure that these discussions will continue.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, is absolutely right in advancing the test, as she does, of the quality of public services delivered. The experience in Scotland is sad and instructive. After 21 years of SNP incumbency, we have had a relentless prosecution of the case for independence—rejected by the Scottish electorate—and a cataclysmic decline in public services, while being the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom. Can the Minister reassure this House that his Government will take steps to ensure that Administrations in the devolved parts of this nation are concentrating exclusively on the services they are supposed to deliver for their electorates?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I agree completely with the noble Baroness. I am absolutely clear that the UK Labour Government were elected with a mandate to defend and strengthen our union, including in both Wales and Scotland—that is what we are doing now and will continue to do. We will never support independence. On her comments about looking out for the people of the respective nations, whether in Wales, as originally posed in the Question, or in Scotland, we are clear that nations and Governments need to focus on what is best for the people. We are very pleased that the Welsh Government have decided to follow the UK Government’s lead in passing on the £100 household energy payment that was announced in last week’s Budget. We are also clear that, when we are giving record funding settlements, as we are to Wales, the devolved Administrations need to focus on spending them on public services that improve the lives of their citizens, not spend all their time on constitutional questions.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
Does my noble friend the Minister agree that one of the abiding problems in Wales is the concentration of power and prosperity in Cardiff and the south-east? What are the Government doing to encourage a greater spread of power and prosperity within Wales, and real devolution?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend. As I have previously said, we want to see full regional empowerment and power passed down not just from Westminster to Cardiff Bay but through there to reach all parts of Wales. On the specifics, we are supporting the Welsh Government in investing across the whole of Wales. I point to the Gwyndod investment in Ynys Môn for nuclear energy, and urge Plaid Cymru to be clear about how it supports the ambitions we have for nuclear energy to provide both energy security and lots of good, high-skilled jobs in Wales and across the rest of the UK. We are also talking about improving transport links through a new station in Deeside. The UK Government are supporting lots of investment in Wales, but we also want to see the Welsh Government supporting regional empowerment throughout the whole country of Wales.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, intergovernmental relations are set out in a quarterly report. In the first six months of this year, the Northern Ireland Executive had 29 interministerial group meetings, the Scottish Government had 23 and the Welsh Government had only 21. When one looks by department, one sees that the Wales Office managed to have only one in the first six months. The interministerial group structure is one of the key things for making our United Kingdom work properly. Does the Minister feel satisfied with the number of meetings that I have just described? What plans are there to increase that number for Wales?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl for that observation; I am not keeping quite as close a tally as he is on the number of meetings. I point out that, just this weekend, we had the first meeting of the new National Economic Council, and it was positive to see the Prime Minister convene it. He made a very clear offer to the leaders of all the devolved Governments to put politics aside and to work in partnership with the UK Government. That is the spirit in which he wishes to work with the Heads of the devolved Governments; I hope that it will be taken up by them in the same spirit, and I am sure it will be.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, both the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, whom I congratulate on raising this issue, have spoken about outcomes from devolution. The Minister will understand how personally upsetting I find it to see Wales falling behind in so many devolved areas. The latest PISA results were shockingly bad, highlighting the challenges facing Welsh education, yet the Welsh Government continue to seek further powers, including the devolution of law and policing. Will the Minister rule out further constitutional divergence, where it risks undermining the integrity of our United Kingdom? A quick, one-word answer will suffice.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I can spare more than just one word. I agree that we are looking for the Welsh Government—and, indeed, the Scottish Government—to concentrate on spending public money on improving people’s lives, not on constitutional questions.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, in undertaking his responsibilities on matters which impact on devolved services, from where does the Minister get his advice?
Lord Katz (Lab)
Personally, I get advice from officials in the Wales Office. Part of the reason the Prime Minister is convening the National Economic Council is to have frank, open and positive conversations with the leaders of the devolved Governments, including the Plaid Cymru Administration in Cardiff, to ensure that we have an open dialogue about Wales’s challenges. They need to come to the table—I am sure they will—in that spirit of openness and with a willingness to work in partnership on what matters to people in Wales, which I would say is improving public services.
Local Housing Allowance: Freeze
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
To ask His Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to lifting the freeze in local housing allowance; and what assessment they have made of the effect of lifting that freeze on homelessness and the demand for temporary accommodation.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, this Government are spending tens of billions of pounds on housing support each year. We are also investing over £40 billion over 10 years in the social and affordable homes programme. We know the causes of homelessness are complex, both personally and structurally. My department is working with MHCLG on the national plan to end homelessness. The Government’s investment in homelessness and rough sleeping services is now over £4 billion over the next three years, building on the actions set out in that strategy.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, poverty and housing charities and the LGA are very disappointed that the local housing allowance freeze, made under austerity, was not lifted in the Budget, despite the Government’s welcome commitment to tackling homelessness and child poverty. The shortfall for low-income private renters has reached an all-time high, with consequences for poverty, destitution and homelessness, and the need for temporary accommodation and food banks. The Prime Minister himself told the Commons recently:
“The freeze does not save money, because it just creates an unfunded pressure in council budgets”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/9/26; col. 63.]
Will the Government therefore now consider classifying the LHA as preventive spending, with a view to restoring its original annual uprating from April?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the starting point is that my department spends £38 billion a year on housing support. No other OECD country spends a greater proportion of its GDP on housing help. Around one-third of households in the private rented sector now get housing support from DWP. That costs over £13 billion a year; it went up by over £3.5 billion in the last decade and keeps rising. In the end, we have to address the root cause of this issue, and the only way to do that is to secure an adequate number of decent affordable homes. That is why the Government have recently announced an extra £1.5 billion to deliver around 10,000 homes in England, prioritising social rent, especially council homes, and we will keep building up the resources to do that. Discretionary support for housing costs is available from local authorities for those receiving housing support who have a shortfall in meeting their housing costs.
Baroness Teather (LD)
My Lords, LHA levels have now fallen so far behind market rent levels that fewer than 2% of properties are affordable, leaving hundreds of thousands of families stuck—stuck on social housing waiting lists with no chance of housing; stuck in temporary accommodation, unable to move on; and stuck while other homeless families wait for that space to be freed for them. Can the Minister not see that solving the homelessness crisis requires us first to unstick LHA levels?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the starting point is that it needs to be the other way around. The noble Baroness mentions 2%; she will know that that is not a figure the Government recognise, but we do recognise the affordability pressures faced by those living in the private rented sector. That is why we have taken a whole series of actions: the Renters’ Rights Act in May, powers to challenge excessive rent hikes, giving greater security through the abolition of no-fault Section 21 evictions, and taking practical steps through that Act to help renters tackling rental discrimination. In the end, the only way to drive down rents in the sector is for there to be enough supply of housing, which is why the Government have prioritised that. We are also investing significantly in supporting councils, in addressing problems in temporary accommodation and, crucially, in addressing the root causes of homelessness. That must be the priority.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
To build on the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, the Government want to move asylum seekers out of hotels and into private rented accommodation, and to end rough sleeping, which means providing move-on accommodation for rough sleepers when they leave hostels. Both these groups are, by definition, on low incomes. How confident is the noble Baroness that those two worthy ambitions will be met if the local housing allowances do not cover local rents?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord raises important points, and there are different groups of people who need housing support, but they all need to be tackled in different ways. I will not go into detail about what has happened with asylum accommodation, but we know that a lot of work has gone into that. Crucially, the investment of significant amounts of extra money—another £432 million to address homelessness and rough sleeping, bringing that to over £4 billion in three years—is addressing a whole range of questions. These include trying to get people off the streets, but then supporting them to move on and operate independently, addressing whatever the underlying issues are, such as mental health, elsewhere. We are also taking action in different areas. We are working to tackle the inappropriate and illegal use of B&B accommodation for families over a certain area. We have committed £30 million in support of a three-year emergency accommodation reduction programme, specifically to support local authorities with the highest pressures. The Government are acting in all the different areas, but in the end, the solution has to be more housing.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, councils spent £2.8 billion on temporary accommodation last year, while it is estimated that restoring the local housing allowance would cost around £2 billion a year by the end of the decade. Did the Government weigh the cost of the freeze to councils against its savings to DWP?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the Government weighed all the issues involved in housing across the piece. As I was saying to the noble Lord, Lord Young, we have a housing market, and all these things are interrelated. It is not a matter of simply pressing down here and comparing it with what happens over there. In the longer term, if we do not have enough decent affordable homes, rents will keep rising. It is a simple law of supply and demand. The Government have to meet the challenge of addressing prices in the short term, which is why we have been doing lots on temporary accommodation; addressing prices in the long term by investing over £40 billion over 10 years in the long-term development of additional housing; and investing in the immediate term with discretionary support so that, where there is rent shortfall, renters can apply for help from local authorities. We have also put the first part of a multi-year settlement into local resilience support. So we are doing it across the piece but, in the end, we have to get the market sorted.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that very few landlords are going to let to anyone on housing benefit if they know there is a gap to be filled between the rent the tenant receives as benefit and the actual rent that has to be paid? No landlord is going to take the risk with such tenants, and this is already leading to a drying up of accommodation provided by private landlords for anyone on the lowest incomes.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, there is certainly a relationship—at least, we assume so—between the amount of money the state will spend supporting housing and how much landlords charge. That cashes out in various ways, as I have just been trying to describe. The reality is that a significant number of people in the private rented sector who receive housing support, either housing benefit or universal credit, apply and get help from their councils through discretionary housing payments and the wider crisis and resilience fund. It will carry on being there to support them, and they can use that to help to pay their rents.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, bearing in mind what the Minister has said about the Government’s priorities, what assessment has she made of the short-term case for restoring local housing allowance to the 30th percentile, in order to make the private rented sector more accessible while the country builds the social homes we know are needed to meet sustainable long-term housing need?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
We will continue to keep the rate of the local housing allowance under review. To give the House a sense of the cost involved, in April 2024 there was a one-year increase in the local housing allowance; that cost an extra £1.2 billion in 2024–25. Over five years, that one rise will cost over £7 billion. I am extremely sensitive to the points being raised. The Government are investing money through a long-term crisis and resilience fund and through local discretionary support to help meet the shortfalls. But in the end, the Government’s priority is to tackle emergency problems in the short term, tackle emergency accommodation, tackle temporary accommodation, invest extensively in tackling homelessness, and provide extra support while the market is sorted.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, if increasing supply is the sustainable way to make housing more affordable, do the Government accept the OBR’s forecast that 190,000 fewer additional homes will be delivered over the forecast period, which will mean higher housing costs as a direct result of this Government’s failed housing policy?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am not sure that, if I were on the Benches opposite, I would be talking too much about a failure to build houses over a long period. Since we are on the subject, this Government are providing an extra £1.5 billion to provide 10,000 homes in England for social rent now. We also have a target to build 1.5 million new homes—we know that that is stretching. Our latest statistics suggest that we built 437,900 net additional homes from the start of this Parliament through to 20 September this year. It will take time for the impact of our planning reforms to flow through to the published data, and we know this is a difficult environment; the geopolitical context is not easy. We know it will be challenging and that it will take time to turn the tide and deliver more homes. We expect housebuilding to ramp up further in the later years of this Parliament, but I urge the whole House to get behind an ambitious target. We need Government after Government to keep doing this. This Government are determined to do it.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, homelessness and temporary accommodation are not just housing issues; they are public health issues. Housing is an important determinant of health. The report published by our Government in December 2025 showed that during the last Government, from 2019 to 2024, temporary accommodation was a contributing factor to the deaths of 74 children, and 58 of those children were under the age of one. Will the Government consider the public health consequences of homelessness and temporary accommodation, and work jointly with the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS when planning these prevention strategies?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My noble friend raises an excellent point. It is not just a matter of temporary housing; there are issues about the quality of housing. The Government are working very hard on this. In particular, we take the issue of non-compliant landlords renting out substandard properties very seriously indeed. Local authorities have various powers to make sure landlords can be held accountable, and these can be robustly enforced. My department is working with MHCLG to increase enforcement activity and to make our data available to make that easier. One example is Awaab’s law, which came into force in the social rented sector in October last year. It means that all social landlords must repair all emergency hazards within 24 hours and fix dangerous damp and mould within fixed timescales. That will be extended further in phase 2. I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this issue, and I assure her that the Government are on it.
House of Lords: Relevance
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
The Government value the role played by the House of Lords as a revising Chamber. Through the expertise and experience of the Members of your Lordships’ House, and by holding the Government to account, this House improves legislation and delivers better outcomes for the UK public. We will, and are, taking forward long overdue reforms to your Lordships’ House; these changes will ensure that the second Chamber can continue to perform its vital scrutiny role with maximum effectiveness and public confidence going forward.
Lord Mann (Lab)
We know what we are, but we know not what we may be. AI will usurp the revising Chamber; that much is obvious. Is our future to be merely the hallucinators? The hereditaries flew their perch with barely a murmur, but what of us? Will we waltz into oblivion or quickstep into a brave new world?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Of all the questions I thought my noble friend would come up with as a supplementary, I was not anticipating one on AI. I am not convinced by my noble friend’s arguments about AI. Clearly, AI will have a wide range of purposes and will enable us to do our jobs better in so many ways. However, I believe that, with a modernised House of Lords, we will continue to have a purpose for many years.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the failure of the House of Commons to debate many clauses of the Bills brought before it demonstrates the relevance of this place?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, how those in the Commons scrutinise legislation is a matter for them, not for us. They have their procedures; we have ours. The two Houses are not and have never been a carbon copy of each other, which is probably where one of their strengths lies.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I hope I am not hallucinating at this particular point. What examination have the Government done during their reforms to the composition of the House of Lords of whether there will be a disproportionate or differential impact on the countries and regions of the United Kingdom in its membership? If the Government come to the conclusion that there will be a disproportionate impact, what plans do they have to restore geographical balance to the House?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Government are clear that we should have regional and national representation as part of whatever form your Lordships’ House takes going forward. We want to reform the appointments process—that is a manifesto commitment—to ensure the quality of new appointments, and seek to improve the national and regional balance of the second Chamber. As we work through potential reforms, this will remain a commitment from the Government.
Lord Pack (LD)
Does the Minister agree that an excellent way of reinforcing the relevance and reputation of this House in contemporary and modern Britain would be to finally deliver on the promise made in the Parliament Act 1911 and make this a democratic Chamber?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am not clear that that would necessarily solve all the problems, and there are a number of arguments against that as well. At the moment, our focus as a Government is on considering the recommendations of the Retirement and Participation Committee. The overall objective is a smaller Chamber that better represents the UK’s regions and nations.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, in order for us to fulfil our scrutiny function fully, when will the Government increase the number of appointments through the House of Lords Appointments Commission? These applicants are very carefully scrutinised to ensure that they are able to fill any gaps there are in the knowledge in the Chamber in looking at legislation.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The House of Lords Appointments Commission plays a vital role in vetting and nominating Cross-Benchers to the Lords. In our manifesto we committed to reform the process of appointments to the House of Lords. We have already strengthened transparency in the appointments system and will continue to work with the House of Lords Appointments Commission as part of our process of reform.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that much of our legitimacy in the eyes of the public flows from our effectiveness as a scrutinising Chamber? Indeed, many regard this House as the finest scrutinising Chamber in the world. Does she agree that proposed changes should always be motivated by a desire to improve effective scrutiny?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Absolutely; I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Baroness. I have a list of the activity of the House of Lords: from 17 July 2024 to 29 April this year, apparently your Lordships spent 2,624 hours scrutinising legislation, which speaks to the role of your Lordships’ House in scrutinising legislation.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am privileged to sit on the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee, which is not only relevant to the people of Northern Ireland and its businesses and consumers but is the only body that carries out that function. It is important that we allow that relevance to become known, not just in Northern Ireland but across the UK. How can the Minister increase the knowledge of what happens here, not just in this Chamber but in committees across the House?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
On one level, this has to be a matter for the House itself. One of the ways we can all make sure that people are clear on what we do as an institution is by sharing that knowledge. I know that a huge number of noble Lords take part in the Learn with the Lords programme. Promoting what people do across the House is hugely important. I understand that 330 Members of your Lordships’ House sit on committees. I was surprised by that figure, and if I am surprised by how much work goes on behind the scenes on committees then I think we all have a role in promoting the work of our incredible committees.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, the Minister said—I think I heard her correctly—that the Government’s policy was to have a smaller House and to improve the appointments process. In that context, and if the Government really want to achieve that, is it therefore their policy to constrain the unconstrained prerogative of the Prime Minister to appoint as many Peers as possible to this House without the full scrutiny of the Appointments Commission?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We are committed to reform, and we have already taken steps to modernise the House of Lords via the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act. It is a long-standing precedent across the political spectrum that Governments recommend new Peers to the sovereign. Retirements and other departures mean that new Peers will be needed to ensure that the Lords has appropriate expertise. In the first instance, we intend to respond later this year to the report by the committee of the House that made recommendations.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I may not regard myself as contemporary, but, coming from Scotland, I am a proud member of the United Kingdom, with British citizenship, and I am privileged to be in this House. Very recently, I have seen at first hand the manifestation of the expertise to which the Minister has been referring. The 97 year-old noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, delivered a crucial amendment to the Armed Forces Bill that was accepted by the Government, and my venerable noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who is in his mid-80s, has brought unrelenting pressure on the Government in respect of housing issues and child trust funds. Does that not suggest to the Minister that the Government should be very careful about interfering with the unique equilibrium which enables this Chamber to do the excellent job it does?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Government’s manifesto committed to a mandatory retirement age, and clearly that was a large part of the consideration of the committee that was made up of Members of your Lordships’ House and which reported to it earlier this year. Although we have incredible examples of what Members of your Lordships’ House who are over the age of 80 do, that does not necessarily mean that we should not take forward reform. The Government will respond to the committee’s proposals in due course, as I made clear, and I look forward to future debates with Members from across your Lordships’ House.
Prison Recalls: Breach of Licence
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Farmer
To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they are taking in response to the number of recalls to prison for breach of licence in the year to June.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, recall is an essential public protection tool. Through the Sentencing Act we have reformed recall, replacing short-term recalls at 14 and 28 days with a fixed-term recall of 56 days, to provide time to address risks and resettlement needs to ensure safe re-release.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, MoJ data between April and June this year shows 12,278 releases from custodial sentences, and 11,898 recall prison admissions. Despite radical early release schemes, we seem only to be breaking even. The Minister has a great track record in offender rehabilitation, but the Government need to end this merry-go-round and make prisons a place of reform. How will they ensure that politicians no longer ignore the game-changing role that relationships play in rehabilitation? HMPPS staff and front-line charities are completely seized of its importance but need those responsible for policy setting to make the case to a public desperate for change. Will the Government buck the trend of the last 20 years and explain why they are not being soft on crime to make healthy relationships prominent in penal policy?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
Well I hope we do buck the trend, certainly of the last 14 years, but I will answer the noble Lord fully. Recall is a public protection measure, as he knows, and people are recalled because they have broken licence conditions. The way for offenders to avoid recall is to comply with their licence conditions. On his wider point about relationships and rehabilitation, I think he knows, as we have worked together on this before, that I have a great deal of sympathy for what he is saying. If there is indeed a gap between policy and practice, I shall be very happy to champion closing it—with, of course, his wise advice and help.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that special steps are urgently needed to reduce the number of IPP prisoners recalled for breach of licence conditions?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
Yes, I do agree with that, and I am very proud that the Government have announced decisive steps to address the IPP problem. It has gone on far too long and we are going to address it, as the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor have announced. I should say, of course, that we shall not compromise public protection in doing that and, with regard to recall of IPP prisoners, we must make sure that the public are safe. But, as far as the IPP sentence is concerned, it must go.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, recalls are at their highest level ever, with more people now being recalled than are released. More than 70% of recalls follow non-compliance, while only a fifth follow reoffending. Non-compliance is often not deliberate but results from an inability to meet conditions, often because of housing or debt issues, rather than wilful breaches. How is it decided where recalled prisoners are placed and what support they are offered while back in prison for 56 days to help break the cycle of repeated recalls?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
There are several parts to that question; let me try and answer them quickly. On the question of recalls for administrative breaches, we are trying to improve the administrative procedures and use technology to ensure that, as far as possible, offenders on licence can avoid recall for those reasons. Of course, the noble Lord is absolutely right: the way to avoid recall is to prevent people becoming homeless and support all the protecting factors that prevent reoffending or, indeed, recall. Since we started our community accommodation service in HMPPS, we have helped to house 36,000 people, and the number of homeless ex-offenders has come down, but there is more to do. Finally, on the 56 days point, the reason we have done that, as the noble Lord knows, is to ensure that something meaningful and purposeful can happen when people are recalled.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, picking up on the last two speakers, there are countless people serving IPP sentences who have been recalled for no further offence but who have to wait up to two years to satisfy the Parole Board that they are indeed safe for release. Does the Minister agree that IPP prisoners who have been deemed safe for release should not have to prove yet again that they should regain their freedom?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I think my noble friend knows my views on this; we have worked closely together. He is a tireless campaigner on behalf of IPP prisoners and I pay tribute to him for that. We are going to end the IPP sentence without compromising public protection, and that includes ending the licence period.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I think we can all agree that, unless we have the facts about a government policy, none of us can evaluate it properly. The Telegraph reported that, in the first week after the introduction of the early release scheme, the number of recalls went up by 10%. In the Ministry of Justice figures released last week, in the relevant quarter the number of recalls went up by 27%, but no data is provided on how much of that 27% is due to the early release scheme. Will the Minister commit to providing that disaggregated data, so that we can see precisely how many of the recalls are due to the early release scheme?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
May I politely correct the noble Lord, first of all? It is not an early release scheme? Early release schemes were started as an emergency measure under the last Government. What we have introduced under the Sentencing Act, which I have spent many happy hours here debating, is an earned progression scheme.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
Well, noble Lords may laugh; I am sorry, but this is a big change in sentencing policy which we have debated at length, and it is now the law of the land. It is very early days for people released as part of this model. The data would not be meaningful, but we will publish data in the normal way.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
Can the Minister give a breakdown of the types of perpetrators that are being recalled to prison: for example, how many are domestic abuse or sexual abuse perpetrators?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
As I say, we will publish the data in the normal way, but I am very happy to point the noble Baroness to where that data is available and what breakdown is given.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, many of the prisoners who are released have drink and drug addiction problems. Is the Minister not concerned, as I am, that we have unfilled beds in residential rehab centres around the country, yet we have prisoners being released who are then quickly going back to drink and drugs, when we should be making a match, filling those beds, getting people proper recovery and stopping the cycle?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
Yes, I am concerned about that. I know from being involved with HMPPS for many years that the pathways to drug treatment for people leaving prison are very complicated and disparate around the country. We need to improve access and, as my noble friend said, the matching to drug treatment services. It cannot be right that more offenders need to receive that treatment when the treatment is available. It is an absolutely crucial part of reducing reoffending.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, on why prisoners breach licence conditions, as we have seen prisoners released early armed with tents because they do not have houses to go to, is that not a guarantee that they will breach their licensing conditions, as the Probation Service seems to be using recall as a mechanism to cope with the early release system by getting people off the books? Is it not the case that policy is assisting them to breach their licence conditions? Secondly, on the IPP question, will the Government look urgently at removing the IPP label from those in the community who have had to jump through high-threshold hoops to prove they are safe for release? Why not just get rid of the IPP label so that they will not be recalled egregiously and promiscuously, as too many of them are?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I should make it absolutely clear to your Lordships’ House that we do not issue tents to people leaving prison, and the noble Baroness should not believe everything she reads in the newspapers. On the question of IPPs, I was pleased that she attended our briefing on that, so she knows the progress we are making on that and I appreciate her support—and I wish all noble Lords a good day off tomorrow.
Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 9 September be approved.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 28 October.
Poundland
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, our thoughts are with those 12,000 Poundland workers and all those in the Poundland supply chain, who are facing an anxious Christmas.
However, only last week the Chancellor had the perfect opportunity in his Budget to reverse £25 billion in employer and national insurance contributions, to cut the most damaging regulations in the Employment Rights Act, to tackle some of the highest industrial electricity prices in the developed world and to reform a business rates regime that is crushing the high street. Instead, he chose to make a bad situation worse. According to a new report, since 2024 the cost of employing a worker on minimum wage has increased by £4,462. For an 18 to 20 year-old, the cost has increased by £4,859. That is double the rate of inflation. Is it any wonder that we have a NEETs crisis? It is sad to say, but Poundland will not be the last. When will the Government get a grip and cut the taxes and regulations that are driving businesses to the wall?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for coming in to ask this question despite having a very heavy cold. I wish him a speedy recovery.
Poundland stores remain open, but I know how worrying the uncertainty is for the 12,000 workers, their families and the wider supply chain. Gordon Brothers cites inflation and shoplifting, yet Poundland sales have grown and private buyers have come forward. Therefore, the owner needs to explain what is holding up the sale of the company. For the wider high street, the Budget will take around 70,000 more retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in England out of business rates from April 2027. We are committing £210 million to the community assets programmes, supporting local communities to reimagine and revive the struggling high streets.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, in the 1970s Prime Minister Edward Heath coined the phrase the “unacceptable face of capitalism”; if Gordon Brothers turns its back on the acquisition, closes Poundland and lets these important jobs go, that will be unacceptable. Therefore, I am a bit confused by the Minister’s response yesterday in the Commons. She seemed to be clear when she said that the Government would not
“sit by and do nothing”.
That would be clear, had she not said in the previous paragraph:
“We are not interfering with the auction. There are ongoing commercial negotiations about this private business, and we do not want to impede or influence that process”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/26; cols. 729-30.]
Can the Minister clear things up? Which of these are the Government not doing?
Lord Leong (Lab)
Currently, the Government are not going to intervene in the ongoing commercial negotiations regarding a private business. It would not be appropriate for the Government to intervene right now. We really need to wait and see what happens after the negotiations. Let us remember that Poundland is currently trading, it has appointed an administrator and there is creditor protection for 10 days, which expires next week. Under such terms, we want to see the negotiations carry on. However, the Government nevertheless want all viable options that are capable of protecting jobs and supporting a sustainable future for Poundland to be properly considered.
Lord McTague (Lab)
My Lords, it is clear that many small businesses are being pestered by Poundland to continue to supply to it even though their invoices have not been paid. Can my noble friend the Minister please give them some advice? How should they respond to that request?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that very important point. For a small supplier, one unpaid invoice can mean struggling to pay its monthly payroll. Suppliers need to know when invoices will be paid and on what terms they are being asked to send more stock. I would advise all suppliers to look at the terms of supply and see whether they have a Romalpa clause in the invoice, meaning that the title does not pass until the payment is made. We are pressing Poundland’s owner to explain how Poundland will protect suppliers as well as staff. The Home and Gift Association has an open register where suppliers can record their exposure.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I take the Minister back to the situation that was raised by my noble friend on the Front Bench—the wider trading conditions. In its report ahead of the Budget, the OBR made it clear that unemployment would rise in the next year and that the costs from the Employment Rights Act were very significant. These came on top of the very significant national insurance rises. Those were all factors in pushing up unemployment and all under the control of the Government. What are the Government going to do to improve the wider trading conditions for the retail sector?
Lord Leong (Lab)
As I explained earlier, regarding Poundland we need to look at not only national insurance but other employment costs. However, looking at the history of Poundland, there was a restructuring High Court hearing in 2025, at which the court said that Poundland was in financial distress. This has been ongoing for some time. The Government mentioned in the Budget that they are taking every step to support businesses, high streets and small businesses, and we are committed to doing so.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, Poundland is owned by Gordon Brothers, which in turn is owned by Stone Point Capital. These companies are effectively private equity organisations and, as is so often the case, they load companies that they purchase with debt that cannot be serviced. Does the Minister agree that this is the essential problem at Poundland?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I have I spent my working life building businesses and I support all forms of capital to help businesses to grow in scale. I recognise that there have been questions about Poundland, but our immediate priority is to establish the facts and support Poundland’s workforce. If incidents and wider questions such as the noble Baroness says do emerge from this case, of course we will consider them carefully.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, private equity has devoured town centres for years. Can I urge the Government to do two things? First, can they abolish the tax relief on interest payments for corporations—a process begun with the Finance Act 2017 by the party opposite. Secondly, can they appoint worker-elected directors on the boards of large companies? If the Minister finds these suggestions too radical, can he make his own?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I always find my noble friend’s questions, which are sometimes very challenging questions, quite interesting. On his point about interest, the Government’s position stays as it is. Regarding directors on boards, we can have ongoing conversations, but there are no immediate plans for this.
Lord Redwood (Con)
Will the Government rule out specific Poundland subsidy or nationalisation as a solution?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, does the Minister share my concern that chief executives get rises of often more than what their workers get paid in a year and very rich Tories opposite blame a lot of the problems on paying the poorest the minimum wage?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My noble friend has a point when it comes to the minimum wage. The Government support the minimum wage. As far as directors’ remuneration, it is entirely up to the company to decide how much it pays its directors.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, how can this Government credibly claim to champion the high street while at the same increasing employers’ national insurance and business rates?
Lord Leong (Lab)
There are so many ways in which one can answer that question. I refer the noble Earl to my previous answer to his noble friend.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I take the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, that private equity does typically put debt into businesses. Sometimes that works and sometimes it does not. In this instance, capital has been put into Poundland. When the last restructuring happened, it was going into financial difficulties in any event. But the point remains: does the Minister think that this business has benefited from more tax and regulation, or would it benefit from less tax and regulation?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I have tried many times and in different ways to address the point about additional employment costs and tax. As far as Poundland is concerned, there are still ongoing negotiations about a possible sale. Until such time as that happens, the Government will work with Poundland and the owners to try to get a sale going.
Representation of the People Bill
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, before we continue to debate Amendment 10, I remind the House that this is an adjourned debate. Therefore, unless Members were present at the start of the group, they are are not able to contribute. The Clerk at the Table has a full list of those who were present.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I was here on Monday evening at the point of adjournment, and not only am I in my place but I am next to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, who was in the same place as well. Things move on.
On nearly every amendment to this Bill, and in other parts of the work of your Lordships’ House, I support my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, but, regrettably, I cannot support his Amendment 124, which would require by law that election counts be started overnight following the polls closing. It is important to explain why.
Running an election is a complicated task for election staff. You have to recruit presiding officers, polling inspectors and count staff, and handle all matter of other ancillary tasks, such as fetching and carrying the ballot papers. I know that this happens at a general election, and it is important that we maintain the requirement for overnight counting in those contests, but we have to recognise that local government works over a much larger geographical canvas. It often encompasses multiple constituencies. There are many more electors in the race. We have multi-member wards. We have funny business when it comes to alternative and supplementary votes for some contests. More people and different and more complicated systems add complexity and time.
Local elections are different to the national elections, where, simply, the person with the most votes wins. Let us not forget that, unlike a parliamentary vote, where there is just one election to count, local elections may have many wards interspersed with town council by-elections, so the number of contests is not just greater; it is an order of magnitude larger.
Attracting presiding officers and count staff, who have historically come from our high street banks—tellers and other high street financial workers—is harder. In the age of tap and pay, we just do not have tellers who are used to handling banknotes any more, so we have ended up with a diminished pool of talent to operate the election. The facts of life are that, oftentimes, we rely on presiding officers, who have done a stretch from 7 am until 10 pm, to turn up again the following day to do the count. If we want to have confidence in our democracy, we cannot have people working for 24 hours non-stop in the most delicate and mentally taxing work, which requires huge concentration not just for validation but for the count, banding, bundling and tallying. Local elections have many more types of parties and candidates and therefore a higher propensity for recounts, where many contests are decided by just a handful of votes or even a coin toss.
As I warm to my theme, this short debate gives us the opportunity to remind the Prime Minister that if he is minded to change the current parliamentary voting system, any changes are likely to prejudice the ability for overnight counts if greater complexity is introduced. The voters rejected electoral change in a referendum in 2011, but he does not seem to be listening. The consequences of change are likely to be that the ability to count overnight is diminished or, at the very least, the announcement of the results and the clarity the electorate deserve will be delayed. I do not believe that has been taken into account in any other forum; here is my opportunity to mention it.
To return to the amendment, this is detailed work. It needs staff who are as bright as a button and on the ball to do these local elections, which are more complicated, take more time and provide more opportunities to go wrong than parliamentary contests, where there are often just two or three main candidates slugging it out and the majorities are weighed in handfuls of thousands, not handfuls of votes. For these reasons, I cannot support my noble friend in his endeavour, attractive though it may be. It is better to take your time and get it right than rush and live with the consequences.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
Does my noble friend at least concede that this is not a prescriptive amendment but rather a probing amendment? Clause 4 allows electoral returning officers to disregard the obligation in emergencies or specific circumstances. It is not a draconian amendment forcing every ERO to do the same.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I broadly support my noble friend Lord Fuller’s comments. Although I understand my noble friend Lord Jackson’s intervention, the key factor that one has to look at here, to which my noble friend Lord Fuller referred in passing, is the sheer number of parties that now operate on a regular basis in multi-member wards. I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Pack. As a fellow pedant, I would be quite happy if he wishes to correct me, but if one looks back to the 2022 elections, I think there were only three wards in the whole of England that delivered three councillors from three different parties or independent parties. In 2026, there were three wards in Bradford alone that delivered three members from three different parties, let alone the rest of the country. I see the noble Lord nodding, so I feel reassured that I have been pedantic and accurate enough. That makes my point, which is that the probability for recounts has risen dramatically in the current political circumstances. Whether that continues is another matter, but we really should allow the EROs and local councils the capacity to decide, and decide sensibly, how they conduct the counts, so that there are not errors. At the moment, it is remarkable that there are relatively few errors in local government elections, even where there are recounts that have taken place many hours after the count has started, let alone when election day has begun, which is of course many hours before that.
Having said that in disagreement with my noble friend Lord Jackson on his amendment, it is important that I pick up on one or two other matters that he raised with which I agree. In our adjourned debate, he said that the objective of his amendment was to “to restore voters’ confidence” in the electoral process. That is key in everything that we do daily. In the complexity in which we now operate in this country, it is staggering that there are not more errors—I refer here to the Electoral Commission’s report on the elections in May which identified very few genuine errors—but it is still important that everything we do in this Bill should be aimed at ensuring or restoring, depending on which is necessary, public confidence in the electoral process. We should consider both public confidence and the candidates’ confidence.
My noble friend referred to amendments relating to influencing voters through religious messaging, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who is not in her place, gave strong support. I note that my noble friend Lord Pickles is in his place. He did a thorough report on a whole range of electoral issues, and this was addressed in the 2022 legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Walney, is in his place, and he has an amendment. Unfortunately, he was not here previously—these things happen—but I hope I am going down the path that he would have gone down, which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, went down, in saying that there are clearly issues that need to be addressed and kept under consideration, and therefore they have to be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that we are operating sensibly.
My apologies for the slight interruption, but I am going to have to rest on a crutch for the rest of my contribution.
I draw attention to the other comments that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, made in relation to intimidation and crowds outside polling stations, which do nothing for confidence in the electoral process. I shall be returning to this issue later with my amendment on polling, issuing accreditation to tellers and the like, and the process of policing outside polling stations, but I just identify my support for what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to. I do not know how many Members of this place are aware that in the most recent parliamentary by-election, Holborn and St Pancras, there were so many crowds outside one polling station that the presiding officer asked for those people to be moved. In the end, the agent of the Green Party had to come down and tell the people to move because they were—in effect, being realistic—intimidating voters outside the polling station. This is a matter to which I shall return later, but I hope I have covered adequately at this stage the different issues that are raised by the amendments that we are considering in this group.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I beg the indulgence of the Committee to conclude my remarks on Amendment 129, which I had to curtail because of time on Monday. I want to refer to what my noble friend Lord Hayward said. I was very grateful for the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, about her lived experience in Watford in support of my amendment on undue influence.
Following the Pickles report—I am delighted that my noble friend is in his place—steps were taken in the Elections Act 2022 to strengthen the provision by “adding undue spiritual pressure”. The Electoral Commission’s review noted that
“unacceptable activity which many people consider electoral fraud—including pressure and intimidation both in the home and outside polling stations”,
which my noble friend Lord Hayward referred to,
“—may not be reported by victims”.
This is a valuable provision in law. It is important that it is regularly reviewed by Ministers to ensure that it is upheld properly and is up to date with the challenges of the UK’s changing demographic and religious landscape. Without regular reviews and monitoring, such provisions risk stagnating or becoming subtly and consistently subverted. The law means nothing if it is not enforced. The Pickles review and recent legislative changes reflect the importance of the provision for the UK’s electoral integrity. It is vital that it is not diminished.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, and I especially look forward to hearing the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, who I know was not present on Monday, which was commented on from the Liberal Democrat Benches. I am sure he will explain that there was a perfectly good reason. His Amendment 136 and my Amendment 129 are very similar. I thank the Committee for its indulgence.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Walney, was not here during the debate on Monday so he cannot speak.
Lord McCobb (LD)
My Lords, I will add to the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Hayward, some of the practical implications of Amendment 124. I make it clear that, like many people here today, I love an overnight count as much as anyone else. I have been to more than I can remember—including, ironically as it happens, the count at which the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield, was elected as a Member of Parliament in 2007.
Like everybody else, I understand that election nights are special, and I understand the desire to preserve the excitement that comes with overnight counts, as well as, for the broader public, a quick understanding of the implication of local election results for the country as a whole and what they mean for the Government of the day. However, this amendment would not deliver that in practice. It requires only that verification begins on polling night, not that a single vote is counted or a result declared. What it would do is remove a returning officer’s ability to plan a count properly on those nights where, in practice, that judgment matters most.
Let me take an extreme, but real, example. On 6 May 2021, voters in the village of Waterbeach in Cambridgeshire went to the polls, to be handed five ballot papers. They voted for their county councillor, a district councillor in a by-election, a parish councillor in a by-election, the combined authority mayor, and the police and crime commissioner. The law as it stands allows the returning officer to have ballot papers cast into either separate ballot boxes or into the same one for elections happening at the same time. Suppose the returning officer had, as they are permitted to do, provided a separate ballot box for each election. If this amendment were implemented, three of those five elections would, by law, have to have begun the verification in the two hours between the close of poll and midnight, and the other two would not.
However, it is not uncommon for voters to put ballot papers into the wrong ballot box, so in order to carry out the task in this complex scenario and make sure that, for example, a parish council ballot paper sitting in the police and crime commissioner ballot box was found and properly included in the count, in effect, all five ballot boxes would have to have been opened before midnight for those counts to be completed in parallel. Today, a returning officer can use one trained team to verify each election in turn, whereas this amendment would force all five verifications to happen in parallel at the same time before midnight. That would mean more staff, more tables and more supervisors for already pressed local authorities trying to run elections effectively. That would be simply impractical.
The exemption that the noble Lord referred to does not help either because it covers emergencies and safety risks but does not cover the ordinary, foreseeable complexity of running multiple elections on the same day using parallel or shared ballot boxes. While the Waterbeach example is an extreme example of what might happen, it is a real one that happened in practice. Returning officers are already accountable for how they run their counts and, ultimately, as one of the previous speakers said—
Lord Fuller (Con)
I would like to make a supportive comment. I used the Waterbeach example at Second Reading. Not only were there five different ballot papers, there were three different voting methods—first past the post, STV, and AV for the mayor and the PCC. That adds a further complexity to the point I think the noble Lord is trying to make.
Lord McCobb (LD)
I am grateful for that additional point. Returning officers are already accountable for how they run their counts, and, ultimately, accuracy matters more than speed. However much we love a traditional election night, we should not allow that desire to impose unworkable or unnecessarily restrictive practices on already stretched returning officers.
Lord Frost (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 124 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. I want to explain why and bring one element into this debate that we have not had so far, which is the voters and how they perceive the electoral process in local elections. It is quite a recent development that counts have drifted into the next day—really only since the late 2000s in local elections. We seemed to manage the situation perfectly well before that. Certainly, elections have got more complicated since then, as many noble Lords have noted. Nevertheless, we seemed to do it, and it is not an inherently implausible suggestion that we might be able to do it again.
In UK elections there is a sense of drama, and that sense of drama is important: the idea that something significant is changing as a result of the ballot. The drama of democracy is quite important. That is more true at general elections, but it is something we should not lose in local elections, which have, in many ways, just as big an effect on people’s lives as general elections.
On Monday, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said:
“The main beneficiaries of immediate counts are not the voters”
but
“the campaigners, candidates and commentators”.—[Official Report, 2/11/26; col. 1452.]
That struck me as an interesting comment, because I am not sure I entirely agree with it. Speaking as somebody who has seen elections on TV and listened on the radio far more than I have actually participated in them, one of the things that has struck me with our longer counting process is that it allows much more opportunity for political parties, the party leadership and party-aligned commentators to spin the results. Long before we know what the actual results of a whole period of local elections are, we have media comment on them. We have party spokesmen telling us how to interpret the results long before we know what the actual results are.
One or two councils take on exaggerated significance because they come relatively early in the sequence and shape the narrative, and that suits political parties. I am not making a party-political point; I think it is true of all parties. It blurs what is important. It allows scope for commentary and spin, and the actual results of the process take longer to come out. By the time we know the results, what is more important is the nature of the commentary. So, there is an issue here. I am happy to give way.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My noble friend has not addressed the issue of the extra matters on which we now give local voters the opportunity to vote. He referred to 2000, but in the previous Conservative Government and before that, we introduced things such as environmental neighbourhood referenda, mayoral elections and police and crime commissioner elections. I am not going to delay the House by listing them all, but that is one of the reasons why, as was identified, you finish up with people being asked to vote on three, four or five different decisions on one day.
Lord Frost (Non-Afl)
The noble Lord makes a good point. It has been touched on already that the situation is much more complicated than it used to be. But those practical angles cannot be the only thing that is brought into the debate. We have to remember what we are doing here. We are marking the achievement through democracy of a shift in political power, potentially, from one set of people to another. How that is accomplished, how people see it happening, and the media discussion of it are just as important. It should not be neglected when we consider how local elections are conducted.
That balance is important. Of course, different authorities can reach different judgments on that balance. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, as he noted, allows for that balance to be reached in certain cases, but we must not forget that these are elections about the shift of power. Administrative and bureaucratic convenience—how it is done—cannot be the only determining factor. We have to think about what is happening here and that is why the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, deserves discussion and support.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, I will start with a different amendment in this group, Amendment 123 on the issue of poll cards, because they are a topic that is well suited to the sort of scrutiny that we rightly pride ourselves on in this House. It is a niche issue and a serious one, but also, I concede, not the largest of issues. But we should not be too blasé about the issue, even though it is not the largest of issues, because a very considerable amount of money is spent on the production and distribution of poll cards. In the second half of 2019, for example, £19 million was spent, excluding the local and European elections that year. That was just for the general election. So, millions of pounds are spent each year on poll cards. And yet, I think it is fair to say, if any of us was involved in a recruitment process for a graphic designer and they were to show us proudly the main item in their portfolio a modern poll card, we would quite rapidly be thinking, “How can we bring this interview to an end?” Because, clearly, it is not very good.
In fairness, one should say that everyone involved in the process has a good alibi for why it is not their fault, because there is a complex interaction of legislative requirements, IT systems and their capabilities, and time pressures on returning officers. All of those interact. Everyone can say, “It’s not my fault”. But the reality is, we spend millions of pounds every year on something that we all know when we look at it is not very good.
We should also bear in mind that it is the one official communication that everyone on the electoral register receives about the election. If that is, as it were, the front door or the shop window of democracy to voters, it is both a poor use of money and also slightly embarrassing in terms of how we present democracy to people. So, I hope we will hear some positive noises from the Minister in due course on Amendment 123. I certainly welcome the fact that, elsewhere in the Bill, some of the proposals will simplify the legislative framework underpinning poll cards and will make it easier to improve their design in future.
I turn to the issue that has taken up most of our time on this group this morning. I, along with others, admire the irony of the timing of debating whether or not counts should be overnight on a morning when many of us would rather have been able to stay up later to watch the elections from the US. There is an important lesson from those elections, which is that we should not underestimate the importance of speedy election counts in terms of giving confidence in the security of the system.
Thankfully, in Britain, those concerns, broadly speaking, are a long way in the past, but the reason we have the system where it used to be the norm that just about everything was counted overnight was because of the fear that ballot boxes would be interfered with. We should not be blasé about the risk of those fears in the future, but, as several noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Hayward and Lord McCobb, have pointed out, there are significant good, practical reasons why overnight counts are not always possible. Indeed, in some cases, they would be so difficult to practically organise that one would even go so far as to say that on some occasions they are not even desirable. So, while I sympathise with the thrust of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, I do not think a central, top-down mandate in the way that it suggests is the right way to progress on that.
I will speak more positively about a couple of other amendments in this group, including one from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson: Amendments 125 and 128. Their proposals are welcome. We saw in our discussions on the first day of Committee the value of election pilots. In this case, several references were made to the pilots that have been carried out in Wales around automatic voter registration. Those pilots properly inform our decision-making. It is fair to say that the election pilots on other topics that we have discussed so far have not been hugely successful. There seems to be a relatively small number of ideas that are piloted and never turn out to be particularly effective. So, the spirit of Amendments 125 and 128 is very welcome, and I hope we may hear in due course from the Government a willingness to be a bit more imaginative about what is piloted.
I will throw in one example of what I mean. In academic research into the turnout in local elections, the evidence is pretty strong that, if you have to walk more than 600 metres to your polling station, turnout drops significantly in local elections. There are different possible ways of piloting having more polling stations so fewer people have to travel long distances to them, which is the sort of slightly more imaginative approach to piloting I hope we can hear about in the future.
Finally, on Amendments 129 and 136, I have little to add to what my colleague and noble friend Lady Thornhill said eloquently about them and what others have contributed today. I simply add that it is fair to say that, as we saw, for example, with the Gorton and Denton by-election, there are significant differences of view about what may be the exact scale and nature of the problems that these amendments seek to address. But that seems to me a good reason to want to face up to that—to want to have a good evidence base and careful consideration, rather than simply ignoring the issue completely.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I must declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire.
I am grateful to my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Jackson for their amendments and for the amendments from other noble Lords. These raise important questions about the safeguards necessary to maintain public confidence in our electoral system. I echo the comments of my noble friend Lord Hayward: the objective of this should be to increase public confidence in the electoral system.
My noble friend Lady Coffey’s Amendments 10 and 11 concern the exemptions applying to younger electors in relation to the duties of election and electoral registration officers. These amendments highlight a wider question about consistency in the Government’s approach to lowering the voting age and the need to ensure accuracy of the register. As my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley observed at Second Reading, the Government must explain where we draw the line between the rights and responsibilities of 16 and 17 year-olds. If young people are to be entrusted with electing their representatives, it is reasonable to examine how that decision interacts with existing duties and protections in electoral law.
As the Minister made clear in debate on Monday, EROs are responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the register. Should not the same tools be available to an ERO, irrespective of age? Can the Minister explain the rationale behind retaining these exemptions? Have electoral administrators been consulted about the practical implications? As I said at Second Reading, electoral law is already overly complex and conflicting. We should be seeking opportunities to simplify its administration, rather than further increasing inconsistencies.
I turn to the amendments tabled by my noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Frost, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Amendment 125 seeks to pilot schemes for more flexible voting, including early voting, mobile polling stations and alternative voting locations. Such pilots have already been undertaken locally. Amendment 128 raises the question of piloting electronic voting machines. Our established paper-based system has considerable advantage, in being straightforward and transparent. Electronic systems always raise the issue of cyber security, as we have seen in the Health Bill with the single patient record. Can the Minister tell us what assessment the Government have made of the security risks associated with electronic voting machines, and how the accuracy of an electronic count will be independently demonstrated and verified?
One topic we have debated a lot this morning is in my noble friend Lord Jackson’s Amendment 124: whether counting should begin on the day of the election. Having stood as a candidate on many occasions, I have great sympathy with this and would like to know sooner rather than later. However, as a previous leader of a council, I also have to agree with the comments of many other noble Lords in this Chamber about the difficulties and complexities of doing a count. As a number of noble Lords raised, local council elections are frequently much more complex than a national election, with multi-member wards and an increasing diversity of candidates making the process longer and more complex, along with the potential for multiple elections on the same day. At the same time, many councils are finding it increasingly difficult to get sufficient staff—a matter that has been raised elsewhere in debate on this Bill. Ultimately, I believe that we need to trust the ERO to make the appropriate decision.
My noble friend Lord Jackson’s Amendment 129 and Amendment 136 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, concern undue influence such as religious or spiritual pressure on voters. The secrecy of the ballot is fundamental. Every elector must be able to vote freely without intimidation, coercion or improper influence. I appreciate the comments of many noble Lords on this; so far, there seems to be consensus that it is an important topic and that these amendments need addressing.
At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister raised concerns about family voting and the particular vulnerability of younger electors to the pressure they might face at home. These concerns deserve careful consideration as the Government propose to extend the franchise. Does the Minister consider existing law sufficient to protect voters from coercion, both in polling stations and where postal voting is used? It is not just the law but the implementation thereof that is important. Will there be further guidance given to polling staff?
This also relates to Amendment 123, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Pack, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on improving polling cards. Ensuring eligible voters understand the secrecy of their ballot and the voting process is crucial.
We should remember that those responsible for administering elections must make these provisions work in practice. The robustness of our electoral arrangements is fundamental to electoral integrity. I hope the Minister will address the concerns raised in this group and explain how the Government intend to preserve the security and transparency of the ballot, while avoiding unnecessary complexity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for this extended debate, which was broken in the middle of the group. I will make a couple of general points before I respond to individual amendments.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, for using his crutch to stand up. If he wishes to remain seated when making his contributions, I am sure the Committee would be very happy with that.
I agree with the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Pack, made about the interesting situation that we saw unveiling in the United States overnight. It would have been nice to have been able to stay up and listen to those results—I did not, but was very tempted. That points to some interesting issues as we discuss this group, which contains matters that go right to the very heart of our democracy. There were comments made early this morning—for example, by James Talarico —about attempts at enormous financial and other influence on the elections process. We will come on to some of those later in discussing our own Bill. It was a pleasure to see the power of the democratic process overcoming something of that. We need to make sure, as we go through our own discussions, that we retain that faith in democracy and continue, as the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, said, to give the people of this country the confidence that it is the democratic process that takes precedence, even where there are attempts to have financial and other interference. That is very important to all of us in this House.
Noble Lords will have to excuse my sniffles; this is my second cold in two weeks. I am going to have to speak to my friend the Health Minister to suggest that having two colds in two weeks should be banned.
I add my tribute to the EROs and election staff. We have a very safe and secure system in this country, and that is down to a lot of work from our returning officers and election staff, so I am very grateful to them for all the work they do.
I will now address the individual amendments. I turn first to Amendments 10 and 11, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and her Schedule 1 stand part notice. These amendments would remove measures from Schedule 1 that safeguard those under 16. This would result in electoral registration officers being required to conduct activities such as house-to-house inquiries and making telephone calls to under-16s. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller—or perhaps it was the noble Lord, Lord Jackson—that election administrators are included in these discussions.
These age-based measures are important for implementing the franchise change effectively. In extending the right to vote to 16 and 17-year olds, it is vital that they are given the same opportunities as any other voter to be accurately registered. The Bill provides for people to register to vote from the age of 14, so they are ready to cast their first vote at the age of 16. This arrangement will bring significant benefits, but it must be accompanied by additional measures to protect these young people who are not yet entitled to vote. This is the approach taken throughout the Bill, which includes measures in Clauses 7 to 13 to safeguard young people’s data, mirroring the approach taken in Scotland and Wales. We should take the safeguarding of those under the age of 16 seriously, and these amendments would remove safeguards that we consider vital. I emphasise to noble Lords that it is not those of voting age who are being treated differently but those below voting age. For those reasons, we cannot support these amendments.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pack, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for raising the important issue, through Amendment 123, of how electoral information is communicated to voters. We agree that the information provided to electors should be clear and accessible, and I take on board the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Pack, about polling cards. We already recognise that there is scope to improve election documentation, including poll cards, and we intend to consider how their design and clarity can be enhanced as part of wider research into how people learn about the electoral process. However, we do not believe a statutory requirement to report to Parliament within 12 months is necessary to take this work forward. Frankly, we just need to get on with it, and I am very happy to report back to the House when we have concluded our work.
I turn to Amendment 124, from the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Frost. As someone who was elected many times over 27 years, I recognise the importance of election results being declared promptly, and I have much sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said about this. We all want to hear our results as quickly as possible. Noble Lords have highlighted very graphically how local elections take place—so I do not need to give any further examples—and, as such, they require greater operational flexibility than parliamentary elections. Decisions about when to begin verification and counting are therefore best made by returning officers, taking account of those local circumstances. This amendment would replace that operational judgment with a rigid statutory requirement, subject only to narrow exceptions for emergencies and safety risks. We do not believe that that restriction is necessary or proportionate.
In speaking to Amendment 124, the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, raised some issues around different elections using different systems. I say to him that I recognise that there was a referendum in 2011 on different voting systems. The Prime Minister has decided the best way to take this issue forward is to initiate a national commission on electoral reform, which is the right way to start a national conversation on this issue.
I turn to Amendment 125, from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 already provides powers to pilot changes to when, where and how voting takes place at local government elections—powers the Government used to pilot flexible voting in the May 2026 polls and will use again in a further round of pilots in May 2027. We understand the amendment seeks to go further by enabling flexible voting to be piloted at elections beyond those currently provided for under Section 10, potentially including UK parliamentary elections. We do not believe it would be appropriate to extend the piloting power to parliamentary elections at this stage. Our priority is to continue testing these approaches at local elections and build that evidence base before considering any wider changes. I share both noble Lords’ enthusiasm for more modern and flexible voting arrangements as a matter of principle, but it is important that we test these thoroughly and build the evidence base before we go any further.
On this theme, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, for his Amendment 128. However, the use of electronic voting machines creates the potential for hacking, computer error and interference. Although elections are not always no-fail events for candidates—we do fail from time to time, as I have on occasion—they must be no-fail events in terms of process, and the integrity of the ballot must come first. That is why we have no plans to introduce electronic voting in the UK, and therefore it does not make sense to run pilots. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough.
I will address the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Walney, as he is in the Chamber.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I thank the Minister for her very generous comments at the start of her contribution. On the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Pack, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, I omitted to observe that, when reviews of pilots take place, cost should be considered. If one is taking trials over a period of days, there are all sorts of attendant costs in addition to the question of whether the system worked.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord is quite right: any assessment of pilots must take cost into account.
I turn to Amendments 129 and 136, tabled respectively by the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Walney. It has been good to have the opportunity to consider this important and sensitive issue. Our electoral law must protect voters from coercion and undue pressure, while ensuring that faith leaders and communities remain free to express their religious and moral views and participate fully in our democratic life. I understand the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, to ensure that the provisions relating to spiritual injury and undue spiritual pressure continue to strike that very careful balance and remain clear and workable for faith communities, campaigners and voters alike. Examples of what constitutes “undue pressure” have been provided in the Explanatory Notes to the Elections Act 2022. I hope I can offer some reassurance that the Government continuously keep electoral law under review to ensure that it remains effective, proportionate and responsive to evidence about how it operates in practice. However, setting out a requirement for a review in statute is unnecessary.
On Amendment 136, from the noble Lord, Lord Walney, as I am sure he will be aware, spiritual injury and undue spiritual pressure are already capable of falling within the “undue influence” offence in Section 114A of the Representation of the People Act 1983. We do not consider a separate polling station offence to be necessary. Undue influence is already unlawful wherever it occurs, and the focus should remain on the coercive behaviour itself, rather than creating a separate offence based on proximity to a polling station.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Peers who spoke to this wide-ranging group. I am slightly disappointed by what the Minister said to my amendment. I just hope that, as soon as somebody becomes 16, there is a way for electoral registration officers to follow up on the integrity of the register to check it is valid. A whole range of things have been considered. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 10.
“Part 3Canvass conducted in England before the coming into force of section 3Introduction
20 (1) This Part of this Schedule applies in relation to an annual canvass conducted under section 9D of RPA 1983 in the implementation period by an English registration officer.(2) The “implementation period” means the period beginning with the day on which this Act is passed and ending with the coming into force of section 3 of this Act.(3) In this Part of this Schedule—“English registration officer” means a registration officer appointed under section 8(2) of RPA 1983;“pre-commencement canvass” means a canvass described in sub-paragraph (1);“the RPR (E&W) 2001” means the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001 (S.I. 2001/341).Modification of the purpose of a pre-commencement canvass
21 (1) In relation to a pre-commencement canvass conducted by an English registration officer, section 9D of RPA 1983 (duty to conduct canvass in Great Britain) has effect as follows.(2) Subsection (2) has effect as if it provided that the purpose of the canvass included ascertaining the names, addresses and dates of birth of persons aged under 16 who will, as a result of section 4(4A) of RPA 1983 (inserted by section 3 of this Act), be entitled (on the coming into force of section 3 of this Act) to be registered in a register maintained by that officer.(3) But the power to make house to house inquiries under subsection (5) of section 9D does not include power to make inquiries for the purpose of the matter described in sub-paragraph (2).Youth detention accommodation: no duty to canvass
22 In relation to a pre-commencement canvass conducted by an English registration officer, nothing in section 9D of RPA 1983—(a) applies in relation to the registration of persons in respect of residence in youth detention accommodation as defined in section 248(1) of the Sentencing Code;(b) requires the officer to ascertain the names, addresses and dates of birth of persons resident in such accommodation.Design of canvass communications and form
23 The Electoral Commission must design a version of the communications and form described in regulation 32ZBG(1)(a) of the RPR (E&W) 2001 (canvass communications and forms: Electoral Commission duties) for use in England in relation to a pre-commencement canvass.24 For that purpose, regulation 32ZBG has effect as if—(a) in paragraph (1) there were inserted after sub-paragraph (a)—“(aa) send the communications and form to the Secretary of State before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the Representation of the People Act 2026 is passed;”;(b) paragraph (2) were omitted;(c) for paragraph (4)(d)(iii) there were substituted—“(iii) to provide the registration officer with the full name, date of birth and nationality of each person aged 14 or 15 who is residing at the address to which the communication relates;”;(d) for paragraph (5)(f) there were substituted— “(f) require the recipient to provide the full name, date of birth and nationality of each person aged 14 or 15 who is residing at the address to which the form is given.”;(e) after paragraph (5) there were inserted—“(6) The canvass communication B referred to in paragraph (1)(a)(iii) must require—(a) the occupier, or(b) if there is no occupier, or it is not reasonably practicable for the occupier to provide the required information, the person in charge of the premises,to provide the full name, date of birth and nationality of each person aged 14 or 15 who is residing at the address to which the communication relates.”Other modifications of RPR (E&W) 2001
25 The RPR (E&W) 2001 have effect in relation to a pre-commencement canvass with the modifications set out in paragraphs 26 to 29.26 Regulation 32ZBA (annual canvass) has effect as if in paragraph (6), after “an address” there were inserted “, or that a person aged 14 or 15 may reside at an address,”.27 Regulation 32ZBD (canvass where changes to register are likely to be required) has effect as if—(a) in paragraph (4), for “to (9)” there were substituted “to (9ZA)”;(b) after paragraph (9) there were inserted—“(9ZA) A registration officer may not visit an address in order to speak to a person aged under 16.”;(c) in paragraph (10)—(i) in the definition of “canvass form” and “paper communication”, after “designed” there were inserted “for use in relation to a pre-commencement canvass”;(ii) after the definition of “paper communication” there were inserted—““pre-commencement canvass” has the meaning given by paragraph 20 of Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 2026.”28 Regulation 32ZBE (canvass where changes to register are unlikely to be required) has effect as if—(a) in paragraph (4), at the end there were inserted“; and(c) provide to the registration officer the full name, date of birth and nationality of each person aged 14 or 15 who is residing at the address.”;(b) after paragraph (7) there were inserted—“(7A) If, after complying with the requirements of paragraphs (3) to (6), a registration officer—(a) has reason to believe that a person aged 14 or 15 may reside at the address, and(b) is not aware of that person’s full name, date of birth or nationality,the officer must conduct the annual canvass in accordance with regulation 32ZBD in respect of the address.”;(c) in paragraph (8), after “designed” there were inserted “for use in relation to a pre-commencement canvass”;(d) after paragraph (8) there were inserted—“(9) In this regulation, “pre-commencement canvass” has the meaning given by paragraph 20 of Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 2026.”29 Regulation 32ZBF (canvass in respect of particular types of property) has effect as if—(a) in paragraph (4), for “paragraph (5) or” there were substituted “paragraphs (5) and (5ZA) or paragraph”;(b) after paragraph (5) there were inserted— “(5ZA) The registration officer must attempt to make contact with the responsible person and must request the full name, nationality and date of birth of each person aged 14 or 15 who is residing at that property.”;(c) in paragraph (6)—(i) for “paragraph (5) or” there were substituted “paragraphs (5) and (5ZA) or paragraph”;(ii) after “appropriate” there were inserted “(subject to paragraph (6A))”;(d) after paragraph (6) there were inserted—“(6A) A registration officer may not visit the property in order to speak to a person aged under 16.”;(e) in paragraph (7), for “paragraph (5) or” there were substituted “paragraphs (5) and (5ZA) or paragraph”;(f) in paragraph (8), for “paragraph (5) or” there were substituted “paragraphs (5) and (5ZA) or paragraph”.Retention of information
30 (1) Where an English registration officer obtains personal information relating to a person aged 14 or 15 when conducting a pre-commencement canvass, the officer may retain that information until the end of the specified day.(2) The “specified day” is the earliest of—(a) the last day of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which section 3 of this Act is commenced,(b) the day on which the registration officer receives from the person an application made under section 10ZC of RPA 1983 for registration in a register maintained by the officer, and(c) the day on which the registration officer gives the person an invitation to apply for registration under section 9E(1) of RPA 1983.(3) Nothing in this paragraph affects the ability of the registration officer to otherwise lawfully retain the information described in sub-paragraph (1) after the specified day.(4) In this paragraph,“personal information” means a person’s name, address, email address, telephone number, date of birth or nationality.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable a registration officer carrying out a canvass in England before Clause 3 of the Bill (entitlement to be registered before reaching voting age) comes into force to obtain information about 14 and 15 year olds and to retain that information for use when inviting those persons to register once clause 3 is in force.
Lord Hayward
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in the name of Lord Hayward, seek to allow for a debate on the complexity of electoral law as affected by this Bill.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I hope that I can please the Government Whip by indicating that, although I tabled a few amendments in relation to one particular aspect of this group, I could have tabled dozens of amendments on this subject. The subject was possibly best described by someone whom one might describe as a half-Irish lyricist who was brought up in inner south London. Four years ago, when he spoke to this Chamber, he said:
“I hope that, when we get a new Prime Minister, they will look at the whole issue of our electoral law”.—[Official Report, 15/7/22; col. 1709.]
That half-Irish lyricist from just south of the river is, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, who made an observation on the Ballot Secrecy Bill. I gave him notice that I intended to quote from his speech on that occasion.
As noble Lords can see, the one amendment I have tabled to Clause 7, Amendment 13, runs to a whole page. We have to look at a string of legislation, much of which was introduced by my Government and previous Governments. It has been a clear fact for years that our electoral law is a complete mess and is in desperate need of consolidation into one Act. Page after page of this Bill just refers to one piece of legislation or another. I could understand it if it was dealing, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, referred to on Monday, with devolved powers and therefore devolved legislation, but in far too many instances that is not the case. We have what I would best describe as a complete cacophony of electoral law.
If we think this is a mess, just imagine the sets of circumstances under which the returning officers have to operate. Whereas we can spread out our discussions on electoral law over a number of days, the returning officers are operating, particularly when they do not have notice of an election—for example, a general election—under extreme pressure. It really is astonishing that we have so few cases of an error being made in one form or another. Just think of what we will be coming on to talk about, whether it is postal votes, entitlement to vote from abroad, or registration of votes. Whatever it may happen to be, the poor returning officers are looking at this on an hour-by-hour, day-by-day basis. It is truly astonishing that we do not get petitions asking that matters do not go to the elections court and challenging the result in one form or another. I have paid credit to returning officers previously, but I will do so again on this occasion. As I say, there are many amendments that I could have put down here, but I chose not to.
On the other broad category of amendments, this is where we have a serious problem. I ask the Minister clearly to identify when she replies why on earth we need all these amendments saying that, instead of a registration officer we have a senior registration officer, or that we have to ensure that councils call in every possible officer to administer the elections. I will come back to that point in a minute.
We are talking here about devolution. One of the great mantras of this Government is that we must devolve power. The Prime Minister went to Lanarkshire the other week to tell the Scots that they are not devolving powers enough. The Minister herself, earlier this week, said:
“As we extend the devolution programme, this Government have made it very clear that we think that it should be people with skin in the game in their local area who take the key decisions about those areas. It is perfectly right that each of the Governments around the UK are free to do what they feel is right”.—[Official Report, 2/11/26; col. 1407.]
If we are devolving powers to local councils, how is it that clause after clause tells local councils what role and status the registration officer should hold within a local council? Birmingham City Council’s chief executive is paid £300,000 a year. Surely, he knows better than the Minister and officials in Whitehall who should be deputed to handle what aspect of elections. It is true throughout the land that we have highly paid chief executive officers, one after another; yet Whitehall seems to think it knows best how an election should be administered. I could understand it if a whole series of elections had gone wrong—but I refer again to the Electoral Commission’s report on general elections. There is not one reference to a general election going wrong; in local elections, there are one or two very minor exceptions. I genuinely believe that this is Whitehall dictating utterly unnecessarily to local councils who should handle what.
The bit of the Bill that astonishes me most is the clause stating that a council should require all its officers, whatever they may happen to be—this is implicit in the phrasing of the Bill—to be called on to administer elections. Are we going to insert in an education Bill that every employee of a council should be called on to help with education; or that every employee should be called on to help with environmental matters or hygiene matters, or whatever it may happen to be? There is no justification for this, given that we do not have a failed electoral system; we have an extremely challenging one, but we do not have a failed one. I see no reason whatever why there is a series of clauses in the Bill suggesting that Whitehall knows best.
In conclusion, I referred to the Prime Minister going to Lanarkshire to deliver his message on devolution. He should go to Marsham Street and deliver the same message in relation to this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Shamash (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Hayward. I woke up this morning thinking that I would love to quote Martin Luther King—that I had a dream. I will give a tiny bit of history. The Representation of the People Act 1983 is the core legislation that everything has sprung from. It was 18 years from 1983 to the creation in 2001 of the Electoral Commission, in which I, and maybe others here, was involved. It is now 43 years since the 1983 Act came into being, and there have been repeated amendments and additions: the Electoral Administration Act, the Elections Act, and so on. We are getting to the point where, to move election law, you need a pick-up truck. It is completely crackers that we are in this situation.
The most important thing, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Hayward, is consolidation. I have discussed the possibility of that with others, including my noble friend the Minister, and it is a major undertaking. But there is a new kid on the block, and that is AI. We must get to a situation where we can do this, because it is impossible to operate. I should have declared my interest as a former election lawyer to the Labour Party for many years. Having to deal with this legislation is very difficult, and you can miss things out very easily. My plea to the Minister is to take this idea away to the officials, so that my dream can actually come true and we can have a bit of consolidation in this Act.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I support the comments made by my noble friend Lord Hayward and by the noble Lord, Lord Shamash. We have heard in the debate so far that we need a consolidation. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Shamash, are very persuasive. Not only do we not have consolidation but the Bill contains all sorts of contradictory provisions and inconsistencies. I cannot wait to see what the government amendments will be—I am sure there will be several groups of them.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, this may be the group on which we have the most widespread agreement from all corners of the Committee. I very much agree with the broad thrust of the comments from the three noble Lords who have spoken so far.
To give one further illustration: in preparing my ring binder of things that I thought might be useful to have with me during Committee, I thought it might be useful to print off copies of the Representation of the People Act 1983 and PPERA 2000, the two pieces of primary legislation that we will, I hope, amend through this legislation. I dutifully downloaded the PDFs for both from legislation.gov.uk. One comes in at 543 pages and the other at 524 pages, which is about the length of the last copy of War and Peace I saw. I decided not to print those off, but it illustrates the problem, which was quite rightly touched on earlier, about how staff and volunteers have to grapple with understanding large parts of what is a very complex legal landscape.
However, I would not want to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, by not taking the chance to quibble just a little over a couple of his amendments in this group. His Amendment 16 would remove a cross-reference, but I would go the other way and say that we need more cross-references in legislation. But he is absolutely right with Amendment 17. I am sure that there is some fine legal brain in this House who will be able to elucidate why the definition that would be removed by Amendment 17 is not simply a rearranging of the words. That definition adds very little meaning.
Overall, it is welcome that we have seen, in one of the more recent government amendments tabled, a tidying-up by the proposal to repeal some previously uncommenced legislation. I hope that the debate on this group will encourage the Government to look at further steps for tidying up as we progress through the Bill.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will be part of the agreement across the Committee on this one. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hayward for introducing these amendments and agree with all of them as a point of principle—to be slightly different from the noble Lord, Lord Pack.
We need this debate on the complexity of electoral law and administrative bureaucracy. I echo the Minister in recognising and thanking electoral returning officers for their job. It is not an easy job, as various noble Lords have made clear, to deal with all the legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Pack, said that just two Acts added up to over 1,100 pages. They are long, complex, inconsistent and, on occasion, in conflict. Electoral returning officers have to deal regularly with new regulations, guidance and changes. It is a surprise that anybody actually wants the job.
In addition to dealing with that, there is the sheer difficulty of running the operation. You may be dealing with 200-plus polling stations. You have to make sure that you get all your polling booths to them. You have to send out thousands of postal votes and rely on the postal system, which itself always has the potential for error. You have to make decisions on the spot in order to overcome all these various things. The Bill then prescribes, as my noble friend Lord Hayward has said, exactly how someone is supposed to do the job and who in the council is supposed to do the job and, as my noble friend raised, includes that specific point about requiring all staff to be made available. What happens if all staff are not willing to be made available? What sanction can the chief executive have? Will it be part of their work contract? What about needing them potentially to be made available to another neighbouring authority that needs more people? The system works. The EROs get the job done. It is a difficult job and, as I said in my previous speech, we should trust them.
I will go through some of these amendments, beginning with Amendment 13 to Clause 7(4)—reiterated in Amendment 16 to Clause 14—which defines “absent voters records”, “overseas elector lists”, “overseas elector’s declaration”, “registration officer” and “voter register”. Subsection (5) then clarifies the roles of a deputy electoral registration officer and a person assisting the electoral registration officer. My noble friend has already raised concerns over how other Whitehall departments determine this. I can go on through all the various clauses—and that is before I get on to the clauses that my noble friend has opposed in order to prompt this debate.
It is clear that our electoral system, local government and layers of administrative bureaucracy are complex. We are fortunate to live in a parliamentary democracy and to work in a system that has evolved, relatively organically, over time. Some legal complexity is perhaps expected, but we are concerned that, rather than seeking to improve the situation, some provisions in the Bill risk unnecessarily increasing the bureaucracy and practical complexity. I will not go through it all, but it is very clear from across the Committee that the Bill is overly complex, adds complexity and does not do what it should do, which is to make life simpler and more certain.
I hope that the Minister will take on board some of the recommendations made by noble Lords on how and where electoral law and administration could be made a little less complex without weakening the system’s strength, especially at the local level. In fact, by increasing consistency and simplifying where appropriate, it would strengthen the system. Perhaps the Minister can give an indication of what further government amendments we can expect.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful for this debate; it has been a very interesting subject to discuss. Knowing the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, I am sure he will have equally lobbied his own side on these issues before the Bill came to the House. This is the first election law I have dealt with, but I am sure that he will have been urging his own side to consider these issues in all the legislation that has gone through in the previous 14 years.
This Bill came forward to serve three specific purposes: to introduce voting for 16 and 17 year-olds, which is a manifesto commitment from my party; to take steps towards automatic voter registration, so as to tackle the under-registration of some 7 million to 8 million people; and, lastly, to tackle overseas political finance. During the course of the Bill, some of those issues have been the subject of much public debate, and we have had the Rycroft review of political finance, which has added to the Bill. There will be further amendments which will, I think, be laid on 9 November. In response to the request from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, he will have sight of amendments before we get to a further day of Committee on this Bill.
The consolidation of electoral law is a key issue. I have heard loud and clear, both at Second Reading and in the engagement meetings I held with noble Lords, the importance of doing this. In the process of the Bill, it is not possible to tackle the whole consolidation of all election law—I am sure it is even more than the number of pages that the noble Lord, Lord Pack, outlined. However, it is important we take that on board and look at what the process is going to be for what is certainly a job that needs to be done. I am going to take that back to the department and, at a later stage of the Bill, I will come back to it, because I understand what noble Lords are saying.
I took very seriously the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, about read-only access to registers, which he made during the previous session, and I pushed for more information on this. There are complexities around the localised nature of the register. In effect, we have 300 separate electoral registers, which is probably the point that the noble Lord was making around data protection. I will do some more work on this and I am happy to discuss it with him further in due course.
I recognise the broader concerns the noble Lord has around the complexity of electoral law and the administrative burdens which are placed on those responsible for delivering our elections. However, removing from the Bill important provisions which contain essential legal definitions, which his amendments would introduce, is not the right way to address either of those concerns. The legal definitions clarify the scope of the provisions so that it is clear who is captured by them—namely registration officers and those assisting registration officers—and confirm that the measures do not attach to absent voting lists which relate only to devolved elections. These clauses are not unnecessary additions. They contain substantive measures designed to improve the operation of our electoral system, as well as definitional information to aid the proper interpretation and application of the law.
The noble Lord asked specific questions about the measures on electoral registration officers and returning officers. Electoral registration officers and returning officers carry personal legal responsibility for functions fundamental to the effective operation of our democracy. Discharging those responsibilities requires access to staff, premises, systems and other resources from across the local authority, often within tightly prescribed statutory timetables and during periods of considerable operational pressure. Requiring ultimate responsibility to rest with an appropriately senior officer will help ensure that the officeholder has sufficient organisation-wide authority and accountability to secure the necessary support and provide effective oversight. This is a proportionate safeguard to ensure that returning officers have the authority and access to resources they need to run elections effectively. It provides a clear minimum standard, while leaving local authorities flexibility over whom they appoint within that framework.
The Committee will have the opportunity to debate all the measures in the Bill as it progresses. The Government will continue to make their case for each of them, but I assure the noble Lord I am listening carefully to all views expressed in the Committee.
I thank the noble Lord for his clause stand part notice on Clause 44. I will explain briefly the importance of this clause to the Bill. At present, political parties cannot withdraw their support for a candidate once the nomination papers have been submitted, even when serious issues arise. Clause 44 enables parties to act where concerns arise during the nomination period. The scope of the provisions is very carefully limited. Support may be withdrawn only up to 48 hours before nominations close, ensuring the candidate still has time to stand independently or for another party, and the party can nominate a replacement. This clause forms part of a suite of new safeguards designed to protect the integrity of elections and prevent and deter personation or false nominations. Removing it would weaken the Bill.
I have listened carefully to the debates, particularly on the consolidation of election law, and I am very happy to continue those discussions.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I thank the Minister for her comments in general, and I want to continue the conversation. I seek clarification on her last comments about the particular clause. Are her comments fully supported by both the Electoral Commission and the AEA on behalf of returning officers?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My understanding is that that the EC and the Association of Electoral Administrators were consulted on provisions in the Bill, but I will go back and check and answer the noble Lord in writing.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I have heard some interesting comments from the Minister and, as I indicated just now, I appreciate her offer to have further conversations in relation to the specific matters. I think we all knew that, on the question of consolidation, sadly, we are going to have to live with Encyclopaedia Britannica, whether it is on AI or any other system, for the future. It is grotesquely challenging for everybody who is involved. However, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, we will now move to the lunch-break business. We will therefore not return to the Bill before one hour and 15 minutes from now. However, to clarify, we will not cut short the 90-minute debate for the SI; this is just in case it finishes earlier, and we can resume Committee business.
Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
14:39 - Division on the Amendment to the Motion. - Ayes: 94 / Noes: 90 - Amendment to the Motion agreed.
Lord Wood of Anfield
That the Regulations laid before the House on 12 October be approved.
Relevant document: 15th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Wood of Anfield) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations revoke and re-enact, with expanded purposes and designations criteria, the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020.
This instrument was laid on 13 October, under powers in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. The measures in this instrument, subject to the made affirmative parliamentary procedure, entered into force on 15 October.
Since coming into office, the Foreign Secretary has been clear that we will be stronger in our values, bolder in our action and relentless in pursuing alliances with our partners across the world.
Sanctions are a powerful lever that we have to advance our foreign policy goals in the face of action that breaks the law and is unacceptable. When we impose sanctions, we do so to isolate those responsible, to restrict their ability to act and to change their behaviour. We do it to send a clear message, far beyond those we target, of the values that the UK will stand up for. We try to do it, where possible, alongside our partners to maximise the impact of the sanctions we impose.
The global human rights sanctions regime—now the global human rights and international humanitarian law sanctions regime—is particularly vital for this. Since the regime began in 2020, the UK has delivered over 180 designations, and under this Government we have used the global human rights sanctions regime to tackle issues such as forced labour in south-east Asian scam centres and extremist settlers violently attacking Palestinians in the West Bank, and to those responsible for the violent crackdown on protesters in Georgia.
The global human rights sanctions regime is of course not our only tool: we also make extensive use of our range of geographic sanctions regimes. For example, last week we announced the designation of 15 commanders, on both sides of the conflict in Sudan, who are suspected of perpetrating or inciting heinous atrocities against civilians, in particular conflict-related sexual violence. As we mark the anniversary of the horror we saw after the fall of El Fasher, these designations remind the perpetrators of atrocities that the international community is watching them, and that actions have consequences.
However, the action on Sudan was possible only because our Sudan sanctions regime permits designations on the grounds of violations of international humanitarian law. Before we laid this instrument, the Government did not have the flexibility to respond in this fashion to similar atrocities taking place in countries that did not happen to have their own geographical sanctions regime. As a result of this revision, now we do.
This instrument also expands our ability to stand up for our values and tackle injustice and suffering around the world in other ways. The expanded regime addresses a broader range of human rights abuses and violations by adding the right to security of liberty and person, and also gives the Government powers to respond with sanctions where aid has been deliberately prevented from reaching civilian populations.
I will now turn to each measure in this instrument in more detail. I want to be clear this is a strong enhancement of our existing powers. The global human rights sanctions regime gave us the ability to use sanctions where there were reasonable grounds to suspect serious violations or abuses of the right to life, the right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and the right to be free from slavery and not to be held in servitude or required to perform forced or compulsory labour. These amended regulations allow all pre-existing sanctions to remain in force but give us a powerful lever to respond to a broader range of situations.
The expanded sanctions regime now allows designations to be made where there are reasonable grounds to suspect serious violations of international humanitarian law. This strengthens the UK’s ability to respond to serious conduct that arises during armed conflict, such as the targeting or mistreatment of civilians, where international humanitarian law provides the most relevant legal framework.
As the Foreign Secretary set out to Parliament on 8 September when he committed to laying this instrument, it gives the UK the powers to target those constructing illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, such as those participating in E1 settlement expansion.
As I have said, the previous version of the regime permitted designations where there were reasonable grounds to suspect serious violations of the right to life, the right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and the right to be free from slavery and not to be held in servitude or required to perform forced or compulsory labour. This instrument now adds the right to liberty and security of person to that list of rights. This ensures that the regime can now better address issues such as arbitrary detention and related conduct.
The global human rights and international humanitarian law sanctions regime also adds a new ground of obstruction of the delivery or distribution of, or access to, humanitarian assistance. This addition reflects the serious humanitarian consequences that can result when aid is deliberately prevented from reaching civilian populations—an objective I am sure noble Lords will agree is important.
The amended regime also adds the power to designate by description. This allows the UK to designate where a specific name is not available and, in doing so, to capture all members of a specific group or organisation, allowing greater flexibility and reach under the regime.
I note that the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, has tabled an amendment of regret, and I look forward to hearing from him and responding to his concerns.
To conclude, this instrument provides the Government with vital new general powers with which to stand up for British values and respond to serious human rights abuses and serious violations of international humanitarian law around the globe. I beg to move.
Lord Leigh of Hurley
At end to insert “but this House, while recognising the importance of effective targeted sanctions, regrets that the Regulations permit designation on suspicion of indirect involvement, benefit or association without clearly defining those terms; notes the absence of safeguards to protect lawful trade with Israel within its pre-1967 lines; and calls on His Majesty’s Government to (1) confirm that such trade will not be affected by these Regulations, (2) publish clear designation criteria and an evidence-based framework to ensure consistent global application, and (3) provide an impact assessment and annual report to Parliament on the operation of the regime”.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, in moving the regret amendment in my name, I declare my interests as set out in the register.
Sanctions, precisely targeted and founded on clear evidence, are a legitimate instrument of British foreign policy and have my support. But these regulations do not meet that test. They seem, to many, to be there to satisfy the local domestic political objectives of the Foreign Secretary and his Government.
This is a major change in British foreign policy, made without consultation, without an impact assessment and without a vote in either House. Parliament is being asked to approve powers already in use. That is not scrutiny; it is ratification. I move this amendment because I believe this policy is a mistake.
The Explanatory Note makes no reference to Israel, but the Foreign Secretary’s Statement in the other place makes it clear, as has the Minister, that his concern is about settler violence in the West Bank, or Judea and Samaria, and that is driving this legislation through. Let me be quite clear: I condemn such violence, by either side. Those who break the law should be arrested and punished. But I am disappointed that the Foreign Secretary made no mention whatever of the numerous attacks on Jewish people in that area. Violence by terrorists against any civilians must be condemned. The Government already have the tools to act: 38 people have been sanctioned for settler violence, and the Government’s relentless and unequal focus on measures against Israel has left many Jews in this country fearful.
The regulations came with three promises: that they would be targeted, that they would not touch Israel inside the green line, and that they would be global. Not one of them survives a reading of the text.
The first promise was that they would be targeted. But a person can be designated not for committing an abuse but for providing “support” for it, obtaining “any other benefit” from it, or being “associated with” someone involved. That is not a scalpel; that is a net, and the Government know it. They have said themselves that these powers
“widen the net … to anyone who facilitates, promotes, incites, or funds”
the conduct in question, including the banks that finance settlement growth. So, what does “associated with” mean? A relative? An accountant? A customer? When the penalty is seven years in prison, a British business is entitled to know where the line is drawn. It is a fundamental feature of the rule of law that the law, especially a law with criminal penalties, should be clear, so that everyone knows what they can and cannot do.
The second promise was on the green line. On 8 September, the Foreign Secretary told the other place that the Government would
“absolutely ensure that it does not hit green-line Israel”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/9/26; col. 887.]
They would “absolutely ensure” that. So, where is it? These regulations contain no safeguard for trade inside the green line, and no definition of where that line runs.
And what of Jerusalem? Two weeks ago, I was in east Jerusalem, as the UK chairman of the Jerusalem Foundation, for the opening of the Beit Hanina sports complex. It is the first ever swimming pool in east Jerusalem. It was paid for in part by the city, and in no small part by international Jewish donors, and it will be handed as a gift to the local community to run. It has been so successful that we would like to build a second swimming pool in east Jerusalem, to match the many in west Jerusalem. But donors have now told us they are not prepared to consider such a proposal, because they may be caught under this legislation. Can the Minister assure British charities that their work will not be caught by this instrument, when their trustees face the real possibility of criminal penalties?
The Government treat east Jerusalem, including the Western Wall, Judaism’s holiest site, as occupied territory, so I ask the Minister: is the Western Wall within the scope of this regime—yes or no? Could a British citizen who buys a flat in the Jewish quarter of the old city from a Jewish seller be at risk when, if they made the same purchase from an Arab seller, they would not be? The Government, and every party to negotiations, have always said that the status of Jerusalem must be settled in negotiations, not in regulations.
The real cost is trade between Britain and Israel, which is worth some £5.9 billion a year, and at the heart of it sit Israel’s major banks. Those banks lend across the country because Israeli law forbids them from refusing customers due to where they live. Under these regulations, a mortgage in a settlement could be “support”, the interest on it a “benefit” and, on suspicion alone, the bank could be designated.
Anyone who has worked in the City knows how compliance departments work. They will face undefined tests and a seven-year criminal sentence. They will not ask, “Is it lawful?”; they will ask, “Is it worth the risk?”, and they will say no. That is how a boycott of Israel begins: not by decree but by deterrence. The Government say they oppose the BDS campaign, yet they have written its sharpest element into British law.
So who pays? I am afraid that we in the UK pay. British banks pay and firms with US operations pay: US federal law treats measures against any territory controlled by Israel as a boycott, so compliance with these regulations would expose them to US penalties. The NHS pays. One in seven generic medicine packs prescribed here comes from an Israeli company, Teva. British business pays: firms with American operations now risk anti-boycott penalties. Palestinians pay: some 30,000 depend on jobs with settlement-linked employers. This smacks of collective punishment. I ask the Minister: will the Treasury issue general licences to protect the NHS’s medicine supply?
The third promise was that this regime is global. Take Northern Cyprus. Turkey has occupied the north of Cyprus since 1974. The UN Security Council has ruled the self-declared republic as legally invalid, and this country is one of Cyprus’s three guarantor powers. How many designations have the Government made? None. How many restrictions on trade? None. One rule for Turkey, one rule for Israel.
Then there is Xinjiang. Its settler corporation has been sanctioned in full by the US since 2020. Here, goods from the region enter without restriction. Then there is Hamas’s and the Iran-backed Houthis’ hostage-taking, diversion of aid and detention of UN staff, yet Ministers have given no indication that these powers will be used against them. That is not a global regime; it is a regime with a global title and a single target.
The cost is not hypothetical. Within a day of the announcement, Israel ordered the closure of our consulate in Jerusalem, expelled British personnel from the centre co-ordinating—
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Antrobus) (Lab)
I respectfully remind the noble Lord that the limit for this is six minutes.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I was graciously given a minute by the noble Lord, Lord Wood, but thank you.
There were 1,962 antisemitic incidents over the past six months in the UK. These regulations do nothing to reduce the tensions in the UK.
I conclude by asking the Minister five questions. Will he confirm that trade with Israel inside the green line will not lead to designation? Will he assure British banks that they will not be penalised for continuing to deal with Israel’s banks? Will the Government define the terms on which people can be sanctioned and report annually to Parliament on how this regime is used, country by country? Will the Government assess the impact, particularly on charities, before going further? Will the Government refrain from designations while Israel forms a new Government at this crucial time? I beg to move.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I speak from the perspective of being a vice-president of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel, not as a spokesman of my group.
This is an even more unstable and unpredictable time in Middle East politics than usual. We have the aftermath of elections in both Israel and the US, with lots of speculation but not so much actual knowledge of what the next few weeks and months will hold. I hope for a Change Government in Israel—my party, the Liberal Democrats, is allied with Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid—but everything is up in the air there, as it is in Washington. The possibility of a US-led renewal of hostilities in the Iran war cannot be dismissed, regardless of the domestic Israeli situation, and could influence the coalition talks.
I ask the Minister what forethought is going into the application of these sanctions and their potential repercussions at this time. Let us recall, as the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, did, all the things that happened within a day of September’s announcement: the closure of the British consulate-general in east Jerusalem and other consequences. Did the Government foresee that response by the Israeli Government, as they should have done? Does the Minister accept that the UK now has less influence over Israeli policy, events in Gaza and the future of Jerusalem than it did on 7 September, and that relations with the Palestinian Authority are made harder by a much reduced presence in east Jerusalem?
Looking at the situation now, and the question from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, about designations during coalition talks, will the Government undertake not to issue designations while a new Israeli Government are being formed? The Foreign Secretary said in the House on 8 September 8 that
“our argument is not with the people of Israel … our argument is with the conduct of its Government”,—[Official Report, Commons, 8/9/26; col. 880.]
so should the UK Government not prioritise getting a change in the conduct of a new Israeli Government, away from the destructive policies of the Netanyahu Government? What assessment will the UK Government make, before any designation, of the impact not only on those coalition talks but on relations with whatever Government emerge?
The opposition Change parties have said that they will, thankfully, crack down on the horrendous settler violence in the West Bank, show more flexibility in moving forward with a post-war plan for Gaza and mend fences with Israel’s allies, so do the Government really think now is a good time to apply these sanctions, about which there are many questions? Will the Minister confirm that any designation will be preceded by a formal assessment of its diplomatic consequences, including in the light of emerging US policy? Finally, will the Government confirm that the decision will be taken by Ministers, not officials alone, given the political and diplomatic minefield that is before them?
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, yesterday evening, some of us had the privilege of gathering in the Robing Room, with the permission of His Majesty, to celebrate the life of our dear friend Meta, Baroness Ramsay. We miss her greatly. Having had the privilege of serving with her when she was the long-standing chair of Labour Friends of Israel in the House of Lords—I had a much briefer stint as chair in the Commons—I think I can say with confidence how dismayed she would be, not only by these sanctions targeting Israel in the way they do but by the turn this Government have taken since the new Foreign Secretary took his place, with the Minister supporting him.
The tributes reflected on how loyal and faithful Meta was to the Labour Party over many years—more faithful, I have to say, than I have been. I think she rebelled fewer than half a dozen times in her whole career in the Lords, so if this were brought to a vote, it is highly unlikely that she would have voted against the Government. However, I think the Minister knows from his time observing her on the parliamentary committee that she would have made her views known in a courteous but persuasive way. In her absence, I will finish with a number of extra questions.
The new aid-obstruction ground in the sanctions covers those who facilitate or finance the disbursal of aid. Will the Government use it against Hamas, which grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood, and against those who finance and shelter it, including the IRGC and Hamas figures operating from Turkey? What safeguards will prevent the definitions “associated with” and “supported” being weaponised against Jewish charities, donors and trustees who wish to give lawfully to Israel? Finally, the Government said that these regulations will not affect freedom of religion. Have the Government assessed their impact on Jewish religious observance? Will the Minister confirm that worship, religious visits and support for synagogues and other religious institutions will not be treated as support for settlement activity?
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I support my noble friend Lord Leigh and wish to focus on one issue: certainty. If these regulations are truly targeted, those affected should be able to understand where the boundary lies. Yet the Government have failed to provide that clarity. Faced with serious penalties, many will simply err on the side of caution. Can the Government state clearly whether buying a home in East Jerusalem, including near the Western Wall, or making a charitable donation would become grounds for designation? What legal test distinguishes a lawful transaction from sanctionable support? Will that test be published? Trustees, donors and charities should not have to guess whether lawful activity crosses an invisible line. If the Government have a clear test, they should publish it. If they do not, that is precisely the problem.
There are wider consequences. If charities and individuals cannot determine where the line is drawn, why should banks and businesses? Many will simply withdraw from dealings with Israel as the safest course. What assessment did the Government make of the impact on UK businesses with US operations in light of American anti-boycott laws? What assessment was made of any wider implications for the UK-US relationship? What guidance will be issued? If those assessments have been undertaken, they should be published. If guidance has been prepared, it should be issued.
The House is not being asked this afternoon whether certainty is desirable. It is being asked to approve regulations whose boundaries remain undefined in practice. Where sanctions carry serious penalties, uncertainty is not a technical flaw; it is a fundamental defect. If those affected cannot know with confidence where the line is drawn, the House should be concerned about what it is being asked to approve. Whether it was intended or not, this is in effect BDS by the backdoor. That is why I support the regret amendment.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I supported the principle behind the global human rights sanctions when they were first introduced but, like many good things, this instrument carries a risk of mission creep. I fear that that is what we see in these new regulations.
I am concerned about the extension of the regime to three new grounds, in particular violations of international humanitarian law. I am also concerned about the new mechanism of designation by description, whereas until now we had been able to designate only by name. Both questions matter because the threshold is quite low. “Reasonable grounds to suspect” is not a demanding test, particularly when applied in the fog of war. I do not think that there has ever been a war in the history of warfare in which there were not reasonable grounds to suspect that the laws of war were being broken. If we want to apply consistently this threshold of reasonable grounds to suspect, we would be required to consider imposing sanctions in connection with every ongoing armed conflict, including those involving allies.
I wonder whether the Government have thought about the relationship between this instrument and the arms embargo regime, where the threshold is “clear risk” and is higher than “reasonable grounds to suspect” —particularly when we consider that individuals associated with someone may also be sanctionable under the new instrument. Does that mean that we could still potentially sell arms to individuals whom we have sanctioned? How do the two regimes operate together?
I have further questions for the Minister. Will the Government publish examples that show what “reasonable grounds to suspect” specifically means in evidential terms in the context of an armed conflict? What independent assessment will the Government make of evidence from the UN, NGOs, media or foreign Governments, particularly where an allegation is repeated in report after report despite often being based on the same second-hand source?
Most importantly, how will the Government ensure that these new grounds and mechanisms are generally applied consistently? If the Government impose sanctions in connection with a settlement in the West Bank, will they set out the legal reasons for not doing the same in other occupied territories such as Western Sahara and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus?
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I apologise to the House and beg its indulgence. For me, this is a serious issue that places the Jewish people under significant antisemitic—
Baroness Antrobus (Lab)
The noble Baroness was not present at the start of the debate.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
I do not think that the Government realise how serious this is. I beg the House’s indulgence that I may make a few remarks. I thank the House for that; I will be very brief.
Lord Sacks said that antisemitism is defined by the language of its age, which seems now to be human rights. I am afraid that the West is being played, and this statutory instrument will simply stoke further Jew hatred. It rewards those who are opposed to a two-state solution. It will not promote or help in any way the people who want the two-state solution or the Palestinians who will lose their jobs because they are working alongside Israelis. I beg the Government to understand the danger of singling out Israel for special punishment, when so many of us who are Jewish citizens of this country are trying to warn of the dangers that this entails.
Lord Gold (Con)
My Lords, the new sanctions purport to be global, but in reality they apply only to Israel. As my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley pointed out, there have been no designations over Northern Cyprus, which has been occupied by Turkey since 1974. The Xinjiang settler corporation in China is unsanctioned. Ministers have not said that the powers will be used against Hamas for diverting aid in Gaza or the Iran-backed Houthis, who are detaining UN aid workers.
Failure to take any action over Cyprus is particularly heinous. As guarantor under the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, the UK has a particular responsibility. The UN Security Council declared the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus “legally invalid”, the Council of Europe has condemned the “colonisation” by Turkish settlers, and the European Court of Human Rights has found that Turkey violated the property rights of displaced Greek Cypriots. Indeed, homes continue to be built and sold on their land, including to British buyers, but no sanctions have been imposed. Yet the Government claim that the sanctions regime is global. If so, why has no action been taken in these other cases?
If the Government’s view is that settlement activity in occupied territory constitutes a serious violation of international humanitarian law, presumably that view rests on Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which applies equally to every alleged occupying power. The Government speak out loudly against antisemitism, but singling out the one Jewish state for sanctions raises serious doubts as to the sincerity of such a claim. Does the Minister accept that a decision not to apply the regime to comparable conduct elsewhere could be open to judicial review if it rests on a different legal test? Will the Government undertake to publish the criteria that they apply? Will the Government also now confirm that action will be taken against those responsible for these other violations? If not, how will the Government show that it is not being applied to Israel alone?
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests.
When announcing these measures, the Foreign Secretary said that the Government would “absolutely ensure” that this regime
“does not hit green-line Israel”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/9/26; col. 887.]
and that trade with Israel would continue to be supported. That trade is worth around £6 billion, with UK exports worth more than half of it—a trade surplus in Britain’s favour of roughly £1 billion. Over the past five years, more than 400 Israeli companies have been established or expanded in the UK, creating 4,000 jobs and bringing in £1 billion of investment. This makes a huge contribution to the UK economy; they are highly skilled and well-paid jobs, and I am sure the Minister will agree that none of them should be put at risk.
Despite the Foreign Secretary’s commitment, the Minister will know that businesses involved in UK-Israel trade, people in Israel and—as we have heard from a number of speakers in this debate—many people in the Jewish community want to be reassured about the precise impact of these measures and that they will not affect trade within Israel’s pre-1967 lines. Will the Treasury and the Foreign Office issue clear guidance, so that banks know that ordinary trade finance and payments to Israeli businesses are not to be affected? What assurance can we give to Palestinian banks which clear shekel payments through Israeli correspondent banks? Given claims by Members of Parliament that a recent event recruiting Jewish doctors to work in Israel would have contravened these regulations, will the Minister make it clear that lawful healthcare, medical recruitment and Jewish communal events are not within scope?
Only last night, these regulations were cited when Birmingham City Council’s Lib Dem and Green coalition —supported by Labour councillors, I have to say—passed a motion on divestment from Israel, including a review of pension fund investments and the council’s banking relationships. This is a city that has had to be rescued from bankruptcy by taxpayers, where rubbish has been piled high in the streets and that is the youth unemployment capital of Britain. Yet the clowns on the council are more concerned—obsessed—with a war 3,000 miles away that they know next to nothing about and can do even less to solve. So will the Minister make it clear that this is not government policy? Will he confirm that the Government’s opposition to boycotts of Israel applies to Labour councillors too? Will he commit to monitoring whether UK banks and businesses are withdrawing from lawful trade with Israel, and to act to deal with that if they are?
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Leigh and want to provide a gentle reminder of why we are here today. Three years ago, on 7 October, more than 6,000 Palestinian men invaded Israel. They slaughtered over 1,200 men, women, children and infants. They tortured, beheaded, burned alive, blew up, gang-raped and sodomised their way through the Nova festival and a number of kibbutz. Their second war crime was to take over 250 innocent civilians hostage, including children and infants, and into the tunnels of Gaza, where they were tortured and raped, with many murdered and some kept hostage for more than two and a half years.
Some employees of UNRWA were complicit, and these actions were supported by the Palestinian Authority, whose members have never condemned the attacks. In fact, it was due to their weakness and cowardice that Hamas and the Palestinian jihadis were able to take control of Gaza in 2006, when the one and only election took place. The Islamic Republic of Iran pulled the strings of its proxies, and the rest is history.
Having witnessed one of the worst crimes in living memory on the citizens of Israel—an ally, by the way, that provides us with intelligence, cancer drugs used by the NHS and much more—what have this Government done? Let us take a look, shall we? This Government decided to recognise a Palestinian state, despite there being no such thing. There are no borders, no rule of law or anything, in fact, to warrant such a decision. This Government have allowed pro-Palestinian, antisemitic hate protests to take place weekly, to this day. The protesters who take part, including Islamist supporters of Hizb ut-Tahrir, all continue to call for the annihilation of Israel and all Jews. Is it then surprising that British Jewish citizens have been, and continue to be, bullied, attacked and murdered on the streets of the UK? Jewish children and their families are living in a ring of steel and antisemitism is at a level I never thought I would see in my lifetime.
Finally, I come to sanctions. Because of a disputed territory—of which we have plenty of our own—this Government place sanctions on our ally, along with the likes of Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Russia, Somalia, Syria and other despotic, barbaric regimes, and yet again give succour to our enemies by appeasing and rewarding those terrorists who threaten to attack Israel, again and again. The truth is that this Government have kowtowed to those who shout loudest and to those they hope will keep them in power. Their actions are shameful and a blight on the freedoms we have fought for. They run completely counter to the silent majority of this country. We know a distraction when we see one, and this regulation has to be one of the worst examples yet.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, time precludes a more general review of the expansion of these sanctions. I hope the House will forgive me if I focus on some questions relating to the Government’s current favourite target: Israel.
Since the Clinton parameters, every serious peace proposal has envisaged Israel retaining major settlement blocs, while compensating it with land swaps. This does not excuse violence, dispossession or unlawful expansion, but it recognises the compromises and complexities on which peace has always depended and the pursuit of has always required. Is residential construction in those major blocs in itself a serious violation of international humanitarian law for the purposes of these regulations? If it is, what assessment have the Government made of the effect on the prospects for a negotiated two-state solution? Have they assessed how restrictions on civilian economic life in these same blocs might affect the prospects of an agreed territorial compromise?
Has the Minister considered how the regulations will apply? Banks and insurers, confronted with uncertain tests and grave penalties, may well withdraw from perfectly lawful Israeli trade. The Government say they oppose boycotts. If British institutions withdraw from lawful trade with Israel as a whole, how is that different, in effect, from a boycott? What do the Government intend to do to prevent that? We would be grateful for officials’ current briefings on this, which have indicated that the regulations are setting terms that Israel cannot meet, even by breaching its own law.
What assessment have the Government made of the West Bank economy, and what support and arrangements are needed to support Palestinian financial institutions and banks, given the changes?
Will the Minister please also give us some view as to what safeguards there are to ensure that, if a company de-lists or stops a relevant activity, the Government will reassess its designation so that the regulations are always applied on an up-to-date, factual basis?
Why does Regulation 8(3)(e) on supplying goods or services contain no requirement of knowledge when Regulation 8(3)(d) does? How promptly will a person designated by a description receive a usable notice, and how can they obtain clarification of whether the designation applies to them? How frequently will the Government reassess the factual basis and continuing appropriateness of each designation, or will they publish aggregate review outcomes? What remedy is available to an innocent third party suffering losses from a mistaken identification or mistaken ownership and control assessment? How will the Government distinguish a remote or incidental financial benefit from a sufficiently direct benefit under Regulation 8(3)(f)? Under Regulation 8(3)(e), can a supplier with no knowledge or reasonable cause to suspect wrongdoing nevertheless be treated as involved, and what proportionality safeguard would apply? What factors merely distinguish an innocent professional, familial or charitable association from an association sufficient for designation under Regulation 8(1)(d)?
Lord Shinkwin (Con) [R]
My Lords, I speak in support of the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley.
Yesterday, I spoke to a group of amendments to the Health Bill, which dealt with the need to address the pernicious threat to the NHS posed by antisemitism and other forms of racism. I spoke then from a patient’s perspective, in my case as someone who owes so much to my childhood Jewish refugee consultant, most of whose family were murdered in the Holocaust, and in whose memory I will always defend Israel’s right to exist in peace and security and refute the charge of genocide in the tragic situation that is Gaza.
Today, I speak again from a patient’s perspective, and I have two specific questions for the Minister. First, can he say what contingency arrangements would be put in place to maintain medicines, emergency medical treatment and aid payments if a major intermediary became designated?
Secondly, can he say what assessment the Government have made of the effects that would be felt as a result of any settlement-related sanctions or proposed services restrictions on access to healthcare for Israeli and Palestinian patients, including continuity of care and the recruitment of clinicians? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Frost (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support the regret amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, and draw attention to my entry in the register of interests.
I will raise briefly two specific concerns on this proposed legislation. The first is the risk that the sanctions under consideration will not be effectively targeted. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, talked about the chilling effect, as I think one could describe it, of the ambiguity of aspects of these sanctions and definitions. That is a negative risk, if you like. However, the Foreign Secretary in the Commons, when announcing these sanctions, also set out a positive duty. He said that
“we will absolutely ensure that it does not hit green-line Israel”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/9/26; col. 887.]
He also said:
“We will continue to support important and valued trade with green-line Israel”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/9/26; col. 882.]
If those were not just words, they imply a positive duty to act, by embassies, government officials and departments that support trade between the UK and Israel. Businesses need to know what positive, practical support the Government can still give, and government officials need to know what they can and cannot do under these sanctions. Can the Minister explain what the Government will do to deliver on the Foreign Secretary’s positive commitment? Will they publish guidance, for example to make clear what trade and investment is supported by HMG and their officials, and what is not? That is my first concern.
The second is how the follow-up regulations to these sanctions are to be handled in practice. They are presented as the first stage in a series of measures tightening restrictions over time, and the Government’s planned measures to prohibit or restrict import services advertising will be very far-reaching. They will hit a lot of people who probably never imagined they were going to be hit by this. There is a high risk of getting the detail wrong or having inadvertent consequential effects.
This does happen. Some of us may remember that the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2023 banned legal advisory services. They were made on 27 June that year and came into force three days later. It took an outside stakeholder, a law firm, to tell us, the legislators, that these regulations actually made it a crime for UK-based lawyers to advise on how to comply with the sanctions. The firm went on to say that this was “unnecessary, and likely unintended”. Your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee went on to confirm this was the effect and it took the Government a year to get the legislation right.
This happened in a sanctions regime that by then was well understood and often used, so will the Government commit to doing the maximum to avoid a similar situation arising again? Instead of drafting follow-up laws and simply bringing them into force, will they commit to ensuring that measures under this legislation will be published in draft, consulted on and properly debated in this Parliament first?
Lord Evans of Guisborough (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Frost, who has demonstrated his considerable knowledge and experience in this field.
It is a hallmark of bad law that it encourages shadow compliance and overcompliance. British companies and institutions quite rightly wish to obey the law, but also wish not to be test cases. It takes time and money to be a test case and, after all, it is not their job to clarify UK law. The Government should be responsible for saying exactly where the boundaries lie. Because of that, I ask the Minister for his assurance about the assessment that the Government have made that their actions are going to be proportionate under this legislation to their stated aims and consistent with their obligations under international law.
I have considerable respect for the Minister and I understand that he will want to do his best to get this right, but we in this House always remember that statutory instruments and other legislation that we approve will be used by future Ministers. That is why, because I do not necessarily trust people who in future might pick up this responsibility, I ask the Minister for a further safeguard: that he restore the duty to report to Parliament on sanctions regimes which was scrapped back in 2022. This is a considerable extension of the Government’s power of sanctioning, and it is right that both Houses of Parliament get a report every year about what has happened, who has been sanctioned and what the results are going to be. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure me on both those points.
Baroness Gill (Lab)
My Lords, the acute human cost of current global conflicts provides the undeniable catalyst for today’s debate. The plight of civilians, particularly in the catastrophic situation of Gaza, is of profound concern. The Government are entirely right to use these regulations to expand our foreign policy toolkit. By making the intentional obstruction of life-saving humanitarian assistance and serious breaches of international humanitarian law explicit, sanctionable offences, they are creating a necessary legal lever to address atrocities worldwide.
Crucially, these powers are truly global. While the immediate focus of many is the Middle East, the updated framework allows the UK to target perpetrators across other devastating theatres of war. It strengthens our hand, as the Minister has already outlined. It is to penalise those orchestrating violence or blocking food and medicine in Sudan, for example, where we have recently seen severe human rights violations and the restrictions of aid.
The updated framework gives us an explicit legal baseline to act decisively in conflicts across Myanmar, Syria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Sahel region. Previously, punishing these acts required slow, country-specific geographic regimes. Today, we establish a unified global standard for accountability.
Furthermore, updating our powers to allow designations by descriptions rather than just by individual name provides the agility that is required in fast-moving conflicts. It ensures that the UK can act in immediate lockstep with international allies to deter actions that undermine humanitarian law—whether against violent settler networks in the West Bank or warlords in east Africa.
Procedural questions regarding delegated legislation and legal thresholds are fair matters for this House to scrutinise. However, technical caution must not paralyse urgent humanitarian leverage. Rather than regretting these regulations, our focus must be on efficient enforcement. Can the Minister confirm that the Foreign Office has the dedicated intelligence resources to rapidly monitor aid obstruction globally, ensuring that these powers are deployed effectively to protect vulnerable civilians in Gaza, Sudan and beyond?
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the general secretary of the Free Speech Union, a director of the British Friends of Israel and the editor-in-chief and majority owner of the Daily Sceptic.
Sanctions should target wrongdoing, not lawful disagreement. No academic or journalist should fear sanctions and losing access to their bank account for challenging the Government’s account of a conflict. Yet these regulations risk blurring that distinction through broad, undefined references to “promotion”, “support” and “association”. The risk is particularly acute if the Government intend to rely on notoriously unreliable UN reporting on Israel. What happens to the academic who challenges such a report, or the journalist who exposes its flaws? As the publisher of the Daily Sceptic, would I be at risk of designation for publishing such an exposé?
Will the Minister confirm that lawful journalism, academic inquiry and political argument will not by themselves justify designation under these regulations? Will he also confirm that the Government will not rely on contested UN findings as evidence for designation without first testing them independently?
Lord McCabe (Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interest.
As the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, told us, this decision represents a significant change in the position adopted by British Governments over many years. It is also a serious departure from long-standing Labour Party policy. Like many others, I worry about the implications of this and the damage that it might do to our relations with a vital ally and many innocent parties. The Foreign Secretary tells us that we cannot outsource our moral responsibilities, so he is taking the decision to act under our global human rights and international humanitarian law. However, unless we are going to see a raft of other measures, that sentiment could have a very hollow ring. What kind of moral responsibility does it show to act in one instance while turning a blind eye in many others?
Like other speakers, I ask my noble friend: if the Government are applying a global approach, can we expect soon to see measures directed at those who seized property and settlements in Northern Cyprus? Will we see real measures to curb the IRGC and the Iran-backed Houthis? Will we see measures against China and the Xinjiang settler organisation—and against Hamas for diverting aid in Gaza? If not, how can our Government avoid the charge that this decision is about acting against and singling out Israel?
Given the uncertainty and potential risks associated with these measures, was the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade fully consulted before they were announced? Can my noble friend say with confidence that the regulations and the planned import ban are compatible with the UK-Israel trade and partnership agreement?
Lord Polak (Con)
I refer the House to my registered interests. Over many years, I have taken more than 150 delegations of parliamentarians to Israel and the region. I have seen what Britain can achieve when we are trusted and when we are in the room, and I have sadly watched this Government give it all away.
As my noble friend Lord Leigh said, within a day of the announcement our consul-general in Jerusalem was ordered to leave. British personnel were removed from the centre co-ordinating the Gaza ceasefire and rebuilding. Our training of Palestinian Authority security forces was stopped. Not one designation had been made, yet we lost our seat at the table before the ink was dry.
And for what? These regulations will not bring peace one day closer. How would the Government even know? Beyond counting designations, what measurable outcomes will they use to judge whether these sanctions improve humanitarian access?
The Abraham accords have shown that peace is built through trade, investment and partnership. Britain should be part of that. Instead, with tests that no one can define and penalties of up to seven years in prison, British banks and businesses cannot know where the Government’s line falls. Many will simply walk away from Israel. That damages British trade, it damages Israel and it damages the relationship between our two countries. I gently remind the Minister that the British mandate ended almost 80 years ago.
Only yesterday, in relation to our national security and defence, my right honourable friend Kemi Badenoch said:
“This is not a student union; this is the running of our country”.
This sanctions policy is another example of student politics at its worst.
During this debate, by my calculation, there have been about 40 legitimate questions posed to the Minister. We did not have an opportunity before the SI was laid, so I struggle to understand how such a flawed policy can be rushed through with no parliamentary scrutiny and done on purely domestic political considerations, with a by-election in Holborn and St Pancras and, frankly, pandering to the mob.
These measures do not help the two-state solution that the Government say they support. As the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn said, every serious peace proposal since the Clinton parameters of 2000 has expected the major settlement blocs to remain part of Israel.
So, if this policy is to stand, I ask the Minister three simple questions. First, how do these sanctions bring the two-state solution closer? Secondly, if the green line is now the line on which British sanctions turn, will the Government publish where it runs and say clearly whether east Jerusalem and the Golan Heights fall within it? Thirdly, will the planned advertising ban stop British estate agents, newspapers or community organisations from advertising homes in the Jewish neighbourhoods of Jerusalem?
Peace is built through engagement, not sanctions. Britain should be building bridges in the Middle East, not burning them.
Baroness Antrobus (Lab)
My noble friend Lord Mendelsohn omitted to declare his interest earlier and wishes to briefly do so.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise. In hacking my speech down, I omitted at the very beginning to declare my interests as set out in the register.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I should state that repeatedly in this debate there have been incorrect references to interests. The Companion is perfectly clear that references to interests need to be specific. There have been a number of instances in this debate that I hope the Government Whips and Opposition Whips will reflect on the handling of.
I welcome these sanctions. Indeed, having scrutinised all the sanctions that the UK has passed since 2018, I have called for the updating and expansion of the human rights sanctions. I welcome the new elements and criteria and also the fact that descriptions of actions will be put in place to prevent circumvention.
I shall refer briefly to the regret amendment. We already have designated individuals within the Israeli Government. Many Israeli actors have been designated under the human rights regime. I slightly regret the partisan tone in this debate, and I want to quote the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, when he was Foreign Secretary under the last Government:
“Today’s sanctions place restrictions on those involved in some of the most egregious abuses of human rights ... Extremist Israeli settlers are threatening Palestinians, often at gunpoint, and forcing them off land that is rightfully theirs. This behaviour is illegal and unacceptable”.
That was in February 2024. There are many elements of this debate today that are not new. Indeed, I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. In fact, I questioned him in this House. Many who have taken part in this debate today did not.
Outposts are illegal under Israeli law. I do not understand why we should allow UK bodies to be immune from our law, facilitating settlements and outposts that are illegal under Israeli law. We have an obligation in this country to ensure that UK entities do not facilitate human rights abuses and egregious breaches of international humanitarian law, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, outlined in 2024.
I welcome the fact that this is a global regime, as the Minister said. Indeed, we can now move more quickly beyond Sudan, Syria, Myanmar and the DRC, where there is country-specific scope, as the Minister indicated. I am glad that the Minister mentioned Sudan. I welcome the fact that the commanders are now being sanctioned for the terrible human rights abuses in that conflict. The Minister normally says that Ministers do not comment on individuals to be sanctioned, but it is worth noting that the UK still has not sanctioned General Burhan and General Hemedti, the two people most responsible for the world’s worst humanitarian abuses.
My final point is about humanitarian relief. There is scope under these measures to have a Treasury licence for exemptions. Humanitarian scope is in place. I hope the Minister can confirm that the Government do indeed intend to have a humanitarian assistance licence.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, when the Government announced these sanctions, the Government and the Official Opposition reasserted our commitment to the two-state solution and Israel’s right to defend itself. We all want to see sustainable, long-term peace in the region. I know there is a broad consensus in the House on that matter. Also, for the avoidance of doubt, we all condemn settler violence, and I hope that the Israeli authorities will clamp down on many of the abuses we have seen.
However, as I said in September, the test by which the Government’s sanctions will be judged is whether they bring us closer to a sustainable two-state solution. We on these Benches are far from satisfied that the Government’s approach is any closer to achieving that. We were particularly concerned by the Government’s decision to announce these sanctions, which will take months to be implemented, surprisingly close to the Holborn and St Pancras by-election, which, incidentally, meant creating a further political row during the lead-up to the elections in Israel. This was a serious misjudgment, leading many of us to suspect that domestic political considerations were at the forefront of the Government’s consideration.
I share many of the concerns raised by noble Lords across the House today, including on the government Benches. I hope the Minister will be able to give full answers to the many serious questions that have been put to him today. If he needs to write to noble Lords to provide detailed replies, I would be grateful if he would commit to sharing those detailed answers with all Peers for the information of the House and laying copies of his replies in the Library.
I hope the Minister will forgive me if I add some questions to his extensive list. On religious freedom, the Government have said that these regulations would not affect freedom of religion. What assessment have they made of the impact on Jewish religious observance, including acts of worship, religious visits, religious goods and related payments; and of compatibility with Article 9, on freedom of religion, and Article 14, on prohibition of discrimination, of the European Convention on Human Rights that the Government keep telling us they are committed to, as given effect by the Human Rights Act 1998? Will they publish objective criteria distinguishing support for worship and religious institutions from financing settlement expansion before charities, donors and banks are expected to apply them?
Will the Government report annually to Parliament on designations and decisions not to designate by country and build an annual review or sunset clause into the operation of the regulations, so that their efficacy, fairness and proportionality can be assessed every year by all of us? Will the regulations be applied in a manner proportionate to their stated aims and consistent with the UK’s obligations under international law? Can the Minister tell us whether the Treasury, BIST, DHSC and relevant financial regulators were consulted on the wider effects, and will the Government publish a summary of their assessments?
Finally, on the necessity of these regulations, what specific conduct could not be addressed adequately under the 2020 regime, and what evidence led Ministers to conclude that these additional 2026 designation grounds were necessary, beyond domestic political considerations? I look forward to the Minister’s response, but should my noble friend Lord Leigh put his amendment to the vote, I will certainly support him.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, and I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Walney, said about Meta Ramsay. We all miss her very much. I am sure he is right that she would have disagreed with many, if not the preponderance, of today’s SI amendments. The expansion of the global human rights sanctions regime, now the global human rights and international humanitarian law regime, shows how the UK is taking bold action to stand up for British values around the world.
On the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, I am sorry to see opposition. I understand many of the arguments made by the noble Lord and others concerning the specific cases of Israel that he and most other noble Lords focused on, but I am disappointed to see opposition to this as the vehicle by which they express their passionate, strongly held views on the question of Israel and the UK’s relationship with Israel. Why? Because today is about something slightly different from what the majority of noble Lords have been focusing on. It is about an instrument whose purpose is to strengthen the UK’s ability to respond to serious abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law wherever they occur. If the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, were successful, this House would be on record as regretting the expansion of the Government’s powers to act wherever abuses of human rights or serious violations of international humanitarian law occur across the globe, and I do not believe that that is the message this House wants to send.
These regulations are not targeting any country; they are expanding the range of abuses upon which the global human rights regime will be based and upon which the UK Government can act. They are global in scope. They are designed to ensure the UK has the necessary powers to hold individuals and entities accountable for serious misconduct across a range of situations around the world. They provide an important and proportionate addition to our sanctions toolkit and strengthen our ability to act in defence of fundamental rights and international norms. I take the point made by my noble friend Lady Gill very much to heart. We need to maintain strong monitoring of human rights abuses and international humanitarian law rights abuses, including information from the United Nations and many other sources as well, to go back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Young.
Through his amendment and in his contribution, the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, has raised many specific questions about trade with Israel. To be clear, as the Foreign Secretary has said, we will continue to support important and valued trade with green-line Israel and its people. These regulations do not affect that trade. Indeed, they not about trade; they are about behaviour. The noble Lord also asked whether the Government will publish clear designation criteria and an evidence-based framework. The designation criteria are set out in the regulations themselves, specifically in Regulation 8.
Any designation must meet the legal tests established in sanctions legislation and be made in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998. Decisions are made by Ministers on the basis of evidence and are subject to the safeguards and scrutiny established by Parliament. As a passing remark, Regulation 8 sets out the designation criteria and is almost identical, I believe, to Regulation 6 in the 2020 regulations. The idea that there is some massive redefinition of the small print is simply not true. The main changes are in Regulation 4, where we have added
“serious violation of international humanitarian law”
and wider human rights grounds. Many noble Lords’ comments are not correct in saying that there is a subversive expansion going on here to get particular cases in. That is factually incorrect.
Questions were raised regarding impact assessments and reporting to Parliament. A de minimis impact assessment has been completed and concluded that the expected additional impact on UK businesses will be negligible. That is because the regulations are enabling legislation only and are global in scope. The sanctions regime itself is not targeted at any specific country, conflict, sector, product, market or group of businesses. Any economic impacts arise only if Ministers decide to designate specific persons under the expanded regime. These designations are separate and case-by-case, and each designation follows a robust legal process. We designate according only to the specific grounds of the appropriate regime and our reasoning must be properly evidenced, with credible sources that can be relied upon in court. We regularly keep sanctions regimes and designations under review.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans, was right that the duty to report annually to Parliament was scrapped in 2022, by the previous Conservative Government. However, this House and the other place have a range of mechanisms through which sanctions policy and implementation are examined, including debates, Questions, committee scrutiny, correspondence and evidence sessions—and through extremely friendly text exchanges with friends such as the noble Lord, Lord Polak, on a regular basis. My honourable friend Minister Doughty writes regularly to the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, setting out the Government’s sanctions work in detail. Such correspondence is available in the Libraries of both Houses. I am committed, as I am sure noble Lords across the House already know, to continuing regular engagement with Members across this House on sanctions and related issues.
Let me respond quickly to some individual remarks—I can deal with only some of them. A number of noble Lords asked whether this instrument was singling out or focused on Israel in some way. This is not about Israel; it is a statutory instrument amending the global human rights regime. Let me refer to some of the designations that have been made: in Georgia, as I mentioned before; in Sri Lanka, where we sanctioned individuals responsible for serious human rights abuses and violations during the Sri Lankan civil war; and in Cambodia, where we have used them to deliver high-impact sanctions against global conglomerates running sham and scam centres, as well as their enablers. It is simply not true that this is a regime targeted on Israel or any one country.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
May I just bring to the attention of the Minister a press release that came out on 8 September, a week after Sir Keir Starmer resigned? It read:
“UK to bring forward new powers to respond to moral emergency in Palestine, and target illegal settlement activity in the West Bank to protect the viability of a two-state solution”.
I will happily give this document to the Minister when he has completed his response.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness; I am familiar with that document—I may even have had a hand in helping to write it. There is confusion, if the noble Baroness does not mind me saying so, at the heart of her point. On 8 September, the Foreign Secretary announced two things—in fact, he announced many things, including a series of sanctions, which some noble Lords have forgotten, on the financing arms of Hamas and Hezbollah, but he announced two things in particular.
First, the Foreign Secretary announced that there will be a new sanctions regime designed to stop UK economic activity supporting the expansion of illegal settlements, and that that would be laid before Parliament within six to nine months. Many comments made by noble Lords and noble Baronesses in the last hour have been focused on a Bill that is yet to be produced and measures that have yet to be clarified. I take very seriously the injunctions of many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn, for clarity to be provided, as much as is consistent with those new rules. But today is about the second thing the Foreign Secretary talked about: the expansion of our existing global human rights regime. That is what we are discussing, and it is not what the quote the noble Baroness read out was about.
I will happily come back to noble Lords on specific issues, but I am afraid I do not have time to go through everything now.
As I said earlier, if this amendment was successful, we would not be taking action on any one country; we would be saying no to the expansion of the Government’s ability to act in response to abuse of human rights or serious violations of international humanitarian law. Is that the message we want to send, or do we want to make a general modification to an established and successfully operating set of regulations to expand our ability to act against abuses that we all debate, day-to-day, and which people rightly get upset about and ask me Oral Questions about on a regular basis?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I understand that the Minister wishes to make progress, and I welcome the fact that more time was given to this through the usual channels. However, the Minister says he has no more time. Will he assure the House that he will place in the Library a full response to all the questions raised by noble Lords in this debate?
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
I will happily provide answers to the questions I have not been able to address.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
I am happy to place them in the Library.
In recent years, the UK has transformed its use of sanctions and continues to lead internationally in their implementation. This amended global human rights and international humanitarian law regime gives us a stronger and more flexible means of promoting accountability and responsibility, and responding to some of the gravest abuses seen around the world. I therefore respectfully urge noble Lords not to support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh. It is motivated by things that are not the substance of today’s regulations, which concern the global human rights regime rules.
To conclude, I once again thank the House for the many insightful contributions and the continued cross-party support for our sanctions regime. We continue to lead internationally on sanctions implementation. This amended global human rights and international humanitarian law regime will give the UK a powerful tool to respond to human rights abuses and international humanitarian law violations across the world.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I thank the very many noble Lords who spoke in this debate. I listened to some extremely powerful, passionate and very well-informed comments from all sides of the House, and I am extremely grateful to those noble Lords who took the time and trouble so to do.
There were some 40 to 50 questions asked, and I think the Minister answered about 10. The purpose of our Chamber is to look at things in more detail and express reservations, and there are clearly enormous reservations about these statutory instruments. The protections we have asked for and the concerns we have raised have not been answered. It is therefore more than appropriate that the opinion of this House is tested, and I wish to do that.
Representation of the People Bill
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Fuller
“(2A) A local authority in England, Wales or Scotland must ensure that information given to relevant young people relating to registering to vote in an election is neutral or politically balanced and not designed to favour one outcome or party over another.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to ensure that all sides of the argument are presented to relevant young people under clause 15 regardless of the local authority's political control.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendments 18 and 19 in this short group. Both are related to the way in which looked-after children are encouraged to register to vote and the information that has been provided to them to inform that choice, and they would ensure that party politics can play no part in that decision if there is automatic registration, so that one political outcome was not unduly influenced over the other. Both my amendments relate to the entirety of the United Kingdom, with Amendment 18 referring to Great Britain and Amendment 19 the mirroring provision for Northern Ireland. It is the local state in Great Britain—the councils and their agents—that has responsibility as corporate parents for looked-after children, the “relevant young people” referred to in these amendments. In some cases, that corporate parenting responsibility lasts all the way up to the age of 24.
There are some things that should be apolitical, but it is an inescapable truth that councils are political organisations. While this amendment does not suggest that councils behave politically in every decision they take, given the importance of this Bill to the underpinning of democracy in the United Kingdom, the amendments take a belt-and-braces approach to being explicit that, in encouraging young people to come on to the register, that choice cannot, or should not, be tainted or otherwise influenced by party-political considerations. We must remove the temptation for anyone to improperly influence the register by tilting the balance so that only some cohorts are registered but not others.
Nothing in this group is meant to imply that councils are seeking to act improperly. We have to recognise that councils now engage with certain external organisations, such as private care homes, privately run caring establishments or even charitable bodies, to deliver their caring and corporate parenting responsibilities. They may be within the council’s own territory or in another part of the country. Together, my amendments would ensure that the duty of neutrality would be extended to not only the local authorities or health boards but those in that wider care ecosystem that benefits children and is paid for by local government wherever they are. Those organisations, councils or care homes, are in an extraordinarily influential position in the care of relevant young people. They provide food and accommodation, are responsible for health and welfare and all the other issues of day-to-day life.
By definition, without the guiding hand of their natural parents, these children are more socially vulnerable and susceptible to undue influence. These amendments therefore provide an additional level of certainty and assurance to ensure that such vulnerabilities are not taken advantage of politically by the council, through its policies, or more subtly by the political predispositions of individual care workers, wardens or other members of the professional staff on the front line, as well as by that ecosystem of contractors and charities. It is as simple as that. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, in speaking to my Amendment 18, I will also touch on issues raised in the similar amendments, Amendment 43 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and Amendment 44 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
We are very much concerned that the reduction of the age limit to 16 has to be accompanied by a real effort at proper civic education. As a Liberal, I would say there should be a much greater effort at civic education anyway. The extent to which our young are not taught about British values and the rights and obligations of British citizenship is profoundly worrying and needs to be overcome.
Others will speak about some of the surveys that have been done on the thinness of civic education in schools. I went around three schools in the spring, one in Yorkshire and two in London, just to see from a very unrepresentative sample what they were doing, and was shocked, even in the public school I attended—one of Britain’s best public schools—at how little time was spent on this. I was given the lesson plan by the head of PSHE at one school for all the things she had to teach in one hour a week each year, including sexual behaviour, financial education, disease, and heaven knows what else, and of course, with political education fitting into that. All the teachers I spoke to said, “This is simply not possible to achieve; we need to have more time”. That is part of the message we want the Minister to give us some answers on: that the current curriculum review recognises this and that it will be expanded.
For Liberals and for people who believe in liberal democracy, the teaching of citizenship is a fundamental part of teaching people how to take their part in a democratic society. I am well aware that there have been many, particularly in the Conservative ranks, who are doubtful about the possibilities of teaching people political education, particularly in state schools. As a historian, I have read a number of debates from the early 19th century in which Conservative Peers doubted that education as such should be provided to the working class, because it would give them ideas above their station. Education is, of course, subversive. It teaches people how to question the conventional wisdom and how to think for themselves. That is part of what we should be doing.
In the United States, we have seen recently an even more fundamental attack on liberal education in the Trump Administration’s attack on American universities as unavoidably left-wing and liberal institutions, because they are concerned about evidence, doubt, argument and a number of things that the Trump Administration appear not to like. I hope none of us here share such a view.
As we see in some amendments in this group and later, there has been some concern about the possibility of neutrality. I declare an interest as someone who spent much of my career teaching politics and international politics in various universities. Of course, we all come with our biases, but we try to teach people how to think for themselves. At the London School of Economics, I had a number of Hong Kong and Singaporean students. The hardest job I had with them was to persuade them that they were supposed to disagree with their teacher. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, nodding in agreement.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendment 43 seeks to ensure that the extension of votes to 16 year-olds, as argued by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, is accompanied by the necessary citizenship education to prepare young people to exercise their new rights and responsibilities as citizens. A number of noble Lords emphasised this in the debates about 16 and 17 year-olds on our first day in Committee. The amendment calls for a catch-up programme of political and media literacy and citizenship, supported by teacher training, with particular attention to the needs of student groups who face socioeconomic disadvantage or most lack electoral confidence, including girls and young women.
I should say that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who supports my amendment, asked me to give her apologies that she cannot be in her place to speak to her Amendment 44, which would place responsibility for citizenship education on the Electoral Commission; otherwise, it is very similar in its tone to my amendment.
I applaud the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds, but I am well aware, from research that I was involved in as an academic some years ago, that some young people, not surprisingly, lack confidence about voting. Professor Bryony Hoskins of the University of Roehampton—who has conducted more recent research and whose assistance I am grateful for—tells me that
“young people approach their first election with unequal access to political learning, unequal confidence and different opportunities to practise making their voices heard. Without action to address these differences, there is a risk that the reform will disproportionately benefit those already equipped to participate”.
This underlines the importance of good citizenship education. I was a member of the Select Committee on Citizenship and Civic Engagement, the spirit of which lived on in the recent QSD in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. The committee emphasised:
“Citizenship education has a crucial role to play in helping to build active citizens”.
Its importance is all the greater in the context of the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds.
More recently, the APPG on Political and Media Literacy—supported by Shout Out UK, to which I am also grateful for its help—has pointed to
“a growing body of research indicating that young people who receive structured political and media education demonstrate higher levels of civic engagement and greater resilience to misinformation”.
They are more likely to become first-time voters, which increases the chances of them voting subsequently.
With regard to gender, Professor Hoskins’s research shows that even though girls tend to outperform boys in civic knowledge, they demonstrate lower confidence in their ability to understand and engage in formal politics. Longitudinal research in England shows that the gender gap in political confidence widens between ages 11 and 16, precisely the years preceding the proposed voting age.
When it comes to socioeconomic disadvantage, the IP-PAD UK adolescent study found that civic confidence diverges sharply by place. Its report suggested that
“'democratic confidence is shaped not only by age, but also by socio-economic experience”.
Another study, by Dr James Weinberg at the University of Sheffield, underlined the current fragmented state of democratic education in England, with stark disparities between private schools and state schools serving affluent communities on the one hand and state schools in economically deprived communities on the other. More affluent parents are more likely to talk to their children about politics and to feel confident doing so. It is perhaps not surprising that other research found that, when they had access to it, disadvantaged students often gained more from citizenship education than their more privileged peers.
Research undertaken by Professor Hoskins for G-EPIC—Gender Empowerment through Politics in Classrooms—has developed and evaluated teaching approaches designed to strengthen political confidence, particularly among more disadvantaged girls. Its research should inform the kind of catch-up programme envisaged in this amendment. Indeed, ACT—the Association for Citizenship Teaching, which has done so much to press the cause of citizenship education—is currently promoting these teaching resources.
I welcome the Government’s appreciation of the importance of citizenship education, especially to newly enfranchised voters, as expressed, for example, by my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern in winding up the recent QSD.
I have a number of questions for my noble friend the Minister. First, how will the Government ensure that newly enfranchised young people receive appropriate citizenship education before their first opportunity to vote? Secondly, how will that provision address the gender and socioeconomic inequalities in political confidence that I have raised? Thirdly, what teacher training and resources will support inclusive delivery? Fourthly, how will implementation be evaluated to establish its success in benefiting young people facing the greatest barriers to political participation?
In concluding, I stress the urgency of the kind of catch-up programme envisaged in this amendment. In its briefing on the Bill, the Electoral Commission notes:
“We’ve long recommended improvements to democratic education in schools, and the lowering of the voting age makes this more pressing”.
As my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern said at the end of the QSD:
“This is a pivotal moment for citizenship education”.—[Official Report, 19/10/26; col. 545.]
The need to act quickly was emphasised by my noble friend Lord Blunkett, the honorary president of ACT, who regrets he cannot be in its place. He warned that, if we fail to revise the curriculum so as to inform, educate and equip young people to take on voting at the ages of 16 and 17, it will be a dereliction of duty. Can my noble friend the Minister reassure us that we will fulfil our duty to the young people who will exercise their rights and responsibilities as citizens for the first time—I hope—at the next general election?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I will briefly speak in favour of Amendments 23 and 43. Following on from my noble friend Lady Lister, I know that my noble friend Lord Blunkett would say that the new curriculum, in which citizenship will be made a compulsory subject for primary schools, with a stronger emphasis on the subject in secondary schools, should be introduced in 2027 rather than 2028. Can my noble friend the Minister say whether it might be possible to change the curriculum and introduce the changes in 2027?
I understand that the citizenship GCSE is really rather good and I encourage all schools to ensure that the maximum number of students can study for that GCSE, but I know that there is a dearth of citizenship teachers. Can my noble friend the Minister say what we are doing to ensure that there are more teachers qualified to teach citizenship? As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said, that is the way to ensure that it is properly taught, and taught impartially.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 24, to which my noble friend Lady Meyer added her name, as well as my Amendments 280 and 287.
At Second Reading, I spoke against plans to lower the voting age to 16 on three grounds: evidence on brain development; the confusion that these plans bring to our policy approach to maturity; and the Government playing to the imperative to give ever more stuff to voters, in this case young people. Young people face far more pressing issues which are far harder to resolve; progress on these would lead to much more substantive and beneficial change.
Today, I will focus on the first of those grounds. I tabled Amendments 24, 280 and 287 partly in response to the Minister’s reply. I am grateful that she found time in her closing remarks at Second Reading to refer to my speech, but what she said concerned me as to how clear I had been. She mentioned the scientific evidence I gave against 16 and 17 year-olds being able to vote, saying 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”.—[Official Report, 14/9/26; col. 1058.]
I had not at all been arguing to restrict voting to those with sufficient cognitive and intellectual ability: that would be elitist. I was not talking about what a 16 year-old understands. My remarks were exclusively about maturity. I mentioned how staff across the Youth Custody Service always refer to 16 and 17 year-olds as “children”, not because of their cognitive ability but to remind themselves of their relative immaturity.
Neuroscience has quantified and plotted on a graph what brain maturation looks like at 16. I cited the much-respected developmental psychologist Professor Laurence Steinberg, whose studies have found that, across all demographic groups and both sexes, resistance to peer influence increases in a linear fashion between the ages 14 and 18 and seems pretty set for the majority at the end of that period. Hence, typically, by 18 most young people have developed the capacity to stand up for what they believe and withstand peer pressure.
I highlighted other studies of the brain’s control system or executive functions, which enable young people to regulate their emotional reactions, perhaps to a shared reel or video short, and make independent judgments. They stabilise to adult levels only in late adolescence—at 18 to 20 years old. As the researchers of a key study say:
“Results provide a canonical trajectory of executive function maturation that demarcates the boundaries of adolescence”.
Lowering the voting age tramples these boundaries and appears evidentially indefensible.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 24, tabled by my noble friend Lord Farmer, to which I have added my name. This amendment asks for something entirely reasonable: proper assessment of the evidence on the decision-making capability of 16 and 17 year-olds, compared with those aged 18 or over. Surely, before lowering the voting age, Parliament should have that evidence.
This is not about questioning young people’s intelligence or enthusiasm. It is about whether, at that age, they have developed the maturity and independence of judgment to understand the long-term consequences of their decisions. The scientific evidence is there. To give an example, Professor Sallie Baxendale, a clinical neuropsychologist at UCL, explains that, during adolescence, the brain undergoes extensive rewiring. The connections responsible for rational judgment, impulse control and assessing long-term consequences are still developing. In other words: at 16, the brain is still very much a work in progress.
Research also shows that teenagers are particularly sensitive to emotions, immediate rewards and peer pressure. This is particularly so in today’s world of social media, influencers, foreign interference and online campaigning. Of course, many 16 year-olds are intelligent and politically engaged. But intelligence is not the same as maturity. Most of them are still at school, living at home, and have yet to experience real independence.
Voting is not just about expressing an opinion; it is about choosing who governs us, who taxes us and who makes decisions affecting our future. We already recognise that young people need protection. Both the Children Act and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child generally recognise that those under 18 are children. As noted before, in England, people cannot marry, buy alcohol or tobacco, serve on a jury or stand for Parliament until they are 18. I remind the House that the Mariage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022 passed with cross-party support, including from Labour. It raised the minimum age of marriage to 18, even with parental consent. Why? To protect children from forced marriage and family coercion. If we protect children from family coercion over marriage, should we not be equally concerned about pressure from parents or other adults enticing them to vote in a particular way? Surely, the principle is the same: protecting children from coercion.
Only a few months ago, the Government announced plans to restrict children’s access to social media in order to
“give kids their childhood back”.
But how does involving children in political decisions give them their childhood back? Is it not bizarre that the Government consider 16 year-olds to be still in need of protection from TikTok yet old enough to choose who will govern the country?
The Bill proposes bringing children into the electoral registration system before they are even old enough to vote. When questioned the other day, the Minister told us that,
“Even by the age of 14”,
children
“have decided what subjects they want to continue to study”,—[Official Report, 2/11/26; col. 1390.]
as a reason why children at age 14 should be involved. Surely choosing school subjects is hardly comparable to choosing who should govern our country.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Baroness was in the Chamber when we discussed these issues only two days ago, but all the arguments which she has quite rightly addressed this afternoon were indeed rehearsed then. They have been discussed and debated very widely.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
I was basically talking to the amendment, which requires evidence. That is why I was talking about how we do not have the evidence, and that the evidence we have shows us the contrary: that children under the age of 18 are probably not mature enough.
Surely choosing which subjects you study at school is not comparable with choosing who should run our country. This is where a lot of noble Lords before me questioned whether the Government think that this measure will encourage young people to vote for them. I suspect that, if the figures were different and young people voted for the Conservative Party, we would have a very different argument at this stage.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
I am sorry, but changing the voting age should be a matter of principle, not electoral advantage.
I am particularly concerned about vulnerable children, including children in care, who, evidence tells us, are more susceptible to pressure or manipulation. Surely before extending the franchise to younger and potentially vulnerable people, the Government should establish whether they have the maturity and independence of judgment to exercise that right without undue influence.
Lord Balfe (Con)
As someone who grew up as a child in care, I can assure the Committee that I did not fit into the description put forward by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Meyer
The Government point out that, in Scotland, Wales, the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey, children aged 16 can vote in certain elections. However, UK general elections determine who takes responsibility for our national defence and security, and so are quite different from elections in those smaller countries and areas. These are decisions on war and peace.
If the Government are confident that 16 is an appropriate voting age, surely they should welcome a proper assessment and explain why they are prepared to disregard scientific concerns about maturity and independent judgment—or is political advantage the real reason behind this proposal? I ask the Government to look at this amendment and bring forward some evidence. Frankly, some of us might even question whether we have fully acquired the maturity needed to vote at the age of 18.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I share some of the worries summed up by Amendments 18 and 19, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, about ensuring that all sides of the argument are heard by our newly enfranchised 16 year-olds, especially looked-after children.
I have noted Amendment 43, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and Amendment 44, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which both focus on the role that education can play in preparing young people for voting. As a former teacher, I always welcome more knowledge-based education, but I am concerned, for a number of reasons which I raise now.
First, this would put an undue burden on teachers. As we know, every time there is a social problem in this country, somebody says that education will solve it, and teachers are tearing their hair out every time they hear that. Secondly, how on earth might we trust that, if this is the main source of information that young people are going to get before they vote, it is suitably impartial?
In an earlier group, there was a very important discussion in which concern expressed about undue influence on voters, sometimes from families, sometimes women being coerced, sometimes from religious groups, and so on and so forth. We all took that seriously, as it is an important debate. Here we have to ask whether young voters could be unduly influenced, and by what. I am concerned about how we ensure, when talking about education and linking it directly, as these amendments seek to do, to 16 year-olds being prepared to vote, that it is based on impartial information.
As noble Lords will note, my concern in relation to votes for 16 year-olds is about their dependence on state bodies, as people who have not got the majority, because I want to protect the notion of the independence of all voters. It seems to me that we are going to have a group of voters who, by the nature of the way society is organised, are not independent. That most expresses itself, funnily enough, in school or in instances of looked-after children, dependent on the state or local councils, as the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, explained.
I have a general concern that the whole discussion could lead to the politicisation of schools, and that really worries me. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, made the point that education is subversive. It absolutely is, and, to be fair, I am a great fan of being subversive—I try to make a habit of it. However, linking the idea of education as subversive with saying, “You must now go out and be a responsible citizen and vote”, could get us into some difficulties.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
The noble Baroness referred to my amendment and has concerns about it. I remind her that I made the point about training and resources, because it would have to be adequately resourced. Does the noble Baroness not agree with the whole concept of citizenship education, because that seems to be the tenor of her remarks?
Baroness Fox of Buckley
I am about to explain my concerns about the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I think citizenship education can be excellent, and a
“catch-up programme of political and media literacy”
sounds like a sensible, impartial and pragmatic intervention. But I have concerns, and I am raising them. I am not opposing the amendment; I am probing.
In recent years, citizenship education has, in my experience of going into schools and working in educational settings, become somewhat muddled in its agenda, and is often a vehicle for social justice campaigning, when you actually look at what is going on. To use one example, there is a call in the amendment for
“experts, charities and civil society organisations”
to give advice to the Government on citizenship education. We are talking about charities—what could go wrong with that?—civil society organisations and NGOs, but we all know that, very often, they are highly politicised, highly partial and there are all sorts of controversies around them.
To take one recent example, during the Black Lives Matter period in relation to George Floyd, many schools invited NGOs, charities and organisations to help them sort out how they should best deal with the response to Black Lives Matter. We ended up with quite extensive and, in some instances, toxic examples of the introduction of critical race theory into classrooms, unconscious bias training, children accusing others of having white privilege, off-the-scale decolonising of the curriculum and so on. We have to be careful that charities and third parties, in relation to educating children for elections, are not just a vehicle for political propaganda.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I am doing my best to follow the logic of the noble Baroness’s argument. Is she saying that civic education is fine but that no social justice should be taught?
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I am suggesting that a particular reading of social justice is one-sided and political. We need to show some caution. Civics education per se is one thing. This is an argument that civics education should be used to prepare young people to vote in elections, which is a different thing. We must show some caution. I am going to come back to this, noble Lords will be delighted to know, in a later group.
I finish with one example that might illustrate my point. I was on a panel for a debate on education after the last election. A head teacher on the panel shared with the audience, with horror, that a citizenship studies mock election in his school had seen some pupils stand as Reform candidates. Even worse, they won—overwhelmingly. He used this as an example of the dangerous radicalisation of youth and the need to tackle extremism and that the school was now working on ensuring that pupils who exhibited such traits would be introduced to ideas that would counter them.
I make no party-political point here, but this raises the kinds of issues that I am concerned about. How dare the head teacher see a political party in this country as the wrong political party. I was shocked and argued back, as noble Lords can imagine. With voting for 16 year-olds on the horizon, we must ensure that such political prejudices do not become undue influences on political decision-making by 16 year-olds who are being told that they are being treated as adults in making up their own minds. If we depend on schools to shape their minds around the political issues that they will have to choose around, then we are in trouble.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in the debate on this Bill. I will speak to two amendments. On Amendment 24, I congratulate my noble friends Lord Farmer and Lady Meyer, who know a huge amount in this field and are experts in this area. I am very grateful to them for their contributions and their amendments today.
The area I want to focus on is peer pressure. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, is right; we did discuss this two days ago. But this is a slightly different perspective. When I raised the issue of peer pressure last time, the Minister responded by saying that the Government do not go into cognitive development and do not wish to, which I accept. But this is a different issue; this is about peer pressure.
Last time, again, the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, challenged me on the scientific evidence I cited, and my noble friend Lady O’Neill gave an answer, which was independently confirmed by my noble friend Lady Meyer. The expert in this field, Professor Laurence Steinberg of Temple University, has written extensively, both on his own and with others, about peer pressure and the inability of children to resist it. It gets better for children as they reach the age of 18 and beyond. That raises important questions. I say this in a co-operative spirit: the Government need to recognise that there is a potential problem of peer pressure for voters aged 16 and take steps to ensure that children are able to make decisions without that peer pressure.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, after he had gone into the internal machinations of the Conservative Party, which is one of his favourite subjects, made the very good point that it is vital that voters make independent decisions based on their own experiences and determination. My fear is that there will be gangs and influencers, and in certain communities extensive family pressure on people to cast their vote a certain way. The earlier response from the Front Bench—that there is always peer pressure—is fair, but we are saying that there is evidence that 16 to 18 year-olds are more susceptible to peer pressure than people over the age of 18. What steps will the Government take to ensure that they are protected?
Lord Fuller (Con)
My noble friend has just mentioned people who are aged 16 to 18 and can vote, but the Bill throughout assumes that people aged 14 or above, as attainers, are going to prepare to vote. I wonder whether my noble friend might think a little bit about not just people who have reached 16 but also those who are under 16 and even more susceptible to peer pressure?
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I could not agree more. I did not want to go down that route, because the counter argument would be, “We are only giving the vote to 16 year-olds”. But who knows? In future, it might be 14 year-olds. My noble friend Lord Fuller is absolutely spot on.
In the absence of my noble friend Lady Berridge, I want to address Amendment 44A. I am very worried about this. I have done a lot of canvassing. I have canvassed in every election since 1979—all for the same party I hasten to add—and not always with much success. Nevertheless, I have been out there regularly in a multitude of constituencies. Regularly, particularly in my own constituency of Queen’s Park and Maida Vale, which was previously Westminster North, I have found myself canvassing people who literally speak no English. When I knock on the door and try to communicate with them, they immediately pick up the phone and speak to their spouse or someone—I do not know who—and ask for instructions on what to say.
That is one issue, but the particular issue in Amendment 44A is about protecting children. Again, as a canvasser—I am sure that all noble Lords have done their share of canvassing—in the past, when the door is answered by a 16 year-old, one has simply said, “Can I speak to your parents?” Now, we will have to engage with 16 year-olds, which presents some challenges.
I am not particularly comfortable with the idea of having to knock on the door and engage in conversation with a 16 year-old to try to persuade them to vote for my party. I just do not want to be in that position. I am comfortable with an 18 year-old; I am not comfortable with doing that with a 16 year-old. Indeed, the Government recognise that 16 year-olds have to be protected. If I want to interact with 16 year-olds at the various schools with which I am involved, I have to be cleared to do that. I cannot just rock up at the classroom without having various checks, but as a canvasser, I can knock on the door and engage with a 16 year-old without any checks. I am not worried about me, but I am worried about other people.
Let us take this to not an absurd but a logical conclusion. What is to stop predators identifying children now on the electoral roll and going to see them, supposedly to canvass them but actually with other purposes in mind? I am very worried about this. They can justify to the authorities that they are entering into a dialogue with a 16 year-old because, they will claim, they are out canvassing, but they have an ulterior motive. I want to know from the Government what protection they plan to give in those circumstances.
It gets a lot worse if we are saying that 14 and 15 year-olds need to be educated. What happens if someone says, perhaps with some credibility, “I want to go and talk to 14 and 15 year-olds because they need to be persuaded to vote for my party”? Heaven knows what is going to happen on the doorstep. When I go canvassing, I am regularly invited in to discuss the subject over a glass of wine, a cup of tea or whatever. I always refuse because that is the guidance, but that does not mean that other people will. We are giving people the opportunity to enter vulnerable people’s homes and, if children are on their own at home, to have a discussion with them, supposedly about political matters—but who knows?
I do not have the answer to this problem, but I can see that it is a real problem, and I would be grateful if the Minister could address it now or later.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, as a young person, I was so susceptible to subversive influences such as BBC television news, Radio 4’s “World at One”, which I listened to every day, and the Guardian, which I bought daily, that by the time I was 14 I was treasurer of my branch of the Liberal Party, and by the time I was 16 I was secretary of the constituency. I do not suggest for a moment that that is normal for a teenager, but my point is that people are very different and should be treated differently.
Turning to these amendments, the most publicised aspect of this Bill is that which we debated on Monday—the principle of extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year -olds—and I do not wish to go over those arguments again. However, I do wish to say that the good intention of seeking to encourage the engagement of young people in political processes will fail unless we do much more about citizenship education. I accept that there are greater risks to our democracy, especially in the internet age, as most young people rely on information obtained online. The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Political and Media Literacy, of which I am an active member, says in its briefing that foundational political and media literacy education is crucial to the health of our democracy. It warns that simply changing the voting age will not in itself encourage more civic responsibility or more sustained participation in democratic processes. I mentioned on Monday how Jersey lowered its voting age to 16 in 2008, but it was not such a successful experience because of the lack of civic education to support it.
The research compiled by the academic advisory group to our APPG reveals both an overwhelming desire among young people to engage and a troubling structural deficit in how our current school system prepares them for it. Young people rely heavily on social media. They are therefore more vulnerable to digital misinformation and less educated and equipped with critical media literacy tools that should be part of citizenship education.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, quoted the excellent research from Dr James Weinberg, who studied information from over 3,000 teachers across over half of all secondary schools. He found that at present, less than a third of secondary schools offer weekly lessons in political or citizenship education and over a quarter provide no democratic education whatsoever. The noble Baroness also drew attention to how state schools serving economically deprived communities provide significantly less political literacy education than private schools or state schools in affluent areas. Democratic confidence must not remain the preserve of the privileged. The danger of ignorance among the most disadvantaged represents a threat to the principles which should underpin a democracy.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, as several noble Lords have illustrated in their speeches and in their amendments in this group, it is important that we get the information and educational framework right. That would be the case even if this Bill did not contain a change in the voting age, but it is all the more so given that it does. I hope we will hear some positive noises from the Government in due course on that important topic.
As we all know, whether we agree with it or not, the decision that this Bill legislates for, to reduce the voting age to 16, was a manifesto commitment from the party that won a clear majority under our voting system—and I know some noble Lords near me are particularly keen on that voting system. The Labour Party won an overwhelming majority with a clear manifesto commitment. I am therefore not sure how good a use of time it is—given the many other important issues we need to get stuck into in Committee—to be continually relitigating that basic point of principle, which was a manifesto commitment that has been debated extensively already. Having said that, I will follow my own advice and bring my remarks to a close.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
I will start where the noble Lord left off. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. The amendments in this group raise many important questions about the responsibilities that accompany the Government’s proposal to lower the voting age to 16. It is a manifesto commitment, we accept that, but there are responsibilities that go alongside that and things the Government need to be aware of and address, because there is no doubt that people out there will be asking about this.
We should all agree that young people ought to understand how our democracy works, how to register to vote and how to exercise their democratic rights, but we must consider whether the Government have put sufficient thought into the education and safeguards necessary if the change to the franchise is to go ahead. My noble friend Lord Fuller’s Amendments 18 and 19 would sensibly require politically neutral and balanced voter registration to be provided to young people. These amendments seek to prevent local authorities run by any particular party from influencing election material one way or the other. We must not forget that councils are fundamentally political organisations.
My noble friend Lord Fuller has accurately identified that looked-after children are socially vulnerable and at risk of being influenced by the authority that looks after them. We should be aware of that fundamental point. Information provided by public authorities must be impartial, especially when it concerns young people who may be engaging with the electoral system for the very first time. Can the Minister explain what safeguards will ensure that registration information provided by local authorities, and the relevant bodies in Northern Ireland, is politically neutral? How will be compliance be assessed and monitored?
I welcome my noble friend Lord Farmer’s Amendments 24, 280 and 287, concerning the decision-making abilities of 16 and 17 year-olds. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Meyer on putting the case for considering the safeguards around that as well. These amendments ask the Government to assess the evidence before implementing a significant constitutional change. They are not saying that that change is not going to happen but that they should consider it beforehand. Can the Minister explain what assessment the Government have undertaken of the decision-making abilities of 16 and 17 year-olds, and will she commit to publishing that evidence before the new voting age comes into effect?
The amendments concerning citizenship education and political literacy are also relevant. Amendment 43, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, proposes a programme of education and citizenship in secondary schools. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, has also raised that the Secretary of State should report on progress in the changes to citizenship education. Thus, there is clearly a shared recognition across your Lordships’ House that extending the franchise cannot be considered in isolation from the education that young people receive—everyone is in agreement on that one.
However, I must respectfully disagree with Amendment 44, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, albeit that it was not spoken to. While I welcome the underlying suggestion that children should be educated about their duty to vote, we should not single out groups of children and educate them based on supposed groupings. Different children must not be educated differently about the vote they share. As we saw in the fruitful debate on ballot secrecy, we must be careful that political education does not become political persuasion. Can the Minister tell us what guidance will be provided to schools and teachers to ensure that such education remains balanced, and what additional resources will be made available to deliver it?
My noble friend Lady Berridge is, unfortunately, unable to be in her place today. My noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley referred to her Amendment 44A, in which she raises a very valid point. I think most of us in this Chamber have canvassed and knocked on doors. When we see a young person, we generally say, “Can we speak to Mum and Dad, or your carer?” We will now have to assess what age that young person is and maybe engage in conversation with them. We really need to consider that as a consequence of this proposal as canvassers will be engaging with younger voters.
My noble friend raises whether there will need to be necessary safeguarding guidance for political campaigners engaging with children. We should be thinking about that particularly important issue. If political parties and campaigners are to engage more directly with younger voters, appropriate safeguards must be in place. Will the Minister explain what guidance will govern contact between political campaigners and those children, and whether the Government intend to consult safeguarding professionals before the relevant provisions commence?
As I have said in earlier debates, electoral reform should strengthen public confidence in our democratic system, not introduce uncertainty about the protections on which it depends. The Government have chosen to lower the voting age as a manifesto commitment. It is therefore incumbent upon them to demonstrate that young people will receive impartial information, sufficient education and appropriate safeguarding. They should be properly prepared and protected when exercising that right. I hope the Minister will address these questions in detail and provide reassurance that the practical consequences of this change have been fully and properly considered.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
Before I respond to the amendments, I must correct a date I gave in the debate on the previous group. I said that the tabling date for amendments for the next set of Committee groups was 9 November, but it is 17 November. My apologies for that. The amendments in those groups will be tabled then.
I want to say at the start that the Government are committed to ensuring that everyone who is entitled to vote is able do so, and that they should supported and encouraged in that. The provisions we are making are designed to ensure that vulnerable people who are eligible to vote are enabled, but it is quite right that all young people must be prepared for this change to the electoral franchise. The Government are already working with the Electoral Commission, devolved Governments, the electoral sector and civil society organisations to raise awareness of the franchise change among young people to help prepare them to exercise their democratic rights. I will go into a bit more detail on schools provision in a moment.
I thought it might be helpful to say to noble Lords that we have carried out extensive research, both quantitative and qualitative, speaking to those aged 14 to 17. A total of 32 focus groups were conducted over two stages, followed by a nationally representative survey of more than 3,500 respondents, utilising online and offline data collection. The key headlines from that research were really interesting: most young people have a form of valid voter ID; most regard voter ID as necessary; the education system is seen by young people as a good way to learn about these topics; and the majority feel that their voice would matter more if they had the vote at 16. Those were the key headlines, but it was a big piece of research.
The other thing that slightly surprises me is that the debates on Monday and today have taken a direction that I was not expecting. It is a shame that significant doubts have been cast on teachers’ impartiality, and we now appear to have doubts being cast on the BBC and on those responsible for looked-after children.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Only two weeks ago, the Government intervened in the problem of the lack of impartiality among teachers on the Israel-Gaza-Palestine conflict. At the time, I congratulated the Government on taking a stance on the difficulties of that issue. The Government were clear that we have to be very careful. I cast no aspersions in general. The Government noted the particular issue of the rise of antisemitism and the politicisation of that war in schools, and they rightly intervened. I congratulated the Government then, and I congratulate them now. I did not think the Government were casting aspersions on all teachers; they were not, and neither were the rest of us.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
These issues have to be tackled when and as they arise. The point I was making is that making general points relating to that is not helpful.
I will now address the amendments. I understand and share the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for young people to receive impartial information, as expressed in Amendments 18 and 19. I assure him that Clauses 15 and 16 are deliberately narrow in scope. They require local authorities in Great Britain, and health and social care trusts in Northern Ireland, where the system is different, to raise awareness of the registration arrangements that apply to relevant young people and to help those young people register. This is about factual and practical electoral registration information and making sure that young people who are or have been in the care system understand how they can register, and, where necessary, helping them to do so. I therefore assure the noble Lord that we fully recognise the importance of political impartiality, but I do not consider that an additional statutory requirement of this kind is needed.
I turn to Amendment 23 from the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Rennard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, on bringing such sartorial elegance to the Chamber this afternoon. It brings some panache to our debate at the end of the week.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I apologise; it is rather eccentric. The Parliament Choir is performing this evening, and the dress rehearsal starts at 4 pm—I have said that I will be late.
I add that there is strong scientific evidence that collective singing in schools improves social cohesion and concentration. I am not sure that the last Government accepted that scientific evidence—they did not act on it. But if we are talking about scientific evidence in schools, singing matters as well.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I wish the noble Lord well for his rehearsal and look forward to coming to one of the concerts in due course.
Noble Lords may recall that a similar amendment to this one was debated in Committee in the other place. Our position remains that a statutory reporting requirement is not the right way to approach this issue. The amendment would require the report to cover three areas: raising awareness, civic education and electoral registration. I will address each in turn.
First, on raising awareness, I agree with noble Lords that young people need to be aware of their new democratic rights. The Government are already working alongside the Electoral Commission, local and devolved government, the electoral sector and civil society organisations to make sure that young people are aware of the changes. Raising awareness will be a collective effort, involving organisations with different roles and responsibilities. A report from the Government would not provide a complete picture of that work. It would also not be right for the Government to report on behalf of other organisations involved in this work, particularly the Electoral Commission, whose independence from government is so vital and which already publishes its own research and analysis on some of the areas covered by this amendment.
Secondly, on civic education, I have no hesitation in agreeing with noble Lords on the vital importance of preparing young people to exercise their democratic rights. This is an area where we will continue to work with the devolved Governments and other partners. The Department for Education leads on education policy in England, while education is devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. All partners will need to work together to support young people’s democratic engagement. I will say more on that when I respond to my noble friend Lady Lister’s amendment. Given these different roles and responsibilities, I do not believe that a statutory report from the UK Government is the right mechanism for assessing progress in this area.
Finally, on electoral registration, substantial information is already publicly available. The register to vote performance dashboard provides aggregate data on applications to register to vote, including breakdowns by age. The Electoral Commission has also conducted studies of electoral registration trends, and the Government are separately planning to monitor and evaluate the implementation and impact of votes-at-16 measures, which will assess evidence related to the awareness, education and registration of young people. We do not believe that a further statutory report is necessary. I hope I have reassured your Lordships that the Government share the underlying objectives behind this amendment and are already taking forward work to support young people as the franchise is extended to 16 and 17 year-olds.
I come to Amendments 24, 280 and 287 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer. I point out to noble Lords that these amendments would prevent voting rights being extended to 16 and 17 year-olds until the assessment has been published. The noble Lord raised similar concerns about the maturity and decision-making capabilities of 16 and 17 year-olds during the Bill’s Second Reading in this House. Indeed, he quoted my response to him at the time, which I still hold to—that we do not give people the vote based on their intellectual or cognitive abilities. That principle applies to 16 and 17 year-olds as it does to all other voters. I am sorry to repeat back to him what he has already quoted, but that is the case.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Can I just finish responding, then I will happily give way? Our focus is on delivering this manifesto commitment—on which this Government were elected—which recognises that 16 and 17 year-olds have views that deserve to be represented and that young people should have a say in decisions that affect them. I simply cannot agree that young people at 16 and 17 do not have the cognitive reasoning to make decisions that impact on their lives. Indeed, as I set out on Monday, we have already asked them to do so. The question is not what else you can or cannot do at 16 but whether 16 is the right age to vote.
The point of this process of engagement is to introduce the concept of critical thinking. Indeed, young people of this age now have grown up having to develop their own ability to filter a whole plethora of social media in a way that my generation certainly did not.
Lord Farmer (Con)
I was not talking about cognitive ability. That was what the Minister mentioned at Second Reading, and I was trying to say that I was not talking about that. I was talking about the maturity of young people to withstand peer pressure and to make a reasoned decision. As we have heard today, electing a Government is a very important and responsible decision. We had the evidence from Professor Laurence Steinberg that it is at 18 that young people are able to make their own judgments, withstand things such as TikTok and peer pressure at school and make a reasoned political judgment independently. It is maturity I am talking about, not cognitive ability.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have heard what the noble Lord has said. In my view, requiring such an assessment before these changes can be implemented would introduce a completely unnecessary additional step and could delay the delivery of a very important manifesto commitment on which, as I have said, we have done a good deal of research with young people.
The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, made some points around safeguarding and political canvassing. We have taken steps within the Bill, as he will know, to say that attainers—14 and 15 year-olds—will not be canvassed by EROs, but I understand that the point he is making is around political canvassing. I am sure that political parties will be developing their own safeguarding response to the provisions in this Bill.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
We are not talking about cognitive development or about taking tests. We are talking about what steps the Government are taking to protect people from peer pressure. So far, the answer is none, which is not very satisfactory.
Secondly, in respect of what happens on the doorstep, the Government cannot rely on political parties. My whole point is that there will be individuals who claim to be canvassers and will knock on doors and get entry into doors and into conversation with 16 year-olds under the pretext of being political campaigners. They will identify such people from the electoral roll. One cannot expect political parties to vet every single canvasser. It is up to the Government, if they are going to introduce eligibility for 16 year-olds to vote and to receive canvassers, to take steps to protect them.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
There are all sorts of people who knock on our doors. I understand what the noble Lord is saying and I will take those points away, but I seriously think that the point of the education process is to teach young people to have that critical thinking capacity to make their own decisions about things. I am more than confident that our young people at 16 and 17 have the faculties to do that.
I will now talk a little more about the education process, which is important in this.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
When the Minister says that she is more than confident, is she refuting the evidence of Professor Steinberg?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I hope I will have an opportunity to speak to Professor Steinberg at some point, but I think we need to move on and talk about what we are going to do in terms of education.
I thank my noble friend Lady Lister for tabling Amendment 43 and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who is not in her place today, for Amendment 44. I recognise the motivations of these amendments and I share the ambition to ensure that young people are supported to exercise their democratic rights and build lifelong engagement with our democracy. A fundamental point in all this is that we know that engaging young people at a much earlier age encourages that lifelong engagement with the democratic process.
This is a priority for the Government. We are already working to strengthen democratic education and engagement, including in response to the independent Curriculum and Assessment Review. Citizenship is already a statutory national curriculum subject at key stages 3 and 4 in maintained schools, covering parliamentary democracy, electoral systems and how citizens can influence decisions. The Government’s wider curriculum reforms will strengthen this further, including through clearer teaching of democracy, media literacy and active citizenship. We are considering what transitional support may be needed before those reforms take effect, including practical, non-partisan voter information, adaptable teaching materials and support for teachers on issues such as political impartiality and misinformation.
Alongside this, the Electoral Commission is undertaking important work to support young people’s democratic education. It is developing a democratic education framework in partnership with organisations across the education and youth sectors, providing practical resources to help educators and young people understand and participate in democracy. This is currently being piloted, and a formal launch is planned for March 2027, which I hope answers my noble friend Lady Royall’s question. The commission also runs Welcome to Your Vote Week, an annual campaign which provides schools, colleges and youth organisations with opportunities to help people understand elections and build confidence in participating.
Further, my department has established the democratic engagement fund to support politically neutral projects that help people understand, engage with and participate in democracy. I recognise my noble friend’s concern about young people from disadvantaged backgrounds and politically underrepresented groups, including girls and young women. The fund provides an opportunity to support projects that help break down barriers to democratic participation and ensure that more young people have the opportunity to make their voices heard.
I will comment on some of the points made about political impartiality in schools. Schools are already subject to clear legal duties on political impartiality. They must prohibit the promotion of partisan political views and take reasonably practical steps to ensure that, where political issues are brought to pupils’ attention, opposing views are presented in a balanced way. The existing Political Impartiality in Schools guidance makes it clear that these duties apply to public displays, including banners and posters, as well as school communications.
We will continue to work with the Electoral Commission, devolved Governments and civil society organisations to consider what additional measures can support schools, colleges and youth groups to deliver practical voter and civic education. I hope I have given my noble friend reassurance on these points, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on the role of the Electoral Commission. I entirely recognise the importance of education and engagement in making votes at 16 a success, but I do not believe that further legislation is needed.
Finally, on Amendment 44, the Government recognise the importance of safeguarding young people, and the Bill provides strong protections where those are needed—for example, on data protection. In addition, 16 and 17-year-olds, and those who will turn 16 before polling day, should have the same opportunity as any other voter to hear from candidates and political parties to form an opinion before casting their vote.
We completely agree with the importance of appropriate conduct during campaigning. We welcome the Speaker’s Conference recommendation to establish a code of conduct for campaigning and have committed to work with the Speaker, the Electoral Commission and political parties to support the development of a code which is fit for purpose. I hope this responds further to the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Leigh. As part of this work, we have the opportunity to consider the specific issue raised in this amendment, regarding the safeguarding of young people in campaigning. We therefore do not consider this amendment is likely to be necessary.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
I am grateful for that last point. I must admit that, as a council leader previously, when the point about campaigning was raised with me, it sent shivers down my spine because we know how important safeguarding is. It might be worth a conversation at the all-party group, so it is put out through all the different parties and they are aware of it. I am sure many of them may not have considered it, and it is worth sharing that information.
I have another point I would like to put across the Minister’s desk. The Minister says they have had a lot of research done. Is it possible to share it with the Committee?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
To save my noble friend the Minister having to bob up and down, I have a couple of questions, which she could perhaps write to me about afterwards. One is about the teacher training and resources that will support the kind of citizenship education we have been talking about. The other is about evaluation, particularly from the perspective of disadvantaged groups and those who lack political confidence and face the greatest barriers to political participation, such as girls and young women.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, makes a good point about the political parties panel, and I will take that back. I have some brief information about research, but I will write to her on that, if that is okay.
On the comments made by my noble friend Lady Lister, we are looking at this transitional support on how we make sure we have adaptable teaching materials and support for teachers on issues such as political impartiality and misinformation, and I am happy to update her once that work has gone a bit further.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, it has been an interesting debate, and I of course entirely support the comments from the Front Bench, that we understand that votes at 16 is a manifesto commitment. But what this last hour and 20 minutes has shown is how much the consequences of that manifesto commitment are going to mean for the safeguarding of children, the impacts on education and for people who have not really had to participate in economic society before. These are unintended consequences and we are going to have to iron them out, not just for the 16 year-olds but for those attainers from 14.
For all the warm words about strengthening democracy and improving transparency, which are littered throughout the impact statement, when it comes to amendments that would give effect to those noble causes, what I think I heard the Minister say was that they are prepared to leave it to chance: we are not going to cast aspersions, but we are going to address these issues—
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
If the noble Lord would kindly give way for a moment, I did not say we are leaving it to chance. I said that we welcome the Speaker’s Conference recommendation to establish codes of conduct on this subject, and we have committed to work with the Speaker, the Electoral Commission and political parties to support the development of a code which is fit for purpose.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I thank the Minister, and I accept those words entirely, but earlier on in the wind-up, when referring to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, the suggestion was made that we were casting aspersions on teachers and social workers, and that the Government would address those as they came along. I just do not think that is right. The Bill should be explicit about neutrality, particularly for schools and for looked-after children’s environments, so there is no risk. We must remove the temptation for those in positions of authority over some of the most vulnerable people without supportive natural parents to do it. If it is not a problem because there is no prejudice, then there is no problem in introducing it into the Bill.
I was very taken with the other comments about—
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sorry to intervene on the noble Lord again—I do not like to do this—but I made it clear that schools are already subject to clear legal duties on political impartiality, and I gave the details of that.
Lord Fuller (Con)
That is covered in group 6, which we will return to later.
I was taken with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about schools. This has really been a debate not so much about schools but about young people more generally. I associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, about the practical preparation, and the watchword of this part of the Bill, the protection of minors.
This may be something we return to on Report, and we need to catch up time, so I will beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 18. But we really need to think about some of these practical consequences before we get to Report, and I hope the Minister will meet with me and others in furtherance of that objective.
Lord Frost
“Part 1ANationality qualification for votingNationality qualification for voting and registration(1) A person is not entitled to vote as an elector at a relevant poll unless the person is—(a) a British citizen,(b) a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, or(c) a protected EU elector in relation to that poll.(2) Subsection (1) applies also to entitlement to be registered, or to remain registered, for the purposes of a relevant poll.(3) A person is a protected EU elector in relation to a relevant poll if—(a) the person meets the requirements in subsections (1)(a) to (d) of section 203B of RPA 1983 (meaning of “EU citizen with retained rights”) , disregarding paragraph (e) of that subsection, and(b) under the law governing the poll, apart from this Part, the person would satisfy the nationality qualification otherwise than by virtue of being a Commonwealth citizen.(4) For the purposes of subsection (3)(a), section 203B of RPA 1983 (meaning of “EU citizen with retained rights”) is to be read as if it extended to the whole of the United Kingdom.(5) In this Part “relevant poll” means—(a) an election for membership of the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru or the Northern Ireland Assembly,(b) a local government election anywhere in the United Kingdom,(c) a City of London ward election, and(d) any other election, referendum or poll held under an enactment at which entitlement to vote is determined by reference to a register of parliamentary or local government electors.(6) This section applies to entitlement to sign a recall petition under the Recall of MPs Act 2015 as it applies to entitlement to vote at an election for membership of the House of Commons.(7) In this Part—(a) references to registration include inclusion in a City of London ward list, and(b) “enactment” includes an Act of the Scottish Parliament, an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru, Northern Ireland legislation and subordinate legislation. (8) Other voting rights provisions are to be interpreted consistently with this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Part and its consequential changes would remove voting and registration rights based solely on Commonwealth citizenship throughout the United Kingdom, while preserving those of British and Irish citizens and the existing non-parliamentary rights of the pre-2021 EU retained-rights cohort. It provides for registration review and appeals, and protects the new provisions from modification by the devolved legislatures.
Lord Frost (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 25 to 29, 288 and 289, and 299 and 300 on the Marshalled List. Before I explain the thinking behind these amendments, I will give a brief explanation of how they work from a technical point of view.
These amendments form two alternative packages rather than a single scheme. I will explain why. Amendments 25 and 26 would end voting and registration rights based solely on Commonwealth citizenship across the UK, while preserving British, Irish and retained EU citizens’ rights. Amendments 27 to 29 offer a reciprocal alternative: one where Commonwealth citizens retained eligibility, but only where their country gave British citizens similar, exercisable rights at corresponding elections. Obviously, Ministers would have to designate those countries through regulations approved by both Houses, publish the assessment and review periodically.
The amendments are designed to focus on the Commonwealth issue, which is why they keep the existing non-national elections rights for the EU cohort and for Ireland. I will come to those points, although they merit debate at some point. Both packages also cover parliamentary devolved and local elections. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who is not in her place, would be pleased to hear that they cover City of London ward elections, relevant referendums and other acts of democracy. They are drafted to be consistent with the amendments I put forward earlier in our discussions on devolution, although there is much room for debate about how far down the hierarchy of elections these provisions need to extend.
To complete the technical introduction, Amendments 288 and 289 would bring the relevant administrative and designation machinery into operation, with the first draft regulations required within 12 months. Finally, Amendments 299 and 300 would require the substantive nationality rules to start on the same day throughout the UK, at least six months after the regulations, unless polls and petitions were already under way.
I put forward these two alternative routes because they are probing amendments designed to provoke discussion about the nature of the franchise in this country. That is very much worth discussing. The only point I will make at this stage on the distinction between them is that the reciprocal arrangements require much more process. There is much more complexity. They require a system under which the Government have to review whether reciprocal arrangements exist and whether they have changed, report on them, and then, of course, feed that through to the electoral register. Such a system has to exist if a reciprocal arrangement is to work. It is more complicated and more likely, I guess, to be got wrong, but it is a possibility.
I will move on to the thinking behind the amendments. Once again, we come back to a “who” question: who gets to vote in the arrangements that we are describing? I find, when I discuss this issue, that most people assume that the franchise in a country is limited to citizens of that country. People are often extremely surprised when you tell them that is not the case in the United Kingdom—that we extend the franchise quite considerably. They often literally cannot believe it when they are told about the arrangements for Commonwealth voting, which illustrates to me that this is an issue that needs addressing.
The technical provision is that “qualifying” Commonwealth citizens are allowed to be on the electoral register. The word “qualifying” is really not very qualifying at all. Such qualifying Commonwealth citizens do not need to be permanent residents. Any permission to enter or stay in the UK would do, whether it is time-limited, conditional, student, worker, family member or whatever. The Electoral Commission spells it out:
“Any type of permission to enter or stay is acceptable, whether indefinite, time limited or conditional”.
So you can have a situation where a student here on a short visa could help elect a Government who could have a life long beyond the individual’s time in the country. Indeed, the Electoral Commission’s definition of “qualifying” is so wide that it is not obvious to me that it would not capture tourists or casual visitors—after all, we issue six-month visas and it is quite possible to register and vote over that period. It is not entirely obvious whether it would be possible, under the arrangements, to pick up and distinguish permanent residents from people who are here for a short period.
This means that our franchise is, in principle, open to 2.7 billion people around the world: the entire population of the Commonwealth. Any Commonwealth citizen who reaches Britain on any of the bases I have just described is able to vote here. That is the extraordinary breadth of the entitlement that exists in our law and deserves to be discussed.
My amendments are designed to provide for exactly that discussion. They maintain the provision under which Irish citizens will be able to continue to vote. It is a logical consequence of the Northern Ireland settlement, which recognises the right of its people to identify as British, Irish or both, and I suspect this is not the moment to open that question. Moreover, it is reciprocal: British citizens can register and vote in elections in Ireland. My amendments also retain the existing rights of EU citizens with settled status to vote in local and some other elections. In some ways, that is questionable and will probably need to be debated and dealt with at some point—but not now.
Commonwealth entitlement is quite different, and very hard to defend in its current form. For one thing, it is a complete anomaly internationally. No EU country allows non-citizens to vote in its national elections, with the exception of Ireland, through the reciprocal arrangement with us, and Portugal, in the arguably somewhat similar case of Brazilians. You cannot vote unless you are a citizen in national elections in Norway, Switzerland, Canada, Australia—with a small, technical exception—and the United States. What we do is very unusual. The only real exception is New Zealand, which allows all permanent residents to vote—all, not just a subset. That at least is logical. What we do in our franchise is extend the right to vote to a group of countries and their citizens, mostly but not entirely on the basis that Britain governed them half a century ago. This does not make logical sense in the world as we now have it.
These arrangements would be easier to defend if they were reciprocal. The problem is that they are not at the moment. Only a small number of Caribbean countries and a couple of relatively small African countries allow British citizens to vote. Even then, they generally have to be pretty permanent residents.
Indians can vote in Britain, but no British citizen can vote in India. It is the same in Pakistan, Canada, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nigeria—I could go on with an extensive list of important countries with large populations. I do not blame them, though. Those countries rightly regard choosing their Government as the business of their citizens, and I think they are right in that. The argument is around why we do not do the same.
This is a bit of a hangover from the empire. The voting rates reflect the relationship that existed 50, 60 or 70 years ago; they are in law a legacy of the original expansive discussion of who could claim to be a British subject. The Representation of the People Act 1948 originally provided that citizens of newly independent Commonwealth countries were still to be regarded as British subjects for the purposes of nationality and voting. That provision has been tightened up a lot since then, and so has the definition of citizenship, but the legacy voting rights remain. They have nothing to do with citizenship of modern nation states as we now understand them. Of course, we all value the Commonwealth and our friendships with its members, but they are different countries, and that has to mean something.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, I have followed this debate over the last couple of days. I give huge congratulations to my noble friend Lord Frost on bringing this forward; this is an area that has exercised me for some years. I pay tribute to the House of Lords Library for extracting a lot of information on this to try to bring out where reciprocation exists—and I have to say that the reciprocation arrangements within the Commonwealth are very skinny indeed.
The Government have opened up Pandora’s box with this Bill, because at its heart is the franchise, which the Government are attempting to expand to 16 and 17 year-olds. If the Bill before us is trying to change and tidy up things, and widen the franchise, then surely it is the right Bill to consider a wider franchise, which has not been considered since the Act in 1969.
We have to consider this against the backdrop of CHOGM, which is in progress at the moment in Antigua. As a huge supporter of the Commonwealth, I am somewhat saddened that, in the post-Brexit world, we have not made a better arrangement with our friends around the Commonwealth to create a new friendship and trading arrangement on preferential terms. I hope those sorts of issues are being discussed at CHOGM as I speak. But the electoral franchise is surely very odd. We have vast countries, with huge populations—India, Pakistan, Nigeria and Bangladesh, to pick out a few—of probably 1.5 to 1.8 billion people between them. A transfer of such people to this country, as temporary workers, students and all those good areas, is to be welcomed, but surely to come on a student visa for a short time and then be allowed to vote is a very strange situation.
I might consider that to be fair and reasonable if there was a reciprocal arrangement with those countries. As my noble friend Lord Frost has said, perhaps that is quite complicated to achieve. It would require a department of the Home Office to keep an eye on electoral franchises in those countries of the Commonwealth. Perhaps Amendments 25 and 26, proposed by my noble friend, are cleaner. Perhaps this is the time to make that breakaway, which most other countries have considered to be proper and correct, and say one has to be a British citizen.
As we know, British citizenship can be obtained. One of the reasons some people never bother obtaining it, even though they have lived here for a very long time, is the cost and aggravation, but it is achievable and doable. One has to pay the fee and do the Life in the UK Test, and then, lo and behold, one can become a British citizen, with all the rights and duties that come with citizenship. The powerful point behind my noble friend’s suggestions is that feeling of being part of this nation—one cannot just up sticks and return back to the country where one holds citizenship.
The Australian situation is rather odd. I believe it was Australia’s 1984 Act that made quite a separation between the new country and what might be called the old country. At that date, Australia decided that one could vote in Australia only if one was an Australian citizen. As my noble friend alluded to, a British citizen who had lived in Australia prior to 1956 but had never taken citizenship could still vote there.
The anomalies around the world are few and far between. As the Government have opened up the franchise for discussion, it is time that we use this Bill appropriately to consider the franchise of Commonwealth citizens. It is a throwback of yesteryear and, much as I like yesteryear, we are not there any more. We are in the modern world of 2026, and the day is done for the old colonial arrangements that those on the Benches opposite would like to throw off as rapidly as they can. We cannot have this subsisting into the future. I hope we can have cross-party support for this measure, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments as to why it is unacceptable. I would have thought such a provision would more likely come from that side of the Committee than from this, strangely.
I hope that the Government will listen to this. I know my noble friend said that this was merely a probing amendment, but I think it deserves to be more than that. I would like to see this beefed up for Report, when we can perhaps vote on such measures.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to support my noble friend Lord Frost’s amendments, particularly Amendments 28 and 29.
As we meet this afternoon and consider the American elections that took place yesterday, we can look back and think about the sanctity of the franchise and how important that is. We are very fortunate in this country that we do not, for instance, have gerrymandered electoral districts; we have independent Boundary Commissions. We are also fortunate in this country that most people believe that the franchise is clean and safeguarded and that the electoral process is one of integrity, honesty and transparency—and that is because, broadly speaking, it is.
Your Lordships will know that, in the United States, the Jim Crow laws and the residency, literacy and numeracy laws were used to ostracise and discriminate against African Americans and others. Thankfully, they are a thing of the past, but that goes to show how important it is that we protect the sanctity of our electoral process, which my noble friend Lord Hayward rightly mentioned.
The current Commonwealth voting right is outdated, as my noble friend said. It is anomalous and indefensible, and it is time to bring our legislation up to date. As has been said, the vast majority of Commonwealth nations do not have reciprocal voting arrangements with British citizens. There are around 1 million Commonwealth citizens living in the UK, 66% of whom are qualified and registered to vote, as at March this year.
The beauty of these amendments is that they are not harsh and draconian. They do not remove, with ministerial or statutory fiat, the right for Commonwealth citizens to vote. They are incremental, permissive, probing amendments that invite the Government to think about the reciprocity between countries. In so doing, they recognise how important the familial and friendship relationships we have with countries are, as my noble friend alluded to. The other thing is that they are colour-blind. They do not make reference to ethnicity, religion, background or gender. They talk about nations such as New Zealand, Nigeria, Ghana, Australia, Canada, Suriname—I think—Guyana and others that are members of our Commonwealth family.
Although the number of Commonwealth nationals residing in the UK and the percentage of Commonwealth citizens registered to vote in the UK have been estimated, the Government have been unable to produce accurate figures concerning the number of qualifying Commonwealth nationals in the UK. That is a very significant knowledge gap. If you are fighting a general election in good faith, you really need to know who the people are who are going to be able to vote for you. If you do not have a cumulative estimate nationally of how many of those Commonwealth citizens are able to vote, you may very well rather cynically feel that you are appealing to a nobbled jury. You have to be sure of who the electorate are.
Voting tied to citizenship is the global norm for a good reason. Elected representatives adopt significant responsibility to act in their electors’ best interests. If electoral accountability is to function properly, the electorate must be stakeholders in Britain’s long-term future. Unless this is robustly the case, representatives, be they mayors, MPs or councillors, will not be bound to deliver genuinely prudent decision-making. Allowing those who are not British citizens to contribute to electoral outcomes risks undermining the quality of that representation by detracting from candidates’ requirement to appeal to people who fundamentally care about their nation’s future.
This is the thin end of the wedge. If we do not get a handle and focus on that philosophical issue, we could quickly slip into the realms of divisive identity politics. We have already seen the beginning of that in our country, as we have in many parts of the world, and we wish to avoid that happening. At its worst, it may encourage political short-termism or the dilution of the representatives’ accountability away from the interests of British citizens and towards the interests of merely current residents. This is a nuanced yet important distinction. It is a fact that Britain is and has been for some time experiencing a sizeable growth in immigration, including from Commonwealth nations.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I too support these amendments, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Frost for making sure that people of Irish citizenship can definitely continue to register. I have heard other people ask: why displace the Commonwealth and not the Irish? We have a very different relationship with Ireland and the people of Ireland, and that is why I hope we see these amendments come back on Report.
Lord Pack (LD)
It is worth starting by paying tribute to the many Commonwealth citizens who, in both peace and wartime, have made very many significant contributions to our country. But it is also right, as several noble Peers have mentioned, that the Commonwealth is the creation of an unusual set of historical circumstances. If we were starting completely from scratch, maybe with a new written constitution for the country, we might take a slightly different approach to some aspects of it.
In the spirit of the noble Lord, Lord Frost, saying that these are probing amendments, there are two points worth highlighting. One is that some restrictions exist on which Commonwealth citizens are able to register to vote. The combination of the requirements under the RPA 1983 and the linked requirements under the Immigration Act 1971 does not provide the fully open door that was perhaps touched on in some of the speeches earlier. Also, this is only one part of a wider question, because one could similarly reasonably ask why, when it comes to the local government franchise, somebody who is living in this country for decades, legally here and diligently paying their taxes every year, and who has no criminal record, is not allowed to vote for their local council.
I use that as an example of how there are many related issues. It would be wrong to single out Commonwealth citizens as the only part of that complex picture, as if they are the only group about whose right to vote we should in some way feel concerned. If the Government decide to look further at this issue, I hope it will be in the spirit of seeing it as part of a wider, more complex issue, rather than there being a specific problem that means we should single out Commonwealth citizens above and beyond all those other aspects of the issue for consideration.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Frost, for tabling these amendments and giving us the opportunity to have this important discussion on the voting rights of Commonwealth citizens. I also thank my noble friends Lord Mackinlay of Richborough, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lady Coffey for their thoughtful contributions.
It is right that the right to vote in our parliamentary elections and choose our Government is restricted to British citizens, although there are some exceptions for those with close historical links to our country. I have already spoken about our concerns in relation to the consequences of devolved arrangements in Scotland and Wales. The exceptions that I mentioned and that noble Lords have discussed during the debate are long-standing provisions that were implemented to reflect the special status of Irish and Commonwealth citizens in particular. I suppose I should declare an interest here, as both my parents were Irish. I do not remember them ever voting in Irish elections, but they always voted with pride here.
The arrangement we have with the Republic of Ireland precedes the EEC and the EU. It stems from the establishment of the Irish Free State in the 1920s and the administrative agreement on the common travel area. The two countries have broad, reciprocal voting rights. I appreciate the concerns that have been raised today about Commonwealth citizens’ eligibility to vote—especially what was said earlier, which is difficult for anyone to justify. However, these matters are complex, and we should be careful about rushing into changes without wider consideration of broader government policy on citizenship and integration.
No changes to election laws should be rushed, and we will be discussing the consequences of doing so throughout this Bill. I thank noble Lords for raising this issue and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, we always welcome probing amendments; they generate interesting discussions in this House. However, it may not surprise the noble Lord, Lord Frost, that the Government will not support these amendments.
Amendments similar to these were tabled in the other place during earlier Bill stages, and the Government’s views on the topic have been made very clear. The entitlement of resident Commonwealth citizens to vote reflects our very close historical ties with Commonwealth countries. The noble Lord, Lord Pack, referred to recognising the contribution from those countries. From the selfless sacrifice of Commonwealth forces who fought side by side with British troops in the two world wars, to the Windrush generation who made Britain their home and contributed to our society, community, culture and public services, the ties which bind Commonwealth citizens to the UK are inextricable. Those rights must be respected. Commonwealth citizens’ voting rights are not and have never been based on a quid pro quo. To be clear, a qualifying Commonwealth citizen who is only visiting the country and has no home here would not be eligible to vote. The Government will not be removing Commonwealth citizens’ voting rights.
On reciprocity, each Commonwealth country determines its own electoral franchise. Reciprocity is not a condition of the UK’s long-standing arrangements. As I have already set out in relation to the noble Lord’s Amendments 5, 7 and 31, the Government are also committed to maintaining and defending the devolution settlements.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
Does the Minister think that Commonwealth voters aged 16 should also be voting in the elections?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The same voting rights will apply across the franchise.
Lord Frost (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response; as she said, I am not entirely surprised by it. I thank those who have spoken in this short debate. It has been worth having, and I do not think that the issue will go away.
I apologise to my noble friend Lord Mackinlay for not mentioning that he was the only noble Lord to raise this issue on Second Reading. He has followed it for some time and, as his intervention showed, he knows a lot about it. He mentioned Australia, which has an extremely restrictive policy generally. It restricts voting and candidacy to citizens, and it prevents dual nationality entirely as a condition for being a member of the legislature. Australia may be at one end of the spectrum; we are definitely at the other. The international norm is that only citizens vote and only citizens are candidates: I find it hard to see how one can defend any other position. Of course, citizens of many other countries in the Commonwealth and outside the Commonwealth have made huge contributions to this country, but that is not how we determine voting rights.
I have one last comment, for the noble Lord, Lord Pack. I entirely understand, and in some ways sympathise with, his asking, “Why should somebody who has lived here for a long time not get to vote in local elections?” That point is worth discussing, but national elections, referenda and questions are not the same as local questions and issues. It is something worth thinking about, but if one went down that road it should be for everyone, or at least for logically defined categories, not a hangover from the Commonwealth.
I will stop there. I thank noble Lords for a good discussion. We will reflect on what we will do on Report. It will probably be worth having further discussion and reflection on this. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Members of the House of Lords: entitlement to voteA person aged 16 or over who is registered as a parliamentary elector is entitled to vote at a UK parliamentary election, unless disqualified from voting by virtue of sections 3 or 3A of the Representation of the People Act 1983.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow sitting members of the House of Lords to vote in general elections.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 32 on behalf of my noble friend Lord Blunkett, who regrets that he cannot be in this place. I have never really understood why noble Lords are disfranchised when it comes to general elections, so I look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s explanation.
I will focus my remarks on Amendment 41 in my name, the purpose of which is to extend the right to vote in general elections to UK residents who have settled status or indefinite leave to remain, and on Amendment 42, which would extend the right to vote in local elections to all residents with a form of legal immigration status. The amendments would do no more than bring UK elections into line with those in Wales and Scotland, both of which use the legislation that enfranchised 16 and 17 year-olds to extend the vote to foreign residents. I understand the extension is working well in those countries and administrators have not reported problems with implementation.
At present, there are 4.4 million foreign residents who cannot vote in UK general elections and 1.2 million who cannot vote at all in England and Northern Ireland. The case for my amendment is simple. It is undemocratic and unfair that so many residents contribute to this country in various ways, including but not limited to taxation, yet have no say in how it is governed and on decisions that affect them.
This would simplify the voting system considerably. The current voter eligibility rules are very complex, depending on nationality, date of arrival in the UK, whether the country of origin has a bilateral voting rights agreement with the UK, and which nation of the UK the person lives in. Only 66% of eligible EU and Commonwealth citizens are registered to vote. The complexity involved in understanding who can vote means that many who are eligible do not register. Extending the right to vote would improve turnout among those migrant residents who currently have the right to vote.
There is also a case on grounds of social cohesion. Democratic participation gives residents a stake in the future of their society and allows them to feel they are equal contributors. This could be particularly important when the franchise is extended to 16 and 17 year-olds, as I am told that some teachers are expressing concern about how they will discuss in school the fact that some pupils will get the vote while others will not. The Migrant Democracy Project, which brought this issue to my attention, has rightly said 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 interests in how their communities and country are governed”.
As I noted at Second Reading, the Lord Chancellor, the right honourable Alex Norris MP, tabled an amendment to legislation on similar lines in 2022. We now finally have an opportunity to achieve what he aimed for and catch up with Wales and Scotland. It is surely in line with the principles underlying the Representation of the People Bill. I hope therefore that my noble friend will accept the case, which I believe to be strong. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 37 in my name seeks to consider the consequences of the two major changes proposed in the Bill on the size of constituency and council ward electorates, which could be significant. Improvements to voter registration are designed to make the electoral roll more complete. In some areas of the country, the difference between the number of people registered for health services and the number on the electoral register is stark. For instance, the Electoral Commission estimates that only 70% of 18 to 34 year-olds are registered. For those in private rented accommodation, the figure is as low as 66%, and for those who are in homes at social rent, it is 80%—so the electoral register is skewed against the young and those in rented accommodation. That discrimination obviously has an impact on election results, but also on the size of constituencies and then constituent council wards.
The other major change proposed in the Bill is the addition of 16 and 17 year-olds to the register. The House of Commons Library has a very helpful breakdown of people in each age group in every constituency. Adding 16 and 17 year-olds to the register has a disproportionate effect on constituency electorates and hence ward electorates. For example, Birmingham Ladywood has 5,070 16 and 17 year-olds, while Bradford West has 4,236. Both constituencies will then have more than 81,000 electors. The upper limit at the last boundary review was 77,000, so they will easily break the 5% tolerance criterion that was applied at that stage.
The additions then impact on ward electorates. In my council of Kirklees in west Yorkshire, based on the data, there will instantly be an additional 10,000 electors in the 16 to 17 year-old age group. On average, this will add 450 voters to each ward. However, in the Dewsbury part of the borough, there will be 600 additional electors per ward. Kirklees wards are already expected to have 15,000 electors. Some wards will then have nearly 16,000—and this is before attempts to improve registration have been included.
Unlike parliamentary constituencies, wards across the country are not required to have a roughly equal electorate. In many unitary authorities, there are fewer than 3,000 electors per councillor, whereas in others, such as my own, there are more than 5,000. This inequality of representation needs to be discussed. Is it fair on citizens that some are more equal than others?
Hence my Amendment 37, which requires the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament within six months to review what effect extending the franchise will have on the size of constituency and ward electorates. Will the Minister, who is not in her place, provide the estimated increase in electors for each constituency—it is possible to do it, given the figures in the House of Commons Library, certainly for 16 and 17-year-olds—and say whether that inequality is acceptable in a democracy? Will she also consider whether the wide disparity between ward electorates contributes to the equal access to democracy which this country is pledged to provide?
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I am very taken with the points just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, about the distorting effects on existing boundaries from extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds, but I think she could have gone further. The way in which automatic registration, which is also part of this group, takes into account the universities will have a further distorting effect, particularly on urban constituencies, in another insult to the country mass. This Government are always focused on the imbalance in the cities, but this particular case puts the rural areas at a disadvantage because, if a student from out of town is registered at home but is automatically registered at university, that person has two votes, which will disproportionately affect the concentrated urban situations.
I am sure the Minister, when she returns to her place, will dismiss the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, as wholly unnecessary and say this is nothing to be worried about, but I would like to give a lesson from history. The noble Baroness, who is returning to the Chamber, and I participated on some of those Covid calls during the pandemic in 2020, and there was a rush from the city to the countryside. People who lived in London, for example—but other cities are available—chased to north Norfolk in particular.
I see my noble friend Lord Prior on the Bench in front of me; he was a Member of Parliament for North Norfolk in a previous life. These people were not registered with the NHS and were not registered to vote, yet they consumed all the services in North Norfolk. My concern is that automatic registration will not reflect the reality. It is not just distorting the boundaries, important though that is, and the electoral numbers. The degree of automatic registration could distort the access to services that just do not keep up with these registers. So, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. She has identified more unintended consequences from the double whammy of extending the franchise and automatic registration.
That leads me on to my Amendment 45 in this group, which is a probing amendment that asks how, with automatic registration, the electoral registration officer will know when a person is eligible to be registered, or just passing through, or has indefinite leave to remain, or is just a tourist. It seeks to say that, if you are not a British or Commonwealth citizen, you have to apply under individual electoral registration and demonstrate your eligibility, as you do at the moment. The duty is on these overseas electors to provide absolute proof of entitlement to vote, rather than pressurise the electoral registration officer to make guesses. The chances are that these people will not have national insurance numbers and will not be present on many UK databases.
How on earth is the ERO to know? How will he know to prevent a duplicate when a wife keeps her maiden name for professional purposes but has already registered for a married name? Just because there is a Mr Smith who pays the council tax, it does not mean that Mrs Smith is eligible if she happens to be a foreign-born spouse. I think the Committee can start to see quite a lot of different practical complications here.
I mentioned Mr and Mrs Smith, but there are some cultures where the husband and the wife have different surnames. I am thinking particularly of President Zelensky in Ukraine, whose wife is Mrs Zelenska. Neither of them is eligible to vote in our elections, but that is an example of the way in which foreign cultures have different mores to ours. Each ERO, if there is to be automatic registration, potentially of foreign subjects, will have to understand all these peculiarities. That is an unreasonable burden on the ERO.
My amendment is a small one, but it seeks to probe the burdens we place on the electoral registration officer to register people who have no legal or digital footprint in this country and who cannot be validated or authenticated. It would make it clear that if you are not a British, an EU or a Commonwealth citizen, and you are entitled to participate in our democracy, you must apply just as you do today. Let these people make their case with the appropriate documentation, so that the registration officer can scrutinise rather than make guesses. If the register is based on guesswork, it undermines the integrity of our democracy and, with it, trust in the democratic process and the institutions that flow from it.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I do not really understand the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, because she will know that local government boundaries are essentially informed as a result of physical or natural features and community links. Her amendment would have been more coherent if it had linked the delivery of key public services within an expanded ward which was the result of a greater registration of 16 and 17 year-olds, but I fail to see the point of producing a report saying, “There are going to be more people in this ward vis-à-vis other wards”.
If one is talking about the delivery of public services, that is a fair point to make. But equally, in places such as Christchurch, Worthing and Hove, you would also therefore talk about the delivery of services for older people, where there is a greater preponderance of them. Unless I am being particularly obtuse, I cannot see the point of the obligation she is seeking that the Government produce a report on the number of 16 and 17 year-olds, which numerically we will already know.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
The whole purpose is so that we have a democracy that is based, first, on one person, one vote, but then on having boundaries for our electors that are more or less equal in size. Whenever there is a constituency boundary review, there are always parts of the country—in areas such as the highlands or the Isle of Wight—where reflecting the geography of the place means that it is better to have something outside the tolerance of the criteria that have been set to try to make constituencies of a similar size. That is because each is going to elect one person to Parliament to make decisions on behalf of their citizens. To have some representing 82,000 or 83,000 and some at the other end of the scale currently representing fewer than 70,000 leads to inequalities, which is why we have regular boundary reviews.
Within a local authority area, the number of wards is determined, which leads to the number of electors in each ward. In Kirklees, each ward has 5,000 electors per councillor, whereas 3,000 electors or fewer is the norm in London boroughs. If local authorities were required to have wards of a similar size, there could be more equal representation in those areas. That is my argument. We can do it for constituency boundaries, so why are we not doing it for local authority council wards?
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, I support the principle behind Amendment 32 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, just as I previously supported the principle when the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, introduced a Private Member’s Bill in 2020 and when the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, introduced an amendment to what became the Elections Act 2022. The ban on Peers voting in general elections belongs to bygone times when the House was entirely hereditary and had an absolute veto over legislation, and when Members of this House were often Prime Minister. We no longer have an absolute veto on legislation; we have no say at all over financial measures, including the Budget; and we have no say on who is the Prime Minister, because that is determined solely by MPs.
The amendment is far from being our priority, however, when elsewhere in the Bill we are addressing issues of considerable importance, such as the many millions of ordinary people missing from the electoral registers who are therefore unable to vote. I also consider it ironic for Members of this House to claim the right to elect Members of the House of Commons without equally supporting the right of the people to have a say in who sits in this Chamber.
Lord Frost (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will briefly speak to Amendments 41 and 42 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. These amendments arguably ought to have been in the previous group, because they raise very similar questions. For reasons of time, I will not run equal and opposite arguments to the ones I just ran in the other group, but I want to make two points.
First, the effect of Amendments 41 and 42 would be once again to extend the franchise beyond citizens, but in a different way. Once you do that, you lose a firm grounding for the principle you are trying to apply. In this case, it would extend the franchise to anyone with EU settled status or anybody with indefinite leave to enter or remain, which is something that can be changed quite quickly. As we have seen this week, it is relatively easy to change ILR conditions. If these amendments ever came into force, you could have two citizens identical in every respect except that one was a care worker and one was not. Under the proposals announced this week, one would get the right to vote five years earlier than the other. I use that example to show how fluid the electorate can become if they are not soundly grounded on the objective fact of citizenship.
The other point that I want to make that is relevant here is one that my noble friend Lord Jackson made in the previous group. He alluded to the fact that residents do not necessarily have the same interests as citizens; they are not completely substitutable—citizenship means something. In local elections, that may be less so, but with national-level issues, it seems reasonable to think that residents will have different interests on certain important questions—on trade policy, trade links, visas and travel, for instance, or even on defence policy, and which country we choose to be allied with. Those are questions that citizenship and a commitment to a country affect. Of course, constitutional issues are the last one; the sense of legitimacy about a vote on the constitutional future of the country, or an aspect of it, really depends on whether you are legally committed to that country or merely living here. If we extend that situation and make it even more disconnected from citizenship than it already is, we risk undermining the legitimacy of some really quite important votes, because people can see that residents from the EU or elsewhere do not necessarily have the same interests and views as citizens. For those reasons, to come back to the point that I made earlier, citizenship is the only safe basis, and any attempt to extend it for any less satisfactory criterion is inevitably going to work out less well.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I shall comment briefly on one or two aspects of the debate. I first make the observation that I have a group of clause stand part debates later on, and it was my error that probably caused the officials serious concern when briefing the Minister as to why I wanted to have stand part debates on Clauses 18, 19 and 20 but had not included Clause 17. I shall leave that aside.
I have two other observations. One is in relation to the comments and amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I have strong sympathy with her on the size of local government wards and the burdens imposed on some councillors in some parts of the country and not imposed on others. There appears to be no logic behind the position that we have from the size of one council or another. I could understand it if one was talking about large geographical areas—that is a perfectly good reason for saying that a councillor has difficulty in serving an area. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred to Kirklees; there are other metropolitan authorities where the number of voters per councillor is substantially less than in places such as Kirklees and Birmingham—the noble Baroness cited London. There is no logic to that whatever.
I shall not go on to the question of parliamentary boundaries, because I referred to it during a debate earlier. I merely make two other observations. One is that Clause 17, in new Section 12A(1)(c), refers to
“the person appears to the officer to be of voting age”.
I am not sure that I am happy with that phraseology. Equally, my noble friend Lord Jackson referred in passing to Christchurch, and I am not happy about that reference either, although the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, because of his experience in winning the by-election that crushed my candidacy, would probably get more pleasure out of the reference than I did.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, I was about to say that I would pick up where the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, finished, but I shall skip over Christchurch and come to the points that my noble friend Lady Pinnock made about her amendment. There is one important knock-on factor that has not yet been raised in this debate. The age profile of the population varies significantly across the country and hence varies between parliamentary constituencies and councils, but it also varies significantly within many councils. There are in many councils areas of, on average, much older population and, on average, much younger population. Therefore, it is very plausible that the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds will have a very unequal effect on different council wards around the country as to the electorate in those wards. Hence there is a knock-on effect on councillor workload, the ability of voters to get a good service from their councillor and that fundamental democratic principle of trying to give everybody an equal vote. There is also a knock-on in terms of, for example, the work of the ongoing local government boundary reviews, which needs to be tied into giving 16 and 17 year-olds the vote. I hope that we will be able to hear from the Minister what thought has been given to how that process will be properly integrated with the potential knock-ons from this Bill.
In turning to some of the other amendments in this group, I simply observe that Amendment 32 from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, would be an excellent amendment to a Bill that introduced democratic elections to this place, and I hope that we have a chance to debate such a Bill in the near future.
On Amendment 45 from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, I simply observe that there are some datasets in which EU citizens and Commonwealth citizens absolutely are present, which may turn out to be usable depending on how the automatic voter registration pilots continue to play out. I would not quite describe that group of people as completely unmoored from the data that is available.
I perhaps slightly pre-empt Amendment 55 from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, because I think there is a useful point to highlight here. I can understand why that amendment seeks in particular to prioritise providing information in writing. It certainly was the case in the past that being written to was a gold-standard form of communication that, rightly, was often prioritised: if something was legally important, it had to be in writing. It is, however, reasonable to say that we have moved on quite a long way from that, and for two reasons. The first is, sadly, the decline in the reliability of postal delivery services, whether it is Royal Mail or alternative delivery mechanisms. Saying that you are sending a letter to somebody does not have the same guarantee that it used to. Secondly, conversely, people receive information in a wide variety of other ways now. I take the example of HMRC. Every time I log in to its website, to do my tax return or to check things, HMRC is keen to encourage me to switch to having legally required notices about any tax return I might have to do sent to me electronically in future. Many people choose that. I happen to find it more convenient to have those notices sent to me the old-fashioned way so that I can scribble on them and so on, so I have not opted in yet, although I am sure that the incessant notifications will wear me down at some point. That illustrates why it is important to have a range of options available for providing information. Embedding in legislation that it must be in writing is not necessarily the best course. It is a regular feature of secondary legislation at the moment. It is something for which I think the Government should be given credit that we regularly see SIs come to this place that require legal notification to be given in some way and the Government put in quite modern wording that provides flexibility to use modern forms of communication, where appropriate.
Finally, on the right to vote, the split of amendments between this group and the previous group illustrates the point that I made earlier that there is an issue that may be worth looking at, but it should be looked at in the round, as a whole. There is a risk that, if we always single out particular groups of people who we are worried might get registered when they should not be, or who we think maybe should not have the vote, it can give the impression of being unduly fearful of, or uncomfortable with, those groups if we are not at the same time looking at the full, rounded picture. That is much the better way to proceed.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate on a variety of issues, and I thank noble Lords for their contributions. Amendment 32 from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, would allow sitting Members of this House to vote in general elections. Our disenfranchisement can be traced back centuries in common law as well as to a Motion passed by the other place in 1699 which stated that,
“no Peer of this Kingdom hath any Right to give his Vote in the Election for any Member to serve in Parliament”.
As Members of your Lordships’ House, we have a voice in Parliament. It is right that we do not also have our voices heard through elected representatives in the other place.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Blunkett for tabling Amendment 32, moved by my noble friend Lady Lister, which seeks to allow sitting Members of this House to vote in UK parliamentary elections.
I remember I had a fascinating conversation with my MP, Kevin Bonavia. He was talking about voting, and I said, “I’m sorry Kevin, I’m not going to vote for you”. He was a bit horrified and stepped back. He had not realised that I could not vote because I am in here. Of course, if I had been able to vote, I would have voted for him.
I recognise that the noble Lord has raised this issue before and that he wishes to address the difference between the voting rights of sitting Members of this House and those of other electors. However, it is important to recognise the particular role that we, as Members of this House, have in Parliament. We can participate in debates, introduce and scrutinise legislation, and ask Parliamentary Questions. As such, unlike other voters, we have the opportunity to represent our views directly in Parliament, rather than relying on an elected Member of the other place to do so. This is the basis for the long-standing restriction—I think the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, said it goes back to 1699—on sitting Peers voting in UK parliamentary elections, and the Government do not believe there is a case for changing these arrangements. Of course, this does not mean that Members of this House are excluded from voting altogether. We can vote in local and devolved elections, where we do not have the same direct role. I hope that explains the Government’s position on that amendment.
Amendment 37 appears to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament within six months on the impact of extending voting rights to 16 and 17 year-olds on the number and boundaries of council electoral areas. The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is already considering how to incorporate newly enfranchised electors into its electorate forecasts and does not anticipate that the changes will require a different approach to electoral reviews.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, asked me a question about local government reorganisation. Most of the proposals that were put forward for LGR did not involve boundary changes. Those that do will of course be subject to review by the Local Government Boundary Commission.
I know the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has raised these issues before about the variability of ward sizes, and I am happy to continue that conversation with her. But I am sure she knows that this is really a matter for the Local Government Boundary Commission, so we do not see a clear need for a separate review by the Secretary of State. I thank my—
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt, but unfortunately, it is not the role of the Local Government Boundary Commission to make those decisions. That is the point I hope to make. The determination is made by the council. If there is no guidance to councils—as there is not—on seeking to create wards of a similar size across the country, the existing disparity will continue and get worse.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am very happy to carry on that conversation with the noble Baroness. I feel that, in the end, we are going to come up against local determination versus national determination, but we can have that conversation.
On the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Lister, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, let me be clear that the Government recognise the enormous contribution made by people from other countries who choose to make the United Kingdom their home. However, the Government do not believe that lawful residence alone should confer voting rights. Citizenship restrictions, rather than residence alone, are the norm for participation in elections in most democracies. The Government have no current plans to extend voting rights to further nationalities or to introduce a residency-based franchise.
There are, of course, different choices within the United Kingdom. Scotland and Wales have chosen to extend their devolved franchises more widely. We respect their right to take that approach within their devolved competence, just as it is right for this Parliament to determine the franchise for elections for which it is responsible.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for his engagement, via Amendment 45, with the Bill’s provision for improving voter registration. Although I would never wholly dismiss his points and he has been very calm today, he needs to calm down a bit sometimes. His points on Monday suggested that democracy was in imminent danger of collapsing because the EROs and the computers that assist them could not recognise an apostrophe, and today he is worried about the duplicating Mr Smiths. Our EROs already deal with all these issues. Under long-standing rules, to be registered to vote in a general election you must be a British, Irish or qualifying Commonwealth citizen. In England, qualifying EU citizens are also able to register to vote for certain elections, such as for local councils, although not for UK parliamentary elections. The Government have no plans to change this. I do not think that it would be fair to establish an automated voter registration system in which some eligible citizens cannot be directly registered or their details directly updated. The noble Lord referred to President Zelensky and his wife having different surnames. Actually, our Prime Minister and his wife have different surnames. EROs are very used to dealing with these situations.
I turn to Amendments 46, 53, 54 and 55, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. The Government agree that direct registration must operate accurately and with appropriate safeguards. Clause 17 already secures those outcomes. New Section 12A requires a person to appear to the registration officer to be both of voting age and entitled to be registered before a person is directly registered. New Section 12B also requires a person to appear to the registration officer to be both of voting age and entitled to be registered before the notice is sent. This requires the officer to assess the available information and reach a view on whether those conditions are met.
As well as making the point in the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, raised the phrase “appears to the officer”. This is established language in electoral registration law. Section 10ZC of the Representation of the People Act 1983 uses the same formulation for registration following an application. This clause preserves that test with respect to direct registration. Schedule 2 to the Bill will preserve that test while distinguishing the existing application-based process from the new process without an application. As now, registration officers will remain under a statutory duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that everyone entitled to be registered is registered and no others.
Finally, new Section 12B(3) already expressly requires a notice to be given in writing to a person before they are directly registered. The power concerning how it may be given relates only to the method of delivery—for example, by post, by hand or electronically. Therefore, the amendments would add no further protection to the safeguards already contained in the Bill.
On Amendments 56 and 57, Amendment 56 raises an important consideration that is already envisaged by the Bill. If an electoral registration officer leaves their role, their successor in the job would hold the records until the end of the retention period. This helps to ensure that people who have opted out of direct registration during the response period do not receive further notices, even if their electoral registration officer changes. I can also clarify that retention of direct registration notice records for five years will ensure that those people who have responded to a notice and subsequently claimed an exemption will then not receive another notice during that time. However, they will be liable to be invited to register by an electoral registration officer. If they remain unregistered after five years and still appear to be eligible, they will be sent another notice. The Government believe this to be an appropriate length of time and it is consistent with the period the Electoral Commission holds copies of a register, which in turn aligns with the maximum length of a Parliament. I hope this provides sufficient reassurance on these points.
Lord Hayward (Con)
Could the Minister further consider her comments on the point I raised? The Minister referred quite rightly to legislation that is now in effect that is some 40 or 50 years old. In those days, the vast majority of people did not have a passport, a driving licence with a picture on it or virtually any other form of proof of identity. Therefore “appearing to be” was a judgment that one made in those days. We have introduced voter ID and all the associated requirements with it. Given that this legislation intends to modernise and bring up to date our election law, could I please ask that the Minister give that further consideration?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for those comments. I am always happy to give things further consideration. Under new Section 12B, the registration officer has to be certain that a person appears to be of voting age and entitled to be registered before they send the notice. Voter ID is another reassurance once they get to the polling station. I will reflect on his comments.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate on this rather eclectic group of amendments, and I do so on behalf of my noble friend Lord Blunkett —who I sense has got the bit between his teeth on this, so I think we have probably not heard the last of it.
I must admit I was not convinced by the arguments against the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, pointed out, we have rather changed since 1699. We are a very different House than we were then. It did strike me that the argument used by my noble friend could just as well be used to say that the Members of the other House would not have the vote—they have got all that influence.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for giving way. The point is that MPs stand down when the election is called, so they are technically not MPs when they go to vote.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that correction. However, I suspect my noble friend Lord Blunkett will not be convinced and will be back with much stronger arguments than I have at present.
I accept the arguments that have been put on my own amendments. It is a shame that we cannot follow Scotland and Wales. It may be that, in time, the evidence from there will show that citizenship is still taken seriously even if the franchise is extended in that way, but I will not go into that now. I shall not try to cover all the points that were made in what was an eclectic debate, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Fuller
“Age-appropriate election informationThe Secretary of State or Electoral Commission must take steps to publish neutral and impartial information relating to the conduct of elections on social media channels, which is suitable for those who may be a “relevant child” under section 214A(2) of the Online Safety Act 2023 (power to require providers of internet services to prevent or restrict access by children to internet services), but who are registered to vote and may be under 16 years of age.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that politically impartial information is published suitable for 15 year olds who are registered to vote and who will have never voted before.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I am calming down. This group, in which most of the amendments are mine, is related to the third group but there is more detail this time. I am trying to put your Lordships’ House in the shoes of the 16 year-old casting their first vote on their birthday. Statistically, 1,917 16 year-olds are likely to be able to go down to the polling station and vote on their birthday, and I am thinking of them. This cohort will not have voted before. There is a serious need for neutral information about the mechanics of the election for those whom the Government want to vote for the first time.
My Amendment 34, which goes with the rub of the Bill, proposes that the Electoral Commission is given a special statutory duty to design media that appeals to the inexperienced cohort about how elections work, how you prove your identity, how not to invalidate the ballot paper by marking it with your initials—a mistake I once made as a youngster—and so forth. I spoke to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, earlier; times have changed since we were young. We were brought up on “Play School”, “Blue Peter”, “Bagpuss”, “Crackerjack!”, and Kate Adie and Alastair Burnet reading the news. Nowadays, news is consumed in snippets on social media, phones and tablets—at home or on the go—and youngsters are not interested in what the BBC says any more, still less than the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. It is important that the information produced by the Electoral Commission is not just produced in an age-relevant manner but distributed appropriately, and that means online.
That brings me to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 and the amended Online Safety Act, which give the Secretary of State powers to restrict access to social media for those under 16. We understand the reasons, but sometimes legislation requires a trade-off to prevent a greater harm. The Act gives powers to segment that ban by age and material, so I am not proposing something revolutionary that would nullify Parliament’s decision. I want to use the powers in the Act to carve out an exception for people under 16 who are, importantly, registered to vote, allowing them access to election-related materials on social media in advance of an election. This would include those who will vote on their 16th birthday, who would otherwise have been excluded up to and including the day before.
How can these children be expected to form a view of whom to support at the ballot box if they cannot see in advance the full gamut of election materials through social channels, including practical information from the Electoral Commission about how the mechanics of the vote work? My probing amendment seeks to bring into focus the obvious dichotomy that, on the one hand, youngsters are mature enough to play their part in choosing the governance of our nation but, on the other, they are so immature that they need to be shielded from the messages on which that election depends. This is the consequence of the muddle that this Government have created in blurring the boundary between childhood and adulthood.
My amendment says that a social media ban that keeps youngsters away from the candidates, and more particularly from the Electoral Commission’s information, would be the greater harm, by undermining the democratic foundations of our nation. Technically, Section 214A of the Online Safety Act 2023, added by Section 70 of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act, would be amended—if you are registered to vote, you would be able to join the social media revolution. The Government say that they want to improve young people’s engagement in democracy; I cannot think of a stronger recruiting sergeant for democratic involvement than incentivising youngsters who are preparing to vote by giving them access to the socials. That is why I suggested in group 3 on Monday that the age of voter registration should be set at 15, not 14, partly because 15 would be an appropriate age as those who had registered could access social media. I am sure that we will return to this on Report.
However, there is another second-order consequence of my proposal. We currently have no definitive method to authenticate somebody under 16 proving their age for the purposes of the Online Safety Act. Ofcom is getting in a right muddle, trying to think of four different ways by which youngsters can prove their age. If they were registered to vote, they would be on the database and that would be enough, so there are some other areas in which this would enable internet service providers to fulfil an identity and age check. At a stroke, it would lift a weight from parents, who are subject to intolerable peer pressure from their children and their friends to let them have a social account when we know that, if they are too young, it is just not in their best interests. Amendment 39 would strengthen the hand of parents and the current system of age verification.
Amendments 35 to 37 cover the schools angle, which was covered in group 3 earlier today. At Second Reading, I warned that the Bill brings party politics into schools. I am not talking about the pedagogy of politics but of political partisanship. The Bill puts teachers in a difficult position. It drives wedges between pupils and invites parents to complain that their own political prejudices have not been adequately reinforced. It is our job to set the statutory ground rules for how electoral politics is treated in our schools. I heard the Minister earlier, but we need to show teachers, pupils and parents that we will not permit a Wild West that disrupts classrooms and increases tension. We need to strengthen their hand and resist providing a conduit for party activists.
My amendments do not suggest that schools should not discuss the election at all. After all, the young people will not have voted before, and teachers will have a role in explaining the process. However, that does not mean that schools should be a dumping ground for all manner of party leaflets. Otherwise, schools will become a magnet for activists, who will conclude that they can reach hundreds of voters at once—which is a damn sight easier than knocking on hundreds of doors.
My amendments are not just about party activists; I am also interested in protecting children from the undue influence of a teacher’s personal political predispositions. My Amendment 35, on the duty to be impartial, is intended to strengthen teachers’ ability to insulate themselves from outside influence and ensure that learners aged 14 to 18 can make neutral, informed decisions about their vote. My Amendment 36 prohibits the display of election materials in educational establishments outside the structured classroom environment, which must be scrupulously impartial. Amendment 38 seeks to ensure that hustings held in schools are politically balanced and that all candidates are given reasonable notice and the opportunity to attend, although whether they actually turn up will be up to them.
This is an important group. The other place failed to consider the practicality and second-order consequences of extending the franchise to those who are so young that they are still at school. We must stop turning schools into political battlegrounds, sowing division and reinforcing sectarianism. This happens in some areas with campaigning in Urdu, which places teachers and schools in an invidious position. Just as importantly, this group will allow those who are mature enough to vote to look at the socials, provided that they have exercised the privilege of registering to vote in the first place. I beg to move.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, Amendments 34, 35, 36, 38 and 39 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, do us a favour in that they force us to consider the second-order consequences of a very big constitutional change. Regardless of one’s views on votes for 16 or 17 year-olds, it is a hugely important shift in the franchise and we should take seriously what it means for how society and politics operate. I therefore found just thinking through these issues very important.
I want to raise something I have been wondering about, which is not quite reflected in this but comes from it, which is a nervousness about electoral or party politics coming into the classroom. Will there be a different atmosphere among teachers who are actively engaged in politics—and we want them to be; that is what you want citizens to be like—when instead of just educating pupils, they might want to win their votes and not just win their hearts and minds to ideas?
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Fuller’s Amendments 34, 35, 36 and 38, which would require non-partisan teaching and non-party political posters, which would require balanced hustings, with all the candidates invited and with proper notice. They are very important amendments. It may be argued by the Minister that they are already covered by law under Sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Act. Indeed, the law requires schools to
“prohibit the promotion of partisan political views”
and
“take steps to ensure the balanced presentation of … views”.
There are also teachers’ standards, which require teachers not to use their standing or position to influence pupils who may or may not be vulnerable due to their age. We also have the duties under the Human Rights Act and the Equality Act, as well the promotion of British values. All these are there.
I do not know how the Minister will respond to these amendments, but they are important because we are now looking at an entirely new category of people aged 16 and 17. The law as it stands was framed for the general teaching of youngsters at school, most of whom would not be going to the polls during their school years —maybe some at the very end but mostly not. Therefore, the idea of what teachers are doing is a pretty abstract notion. But now we are going to be teaching impressionable youngsters—children—who will be going to the polls and for whom this is not an abstract matter at all.
As other noble Lords have said, there is a danger of influence—maybe not intentional, but non-intentional —by the kind of material displayed and the kind of teaching mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. How can somebody who is a committed member of any party avoid somehow influencing youngsters? It is necessary for the Government to think about how to put in special provisions for people at school who will be voting, as opposed to the cohorts at whom we have, to date, aimed the law, most of whom will not be voting in parliamentary or other elections.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, touched on perhaps the most interesting element of this group, which does not directly affect the Bill at all. It is the potential wider knock-on effect on the Online Safety Act. If we get to a place where we have 16 and 17 year-olds registered, the existence of that electoral register, as the noble Lord rightly mentioned in passing, may become an important building block in future age-verification processes under that Act. So, I suspect that in some ways the most important issue these amendments raise is not for this Bill but for other areas that exercise us at other times.
A general point has come out through these amendments and in several earlier groups, which is that we will have two fundamentally different processes. Under this Bill, we will have the right to vote from 16; under the Online Safety Act the key age threshold is 18. I will not relitigate the previous debate, particularly in light of my comments earlier, but just observe that those two ages being different is not a reason to be particularly hostile, because we have many variations in all sorts of other areas, as was noted in previous debates. However, we should recognise that those two numbers are different. It would be helpful to have more clarity from the Government about their plan to ensure that the different age threshold under the Online Safety Act does not provide inadvertent, unwanted consequences that damage the extension of the franchise to 16 year-olds.
I do not agree with all the details of the methods that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, has chosen in his amendments, but one important point is worth drawing out, which comes under his Amendment 35. Lawyers might argue over the word “outcome”. I think it is reasonable for schools to teach children about the values of democracy. If we look at, for example, the decisions made about the national curriculum under previous Conservative Governments, there is a very clear direction that we, as a nation, are not neutral between democracy and dictatorship. Therefore, it is reasonable for schools to communicate that we want people to participate in elections. It has to be done in a way that is fair and that recognises there are people who may wish to spoil their ballots or not to vote as a matter of principle, but promoting democracy is a reasonable part of our education system. Although there are some details I disagree with, the basic point about how the Online Safety Act world and the world to be created by this Bill are going to interact is one on which it would be helpful to hear more from the Government.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Fuller for his amendments, which raise important questions about young people’s access to electoral information and the need to ensure political balance in our schools. We have had a number of useful contributions. This has been one of the shorter debates, but some important issues have been raised.
As I recollect our discussions so far on this Bill, most, if not all, noble Lords have been in almost universal agreement about civic education. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, who is not in his place today, said he spent 17 years teaching the British constitution. In fact, my first exposure to democracy was learning the British constitution, and I am pleased to say I passed.
My noble friend Lord Gascoigne made an important point on the first day that votes at 16 cannot be seen as an end in itself but must be accompanied by an understanding of what citizenship is and what playing a part in our free, liberal, democratic society means and entails. It is important—and we are spending quite a lot of time on it—that we consider those two things in parallel.
This group again addresses the complete inconsistency in the Government’s approach to votes at 16. As my noble friend Lord Markham told us at Second Reading, if we consider a 16 year-old old enough to choose a Government, we must accept that they are old enough to hear all the arguments. The noble Lord, Lord Pack, raised the fact that we have a distinct difference between the Online Safety Act age of 18 and votes at 16. We need somehow to reconcile that and recognise that we need to make sure that those who are going to vote have the information they need.
My noble friend’s Amendment 34 would require politically neutral, age-appropriate election information to be published on social media; that recognises the reality that young people, as has been said several times today, obtain their information online on social media and not through the more traditional channels of newspapers or TV. If the Government intend to extend the franchise, they must ensure that newly enfranchised voters can access the information necessary to exercise that right. Will the Minister explain how the Government intend to ensure that young people can receive accurate and politically balanced electoral information?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 34, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, seeks to require extra steps to be taken to publish impartial, age-appropriate election information on social media suitable for young people who may be subject to restrictions on social media access. The Government agree that extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds must go hand in hand with ensuring that young people have access to reliable information and the knowledge they need to participate confidently in elections.
We are also clear that that the social media ban must not inadvertently cut young people off from valuable information that is essential for their democratic participation. While the Government’s proposed social media restrictions will apply to young people under 16, they will still have access to many websites, including news sites, and to political information from a wide range of trusted sources, including schools, colleges and the Electoral Commission.
We have committed to working with regulators, industry, civil society and subject matter experts to ensure this information is accessible and easy to find for young people affected by the ban. We are also working across government to strengthen democratic education and media literacy, helping young people to develop the knowledge and skills they need to engage confidently with our democracy. For those reasons, I do not believe that an additional statutory duty to publish election information on social media is necessary.
Turning to Amendments 35, 36 and 38, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, on political impartiality in schools and educational settings, I of course recognise the importance of ensuring young people receive politically balanced information and can make informed decisions about their vote. However, we do not consider these amendments to be necessary. As I mentioned in response to amendments in group 3, schools are already subject to clear legal duties on political impartiality. They must prohibit the promotion of partisan political views and take reasonably practicable steps to ensure that, where political issues are brought to pupils’ attention, opposing views are presented in a balanced way.
Existing Department for Education guidance makes it clear that these duties apply not only to classroom teaching but to public displays and school communications. This picks up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor. There are also specific safeguards during election periods to prevent schools being used to promote a particular party or candidate. In relation to hustings, on one occasion when I was a parliamentary candidate, I was invited to attend hustings which were then cancelled because other candidates were not available to attend. I can verify that schools take this very seriously.
At the same time, schools have an important role in helping young people understand democracy and the electoral process. Schools can harness the interest generated around election periods to raise political awareness through activities such as mock elections. Of course, it is true to say that teachers have been educating voters since 1969, when votes at 18 were introduced, and before that teachers in colleges and universities. For many years, primary schools have organised mock elections of the kind I just referred to; I have participated in those myself. The Government therefore consider that the existing framework already provides an appropriate, judgment-based approach which protects political impartiality without unnecessarily restricting or proscribing legitimate educational activities.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for tabling Amendment 39 and so raising the important question of how we ensure that young people who have registered to vote have access to information to inform their voting decision and learn how elections operate. We agree that extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds must go hand in hand with ensuring access to reliable information.
Earlier this year, we announced our intention to ban social media companies from offering their services to under-16s, alongside a package of other measures to improve their safety and well-being online. I understand the references made by the noble Lord, Lord Pack, to the Online Safety Act and making sure that these two things are working together. The Government must act where they see real evidence of harm. These changes seek to reset the rules so that children are protected from the platforms and online features that create the most harm. We are also clear that the social media ban must not inadvertently cut young people off from that valuable information which is essential for their democratic participation.
The Electoral Commission already provides a wide range of information, including resources specifically designed for young people. As I set out earlier, we are working across government to strengthen democratic education and media literacy. We also accept the issues around citizenship education and democracy—the very issue that the noble Lord, Lord Pack, referred to. It is important that young people understand, for example, that we value democracy, but they need to know the difference between that and a dictatorship, and some even worse methods of government.
For these reasons, we do not believe that an additional statutory duty is necessary. I hope I have reassured noble Lords that we have put provisions in step for political education.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Before the Minister sits down, I want to query two things. First, the social media ban will apparently not prohibit young people accessing trusted news sources. Trusted by whom? Who makes that call? That was partly my point. I would have thought that you could trust the Home Office to bring out an interactive game without getting it so badly wrong. That might be something to consider.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Pack, is absolutely right: we have to look at this. When discussions came out about drilling for oil in the North Sea, searches on that were age-gated, and anybody under 16 could not get through. You had to prove who you were, prove your age and so on. That was quite a big discussion. Will the Minister at least take back to the Government the possibility of thinking this through a bit more, rather than just saying that it is all going to be all right? I do not agree with the ban on social media for under-16s. I had to listen to practically everybody in this House lecture me about how you cannot let under-16s anywhere near this stuff, how everything will lead to suicide, mayhem, bedlam and all the rest of it, and how we have to stop them getting access to it. Suddenly, it is okay if it is news—and that is news to me. We therefore need a bit more detail.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I want a bit more clarity. I understand that schools are obliged to be politically neutral. In this country we have tens of thousands, if not millions, of teachers—I do not know the number. If we are to have 16 and 17 year-olds voting and want politically neutral education on the political landscape for them, it will be a lot easier, and we will have much more consistency, if there are clear guidelines that can be reviewed and seen by others. Is that the intention?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, social media is not the only source of high-quality news content, nor always the most reliable, as we all know only too well. It is important that young people continue to have access to a wide range of trusted sources on political information. There will also be a defined list of exemptions including, for example, educational services. The noble Baroness is right to flag up the point that we are in a new area here. We need to continue to think about how we make sure there is access to the information needed to make the decisions that these young people will be making, while also protecting them from some of the terrible online harms we have seen.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to impartiality in schools. Existing guidance expressly allows schools to use election periods to raise political awareness and all those issues. I am not sure whether I am quite addressing his question. The existing guidance makes sure that, if there are mock elections, hustings or visits from candidates or party representatives, schools have to maintain a political balance. Schools already do this, and I am sure that they will continue to do so.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, this debate has not quite gone in the direction I anticipated. My noble friend Lord Pickles, who was Secretary of State when I was a council leader many years ago, once addressed a meeting of the Conservative local government group, and he said: “If you don’t trust the folks, don’t go into politics”. True words.
Politics is about cherishing and promoting the freedom of expression and freedom to explore, which is the bedrock of democracy. The Government are getting themselves in a muddle here. They cannot say on the one hand that these youngsters—I am thinking particularly of attainers aged 15 and above—are mature enough to vote or prepare to vote on their 16th birthday and make their own decisions but then, in the same breath, say that they are so immature that they need to be protected from socials.
Where this debate has gone in an unexpected manner is that we have now started to think about what information these youngsters will be permitted to see—and I am concerned about indoctrination, groupthink and censorship. Only state-approved media will be permitted for these rising attainers. We have to have a process whereby these attainers have access to social media, which in turn will do more for the promotion of registration to vote than any electoral registration officer or automatic registration. Rising attainers need to have access to make up their own minds—otherwise, they could be forced underground, and I think that is really dangerous.
Lord Hayward
“Review of cost of duties to raise awareness and provide assistanceWithin 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the costs to local authorities of the duties in sections 15 and 16 (duties to raise awareness and provide assistance).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe the estimates in the impact assessment of the Bill of the national costs of its provisions.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, this amendment is essentially about the operation of the impact assessment and the way in which it looks at costs in general. I have chosen one particular example, but I will come back with more detail about one or two other elements of the impact assessment overall.
Before I do so, I make a broad observation that I am interested in the inclusion of Clauses 15 and 16, which put in an obligation to educate in relation to 16 and 17 year-olds. When we pass legislation in relation to obligations imposed on teachers, doctors or large numbers of other groups, there are no similar clauses in legislation. I do not know whether it is going to be a new development that each time we pass a Bill, we finish up introducing a clause that says there must be an education of farmers, seagoers or whatever it may happen to be. I call into question whether these two clauses should actually be in the Bill.
My other observation is in relation to impact assessments in general. They started several decades ago. The original intention of impact assessments, as I understand it—I have looked back—was to look at the burdens imposed on particular groups. That was all they were intended to do. I say that as somebody who was for a period the chief executive of the British Beer & Pub Association and had to deal with the changes associated with the Licensing Act. Impact assessments nowadays seem not only a question of an assessment of costs and burdens but—and I say this in particular in relation to this impact assessment—a justification of every decision that has been taken. It is quite striking: you read paragraphs that explain why the Government have taken a decision in relation to whatever it may happen to be. That certainly was never the aim of the impact assessment.
Coming on to my major concern, I pray in aid the impact assessment that went with the Football Governance Bill. Only a few weeks ago, it was identified as being out by over 100%, in 12 months. I have gone through this impact assessment and find myself in exactly the same quandary. I do not understand how many of the figures have been arrived at. I therefore ask the Minister: did the same people who drew up the impact assessment for the that Bill draw up this impact assessment, or others who have operated to the same broad rules? There are explanations of the principles that they have followed—I have read every single line of the impact assessment—but if they are following the same rules that resulted in another impact assessment being out by over 100% in 12 months, the Treasury will have quite a surprise when it discovers the actual costs of this Bill.
The chart with the assessment of costs that I want to refer to is on page 62. It relates to the costs associated with the introduction of votes for 16 and 17 year-olds. We heard from my noble friend Lord Fuller on Monday about the information that he had received on the costs for local authorities in registering new voters. The other side of the costs, which we have heard about persistently today, is the obligation to educate. The noble Baronesses, Lady Royall and Lady Lister, the noble Lords, Lord Pack, Lord Rennard and Lord Wallace, and any number of other noble Lords have said that there needs to be much greater levels of education for this group—and there does. It is about ensuring that they are not just registered but fully aware, as has been identified on any number of occasions, of the issues on which they are ultimately being asked to vote.
I will quote one or two parts of the impact assessment. In relation to staffing costs, paragraph 122 of page 55 says:
“Extra staff may be needed to deal with the additional demand in some LAs”.
Which local authorities are not going to have the extra demand? I am talking here about both registration and education. Paragraph 160 on page 61 says:
“Wider staffing costs associated with the Votes at 16 policy have been excluded, in line with the treatment of MHCLG departmental staffing costs in this impact assessment”.
Paragraph 174 identifies a particular issue and then says:
“Therefore, this cost is not monetised”.
I do not have the IT capacity to go through the whole document and find out how many times it says that a cost is “not monetised”, but I do not have to look much further than paragraph 174; I just have to go to paragraph 178, where the phrase is used again:
“these contributions are not considered significant in cost terms and have therefore not been monetised”.
What are these costs in paragraph 174 that have not being monetised? It says:
“There is an additional resource implication arising from the collaborative development of this policy, with staff time from other government departments, principally DfE”—
which comes as no surprise, given the debates we have had—
contributing meaningfully to its design … There is also a potential impact on education staff”.
That means education staff in every single local authority across the country. Therefore, how on earth does one come back to “may” have implications for some local authorities?
There are many other examples that I could quote, but, in conclusion, I come to paragraph 166 on page 59 of the impact assessment. The Electoral Commission was asked to submit its assessment of its costs, and there is no question that it has very substantial costs. In the central scenario, these are given as £39.8 million. You might think that the Electoral Commission has certain work, but think of all these local authorities, government departments and registration officers. If the Electoral Commission has £39.8 million of extra costs, what have all the other government departments and local authorities got? The figure is given as a mere £48 million. It is almost the same as it is for the Electoral Commission. I was going to use a word that I would normally hear more on a rugby pitch than in the Chamber, but all I will say is that this impact assessment, in so many ways, is not credible. I beg to move.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I have not spent as much time as my noble friend Lord Hayward going line by line through the impact assessment, but I have spent some time with text search trying to find the paragraphs that relate to the issues that have concerned me most as we have debated the Bill thus far. They are the attainers and the 16 to 18 year-olds. Because so much of it says “non-monetised”, I have made my own inquiries of one the more senior electoral registration officers in the country, who also happens to be a police area returning office, or PARO.
We have heard in the debate hitherto how many assumptions are made about what the powers may be by extending the franchise and also from auto-enrolment. There is going to be so much more hand work and so many more duplicate entries created automatically. There will be a need to de-duplicate the duplicates that have been created, for the best of reasons: that is just where the legislation is. There are so many moving parts.
I did not realise that the noble Lord was going to mention the figure of £48 million, but I want to dwell on the provisions for registering the attainers alone: those aged between 14 and 16 who the Bill proposes will come on to the register but who do not have a national insurance card or a gas bill, because their parents do that bit. They do not have a driving licence and may not have a passport. In effect they do not really exist to the state.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I did not make reference to the question of automatic registration, but since my noble friend has encouraged me to do so, on page 101, improving registration is given as costing £5.2 million.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I think that would be characterised as the downpayment, but there we are.
So much is to be done by secondary legislation. I am not going to trespass too greatly on a future group, but when it comes to identification and bank cards, there are all sorts of unintended consequences. There are going to have to be huge changes in bank card systems if they are to be fit for purpose.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, who is not in her place, posited earlier that automatic registration and the duplicates may lead to more frequent boundary reviews. One thing is absolutely for sure: given the way the legislation is today, we are going to need duplicate and parallel IT systems, which will have to be reconciled, and that is going to be expensive. My focus has been on the 1.4 million attainers, but there are a further 1.4 million 16 to 18 year-olds, many of whom will also not have the documentary evidence.
I know that democracy has a cost. We live in a free society, and that costs money. But what we have not worked out are the costs in this impact assessment. The figure the noble Lord has referred to is just a downpayment; it is a drop in the ocean. Chances are, it is probably four times greater than that, and we should be told.
Lord Pack (LD)
That was an enthusiastic heckle, there.
I think it fair to say that the impact assessment, weighing in at 130 pages, is very on brand for election law, especially given our comments earlier about how voluminous election law is. I was struck, though, on looking through it, by how little there is about police time and resources. As the Minister will know well from previous questions and debates, councillors, MPs and members of political parties are already often quite frustrated, when they raise issues with the police—perhaps fears for personal safety due to harassment—by how often police resources are not really available to properly follow up such concerns.
In the parts of the Bill to do with political finance, which we will come to on future days rather than this evening, some of the issues we are looking at there, around, for example, crypto transfers, will require quite sophisticated and advanced investigatory techniques. It will not simply be a matter of whether the local police team has the resources to take seriously issues raised with it to do with election law; I am sure there will be quite a lot of pressure on many specialised parts of the police service, the National Crime Agency and so on.
It is striking that the impact assessment seems to be just about completely silent—I say that in case I missed something in my reading of it, but I did not spot any reference at all—on the potential costs to the police and the associated law enforcement apparatus of the range of offences that the Bill will create, toughen up or put a greater focus on. I hope the Minister can tell us a little about what assessments have been made of the potential costs to the law enforcement apparatus and what reassurance we have that, whatever form this Bill takes when it is passed—and then, we hope, commenced by the Government—the necessary resources will be available to actually enforce it.
Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hayward for tabling this amendment, and indeed for everything else he has done on this Bill. He has worked many, many hours.
The amendment seeks to address the numerous unqualified costs arising from the provisions of the Bill—which have surely not escaped anyone’s notice—some of which have been raised in the Chamber today, as well as those raised on Monday. I am really concerned that the Government are proposing substantial changes to our electoral system without providing a sufficiently comprehensive account of what those changes will mean. It is particularly concerning given the scale of the reforms proposed and the additional responsibilities they will place on electoral administrators and local authorities.
How does the Minister expect this House or those in the other place to properly assess value for money when one of the principal costs of implementing a major reform has not even been qualified? We are potentially looking at substantial expenditure on new IT infrastructure, data-sharing arrangements, staff training and ongoing administration costs. Can the Minister commit to evaluating the total cost of rolling out automatic voter registration first? We have yet to receive a number.
Moreover, the Bill seeks to place a greater burden on local authorities. Electoral registration officers already operate within a complex legislative framework. The Bill will introduce further obligations, potentially requiring new systems and additional verification procedures. Has it failed to escape the Government’s notice that this will be at great expenditure? We all know that local authorities are already under considerable financial pressure. It is therefore essential that the Government explain whether these additional costs will be fully funded by central government, or whether councils are simply meant to absorb them from existing budgets? I would welcome a clear answer from the Minister.
The Government have proceeded with substantial changes to electoral and political finance law without the degree of prior consultation that such measures deserve. Indeed, significant provisions have been introduced or altered during the passage of the Bill following the original impact assessment, as my noble friend Lord Hayward has identified already. That makes a comprehensive assessment of the cumulative financial impact all the more important.
I therefore ask the Minister two very straightforward questions. Will the Government publish a full estimate of the costs of implementing automatic voter registration, including those of the IT infrastructure? Will authorities be fully compensated for the additional burdens imposed by this legislation? My noble friend Lord Hayward’s amendment asks the Government to be transparent and accountable, and to use public money responsibly. These are not and should not be controversial principles. I hope the Minister can provide the Committee with substantive answers, rather than simply referring us back to an impact assessment that leaves significant questions unanswered.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, the provisions referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, are important to ensure that we encourage as many eligible young people as possible to participate in our democracy.
I will come on to the monitoring and evaluation in a moment, but will respond first to the noble Lord’s points about the impact assessment. All impact assessments produced by the Government are produced by departments in line with His Majesty’s Treasury’s investment guidance in the Green Book. We follow the rules set out in it. However, there have been a number of detailed questions raised about this impact assessment, so what would be most helpful at this stage of our debate is for me to write to noble Lords in response.
On local authority costs, as the noble Baroness will know only too well, and has probably lobbied on, as I have, where there are new burdens on local government then government has to respond by providing funding for those new burdens.
On the monitoring and evaluation of the Bill, our approach will comply with our published evaluation strategy, which is what we were referring to in the impact assessment. We will publish evaluation findings in a timely manner, consistent with our policy for the publication of research and government social research guidelines. That evaluation will include an assessment of the impacts of the reforms on electors, local authorities and others responsible for delivering elections; a process evaluation that will seek to examine how the reforms are implemented; and, as I referred to earlier, an economic evaluation to assess whether the benefits of the policies outweigh their costs.
These are difficult areas to address. Anyone who has tried to do it will know that net present social value is quite a difficult concept to evaluate in financial terms or to monetise, which is where some of the difficulty occurs. The appraisal of policies in the impact assessment relies heavily on qualitative evidence and non-monetised impacts, which do not get reflected in net present social value calculations. It is important that we get a clear picture and continue to look at the economic evaluation, which we will do.
The areas highlighted by the noble Lord will be covered by this monitoring work. I commit to write to Members on the specific financial questions they have raised this afternoon.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her open response. One thing she referred to earlier that time did not allow me to comment on in my opening remarks was the fund; it is not referred to in the impact assessment, but she referred to it earlier. On that basis, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment.