House of Commons
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Speaker
I will now announce the results of last Wednesday’s deferred Divisions. On the draft Housing (Tenancy Deposit Schemes) Order 2026, the Ayes were 310 and the Noes were 114, so the Ayes have it.
On the draft Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026, the Ayes were 316 and the Noes were 149, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Norris)
Education, skills and work are central to rehabilitation. We are modernising prison education and creating a joined-up system that supports prisoners in progressing from basic literacy to skills training and work experience. We are also tackling the root causes of offending through offender behaviour programmes and substance misuse treatment.
Helen Maguire
Many ex-prisoners experience challenges after prison, particularly when trying to reintegrate into society, which is really difficult to do. We know that 40% of prisoners reoffend within one year, and that reoffending costs £22.7 billion per year; at the same time, 97% of prison capacity is taken. Will the Secretary of State ensure that ex-prisoners are properly supported, so that they can positively integrate into society, and reoffending can be reduced?
Alex Norris
That is an important point. It is great to start Question Time on a note of unanimity, and I am sure that one view that we all hold in common in this place is that when people leave prison, we do not want them to return and reoffend. The key to that is a multi-agency approach locally, starting before individuals leave prison. We are working closely with local government partners to ensure more effective pre-release planning work.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
The public are safer when people leave prisons with the skills to find work and stay out of crime. Despite the Coates review calling for education to be put
“at the heart of the prison regime”,
a decade later, cuts have halved the number of education hours in some of our prisons. Today, Ofsted and the chief inspector of prisons have both published a letter calling on Ministers to act on the review’s recommendations, and to tackle poor performance on purposeful activity in prisons. What is being done to ensure that prisoners receive the education that they need to find work and stay out of prison?
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that question from the Chair of the Justice Committee, because that too is a crucial point. We are in a self-defeating cycle: the capacity problems in our prisons, which have been talked about in this Chamber for months, impair governors’ ability to move individuals around and get them to the right place, be it to substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment, educational classes or work training. That is why the steps that we have taken are so important. However, I recognise the vigour with which the Chair and the Committee make their comments, and I certainly intend to work closely with them to deliver on this.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Lefarydd. Tackling reoffending requires rehabilitation, but the Wales Governance Centre’s latest report shows that that is not happening well enough in Wales. Recall numbers are up 27%; rough sleeping on release is becoming the norm; and the rate of death by drug poisoning while under community supervision is considerably higher than in England. Addressing those issues requires a holistic approach, which is impossible when Westminster controls the levers when it comes to justice. Following the Secretary of State’s meeting with Welsh Government Ministers yesterday, does he agree that devolving justice is key to making justice work in Wales?
Alex Norris
As the right hon. Lady says, I was in Wales yesterday, meeting the Welsh Government and talking about exactly these issues. As I said in my answer to the original question, we have to use all organisations—yes, His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, but also others, including local authorities, local health services and charities—effectively at a place-based level. That is what we said in the conversations that we had yesterday, and I very much look forward to building on them.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
I welcome the Government focusing prisons on rehabilitation, and on better education, training and support to help people turn their life around. I am particularly concerned about pregnant women leaving prison, many of whom have no secure accommodation, are vulnerable to being targeted by drug dealers and could even feel safer in prison than on the outside. How can we provide better support for pregnant women leaving prison?
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend touches on an important question for his community and the country more generally. For anybody—particularly pregnant women—to leave prison with security, they must have access to housing; that is the anchor. We are taking incredible steps forward in this place to ensure that everybody is offered somewhere to be from night one, and through our emergency accommodation, we can offer up to 84 days of support. There is much to do, particularly with pregnant women, to make sure that the other support systems then wrap around them, to give them the best possible chance of staying out of prison.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I thank my hon. Friend for asking that very important question. I want to reassure her, the House and anyone else who is listening that the Government take sexual offending extremely seriously, no matter who the perpetrator may be—a physician, a celebrity, or anyone else—and it must be dealt with appropriately by the criminal justice system. In our strategy to tackle violence against women and girls, we have committed to preventing these awful crimes, pursuing perpetrators and supporting the victims. We have signed up to this commitment across Government, and that includes the Health Secretary.
Dr Sullivan
My constituent Sarah Johnson showed remarkable courage in helping to convict a physiotherapist who sexually assaulted her and other women in his care. Her case raised serious questions about how a practitioner who was subject to regulatory restrictions and was later suspended from practice was able to remain employed by the NHS and in contact with patients. Will the Minister work with the Department of Health and Social Care to strengthen the regulations, so that those who are under investigation for sexual offences cannot continue to have contact with patients, and will she meet the survivors and me to discuss the matter further?
Alex Davies-Jones
I will gladly meet my hon. Friend and the survivors, and let me put on record my thanks to Sarah for her remarkable courage in coming forward to describe her horrific experience. We will of course continue to engage with colleagues across Government, particularly those in the Department of Health and Social Care, to ensure that anyone who abuses his or her position of trust and influence is held to account, and I look forward to meeting my hon. Friend and Sarah.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
An issue that crops up regularly in Northern Ireland is the searching of the £400 million digital patient record system by healthcare staff, some 30 of whom have been able to gain access to information and data through the system. What discussions has the Minister had, or will she have, with the Northern Ireland Assembly—and, in particular, with the relevant Minister—to ensure that appropriate penalties are in place to deter healthcare staff from accessing confidential patient records without authorisation?
Alex Davies-Jones
This issue is of grave concern to the Government, in England and Wales but more broadly across the United Kingdom. Anyone accessing records without the appropriate permission and level of security should be held accountable. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Public Office (Accountability) Bill is in the other place, and although the new offence of misconduct in public office does not apply to frontline NHS workers, I have had conversations with the Health Secretary about how we can apply nuance in the case of people accessing records without permission. It causes immense distress to victims and bereaved families, and I will be sure to raise the matter with my counterparts across the United Kingdom.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
The Government are reforming the family justice system to support families and children better. We are rolling out the child-focused model nationally and legislating for new child safety measures to ensure that child welfare continues to be prioritised, and in due course we will publish a cross-system family justice strategy.
Ben Maguire
The ex-partner of one of my constituents is subject to a non-molestation order and has been charged with stalking. He repeatedly withdraws consent from school and medical decisions made about their child, forcing my constituent to pay a solicitor to apply to court each time; he will then back down shortly before the hearing. My constituent just misses out on legal aid, owing to her earnings, most of which now go on legal fees. How are the Government reforming the family law courts to prevent such abuse?
Jake Richards
We are introducing new types of order, which will come with legal aid, to allow constituents like the hon. Gentleman’s to be represented without having to venture into their own personal finances. However, we must also make the family court system work much more efficiently, because part of the problem is the number of delays and the countless hearings that victims have to go through simply to protect their families and their children. We will have rolled out the child-focused model across the country by 2029, and in due course we will produce a family justice strategy that will go further on ensuring a more productive and efficient family court system.
Ian Sollom
The Ministry’s own figures show that care cases are again slowing down in the family courts; just over a third hit the 26-week statutory limit for completion. The Minister has said that the family justice strategy will be a priority for the Government, and will be produced before the end of the year. Will it include a timetable for reversing this decline relating to care cases, and will he report back to Parliament?
Jake Richards
Of course I will report back to Parliament on progress, as and when appropriate. We want to drive down the time that it takes for public family proceedings to conclude. The 26-week statutory target is currently being missed, and that is not good enough. We have introduced measures; the Minister with responsibility for children and families, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), is reforming some of the child social care arrangements. We believe that that will help to shorten and hopefully reduce the need for proceedings, and that will help us to deal with the demand, but the hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue, and we are on it.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for meeting one of my constituents recently to hear at first hand about the devastating impact that family court failings have had on her family, but the heartbreaking truth is that I could have chosen from many. All too often, inappropriate, failing processes and long delays cause real trauma. They drive up the risks to which young people are exposed, and exacerbate the already high legal costs for all parties involved. If we drive forward crucial family court reforms, can we make sure that our courts finally serve the young people and families who rely on them?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend has raised this issue on a number of occasions, and it was really important to meet him, his constituent and her children to discuss that horrific case and the effect that it has had on them. Ultimately, there were two real problems facing his constituents. One was a court system that was struggling with demand, and that made administrative errors that had a real impact on the family. Secondly, the system simply was not working with them, or appreciating the harm that they were suffering. We have to look at the quality but also at the nature of the court process for victims, and we continue to do that.
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
I would like to ask about my constituent Ranem. When a family court told her that her son could not be taken out of the country, she believed it was safe for Ibrahim to be with his father, but it was not safe. Four years ago this week, he was abducted by his father and taken to Saudi Arabia, and Ranem has not seen him since. How can we ensure a better system, in which, when the courts make an order, ports know about it and enforce it, so that mothers do not have to go through what Ranem is going through?
Jake Richards
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this horrific case; I will meet him outside the Chamber to discuss it in more detail and see what we can do. This is all about sharing information between the family courts, the Home Office, border security and the Foreign Office. My hon. Friend the Victims Minister, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), is responsible for the mutual recognition of orders across borders. This will be difficult in some types of countries, but we have to make progress on ensuring that protective orders carry weight across borders, because these cases often cross jurisdictions. I will meet my hon. Friend to discuss the specifics of this case, and I hope to assist in any way that I can.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Norris)
It is too early to draw conclusions about recall patterns associated with the progression model. However, we are closely monitoring recall trends and outcomes as further data becomes available, and we regularly publish data on releases and recalls in “Offender management statistics quarterly”, an accredited official statistics publication, on gov.uk.
Bradley Thomas
Offender management statistics show that, so far this year in England, there have been more licence recalls than prisoner releases. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge and admit that releasing criminals in order to recall them does nothing to address overcrowding or public safety?
Alex Norris
First of all, I would defend the principle that individuals who do not follow their licence conditions should be recalled to prison; that seems perfectly reasonable to me. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight today that one in seven prisoners has been recalled. That is a sign that when our estate runs hot, we do not rehabilitate properly, and also a sign that significant licensing conditions have an impact.
Sir Julian Lewis
Does the Secretary of State accept that the recall figures would be even higher if it were not for the fact that, as reported in The Daily Telegraph today, it is taking the police an average of 39 days to arrest anyone who breaches his tagging conditions? Will he consider writing to us with his estimate of how many people who are released early will be recalled—during the next three months, for example?
Alex Norris
The right hon. Gentleman will know that, through the National Police Chiefs’ Council, we work closely with police forces to make sure that we share the right information, and have a two-way flow of information on who is leaving and what is happening when the police seek to enforce a recall. The statistics are available in the quarterly release, and they will be published in the usual cycle, when the data comes in.
David Reed
Devon and Cornwall police cover one of the largest force areas anywhere in the country. When someone released early breaks their licence in a rural part of my region, officers have to go and find them and bring them back. I am sure that the Secretary of State can understand the constraints, given the large geographical area and their limited resources. What assessment has he made of the cost to local policing of recalls under the early release scheme?
Alex Norris
First, I pay tribute to the work that Devon and Cornwall police do to keep the hon. Member’s constituents and everyone across Devon and Cornwall safe. We work very closely with chief constables on the support that they need, in the light of their experiences. He will know about, and I am sure will have welcomed, the support given by the Home Office during the preparation for the progression model. With that record investment for our policing, we will make sure that officers—rather than being behind desks, as they used to be during the previous Parliament—are out in the community, keeping his constituents safe.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Today, the Government will let another 650 criminals out of prison early, on top of 1,350 last month and tens of thousands under their original early release scheme. When the Justice Secretary launched this scheme, he promised that there would be a presumption that every released criminal would be tagged, but that is not happening. I have asked Ministers about this many times, in letters, written questions, oral questions and urgent questions, but to no avail. He talks about waiting for the release of data in January, but waiting for January is his choice, so I ask again: how many released criminals have been tagged, and if he will not tell us, will the public not conclude that he is just hiding his broken promise?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman cannot have this both ways. I have heard him say, and I am sure the whole House tuned in to listen to him in recent podcasts, that he accepts—he never accepts it in the Chamber, but is more willing to do so in public—that we are in these circumstances because the Conservatives did not build enough prison places, and he also refused to rule out an emergency release scheme. I put this to him gently, because I like him: perhaps he is not quite walking the walk, though he is talking the talk.
On the presumption of tagging, we will in due course have the full data; that has been the position of successive Governments, including ones in which the hon. Gentleman had important roles. However, I made a commitment about the presumption of tagging, and I also made a commitment that this would be the biggest expansion of tagging in history, and I look forward to having a conversation about the data when it is available.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Sentencing Act 2026 had a very clear aim, which was to stabilise the prison capacity crisis and to prevent victims from having to go through the ordeal of finding out that their perpetrator was being released not because they had served their time, but because there was a capacity crisis. However, the Government’s own capacity projections depend on both building capacity and keeping current cells operational. In the Budget, the MOJ’s capital for maintenance was reduced from £2.3 billion to £1.9 billion for 2029-30, but the cost of the maintenance backlog sits at £2.8 billion and cells are regularly being taking out of use. Can the Lord Chancellor confidently and categorically rule out, at the Dispatch Box, any more early release schemes before the end of this Parliament?
Alex Norris
I have been very clear that the point of the Sentencing Act was to move us on from having to have early release schemes, and I am more than confident that it will deliver that. The hon. Member makes a very important point about maintenance. She will know the success we collectively had with the Treasury over the summer in bringing forward investment to ensure that we can access places more quickly. However, she is right that, while we talk a lot about new places, we need to work really hard, through our investment programmes, to make sure that existing places stay online. As I say, I am confident in the work that we have done with the Treasury to ensure that.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
The Crown court backlog stands at nearly 81,000 cases, with victims facing intolerable delays for justice. The Government are gripping this crisis in three ways: through record investment, which is lifting the financial limit on sitting days; through modernisation, including through the use of technology in our courts, for example, for virtual remand hearings; and, of course, through our Courts and Tribunals Bill, which will ease pressure on the Crown courts by ensuring proportionate allocation of resource, and redressing the balance between victims and defendants in our criminal justice system.
Luke Myer
The number of cases at the Teesside combined court centre has more than doubled over the last decade, and organisations supporting victims of violence against women and girls tell me that they are concerned about the length of time it takes to get justice. What steps will the Government take to address that, and will they ensure that the rape and sexual abuse support fund remains ringfenced for organisations that provide legal support to those victims and survivors?
Sarah Sackman
I thank my hon. Friend for his important question, which is a reminder that behind those 81,000 cases are real victims waiting for justice. That is why our investment of over half a billion pounds in victim support services is so important. There are also changes in procedures, such as ending the practice of floating trials for rape victims, so that they have certainty about when their trial will go ahead.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
Does the Minister recognise the devastating impact of delays in serious sexual abuse cases? One such case, which was brought to my attention, took so long to reach trial that the defendant’s health deteriorated and they were ultimately found not fit to stand trial, denying the victim the opportunity to see justice done. Will the Minister consider prioritising cases where there is a risk that delays can prevent a trial from ever taking place?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Lady eloquently describes the devastating human impact of those delays. Our judiciary looks to prioritise cases where there are circumstances such as the one she describes. That is exactly why we need to bring forward the reforms in the Courts and Tribunals Bill to end these unacceptable and intolerable delays.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Can the Minister reassure my constituents, who are in their 90s and are the victims of an alleged large fraud, that the lengthy delays they have experienced so far are being addressed urgently so that they can finally see justice done, particularly in view of their age?
Sarah Sackman
Once again, my hon. Friend makes the case through the particularly compelling example of elderly victims of crime awaiting justice. When we say that justice delayed is justice denied, that is exactly what we mean. It is why we must pull every lever in investment, legal aid and sitting days, modernisation through the adoption of technology, and, of course, the reforms in the Courts and Tribunals Bill.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
In 2011, there were 230 firms and 781 accredited legal representatives undertaking mental health legal aid work. There are now only 148 firms and 383 representatives. The rate of pay for mental health lawyers has, accounting for inflation, gone down by 47% since 2008. Our criminal courts are full of people with mental health disorders, so a functioning mental health system must be part of the mission to tackle the courts backlog. Does the Minister agree that legal aid fees for mental health law work must increase to ensure that patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 have access to competent, publicly funded legal representation?
Sarah Sackman
I was very pleased to meet the hon. Lady and the heads of the Mental Health Lawyers Association, when we were able to discuss these issues. It is why, as a matter of priority when the Government came in, we invested in increases in fees for legal aid, criminal solicitors, prison lawyers and a forthcoming increase in fees for criminal barristers. But I accept that there is more work to do on the civil side, including in mental health. There are changes we can make through the transformation of the legal aid system and we are making that investment too, so that those providers are working within improved systems and not on the old legacy systems that have so hampered the delivery of access to justice.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Employment tribunal backlogs have reached record levels, with more than 70,000 open single claims and some hearings outside of London delayed until 2029. The Employment Lawyers Association estimates that the phased introduction of the Employment Rights Act 2025 over the course of the next year will increase the tribunal caseload by up to a third. Does the Minister accept the concerns of the legal sector that extending employment rights without the ability to enforce, due to court backlogs, is meaningless and making access to justice in these life-changing disputes a postcode lottery?
Sarah Sackman
I am proud of the work the Labour Government have done in introducing a once-in-a-generation piece of legislation increasing workers’ rights, but we must ensure that those rights are capable of enforcement. The backlogs in the employment tribunal are ones that I recognise, which is why reform will be necessary and why we are increasing capacity with additional judicial recruitment. We are also seeing additional challenges through the pressures that AI is bringing. Our response needs to be up to the task by ensuring that we introduce our own uses of responsible AI to meet that challenge.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
The Minister for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending (Catherine McKinnell)
Protecting the public and victims is our top priority and probation staff now have access to the toughest range of measures ever to manage offenders, backed by over £700 million-worth of investment. To manage the most dangerous offenders convicted of sexual offences, we have introduced a strengthened supervision package, and probation officers can make use of restriction zones and GPS monitoring systems to keep the public safe.
Tom Hayes
I thank the Minister for agreeing to meet with some of my constituents, who I saw again yesterday morning. Will the Government’s inclusion of smart glasses and wearable recording technology in probation licence conditions apply to suspended sentences and community orders?
Catherine McKinnell
I share my hon. Friend’s concerns about the proliferation of smart glasses and other technology. He will be reassured to know that probation services can already prohibit offenders on licence from possessing and using such items, including smart glasses. I would be happy to meet with him, and I look forward to discussing further how we can ensure that the measure is truly effective and keeps the public safe.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
During the course of the Sentencing Act 2026, I asked the former Lord Chancellor to reassure me about the Probation Service and the use of tagging, following an incident where a constituent had been traumatised by her former partner’s being released under licence and pursuing her because the tags failed. If the Minister cannot reassure me now about the Probation Service vacancy rate and number of tag failures over the last 12 months, will she write to me providing that information?
Catherine McKinnell
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s concerns and would be happy to look further into the issues that he raises. As he knows, we are working incredibly hard to ensure we have the probation team and workforce that we need to keep the public safe. We have successfully onboarded 1,389 trainee probation officers. We are up on our targets and the data is going in the right direction, but we appreciate that we need to do more and are working hard to ensure we keep the public safe when offenders are released into the community.
Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)
The Minister for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending (Catherine McKinnell)
As my hon. Friend knows, we inherited a crumbling prison estate that was close to breaking point, with only 100 places remaining. The previous Government were just days away from reaching capacity, which is why we are working at pace to deliver an additional 14,000 prison places by 2031; we have already delivered 3,300. That stands in marked contrast to the 500 net places that the Conservative Government managed to add during 14 years in office.
Mike Tapp
I thank the Minister for the fantastic progress made. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that foreign national offenders are held in prison until they are deported, not released back into our society where they can reoffend or abscond?
Catherine McKinnell
There are currently thousands of foreign criminals in our prisons, at vast expense to the taxpayer, and that cannot be right when we need every space in our prisons. Within our first two years, the Government have increased foreign national offender returns by 41% compared with the last two years of the previous Government. I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that capacity in the immigration removals estate is within the remit of the Home Office, and we continue to work closely with the Department to ensure we increase the number of foreign national offenders being removed and keep the public safe.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I will push back gently on the Minister’s assertion of 3,300 new prison places, knowing full well that they were all approved under the previous Conservative Government. Across the adult male prison population, there are 3,669 places out of service due to everything from lack of fire safety measures to infestations of bedbugs and rodents. What are the Government doing to expedite the renewal of those prison places, some of which are out of service until as far out as 2034, given that prisoners are being released, including some today?
Catherine McKinnell
The hon. Gentleman is brave to highlight the record that his Government left, which is a backlog of repairs and a shortage of places. That is why we are working on delivering the largest prison expansion programme since the Victorian era. We are bringing forward £110 million of existing budgets so that we can deliver additional places faster. We are working to repair the perilous state in which the previous Government left some of our prison estate, and ensuring that we manage offenders in the community through an increased Probation Service, which the Conservatives also decimated.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
The Minister for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending (Catherine McKinnell)
Reducing offending is vital for cutting crime and improving public safety, which is why we are working with partners across Government to improve outcomes through better access to treatment, education, employment and accommodation. We are also investing in probation and expanding intensive supervision courts for prolific offenders.
Yuan Yang
This week is the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers’ annual Respect Week to raise awareness of the impacts of retail crime. From working with Thames Valley police in my patch, I know that a significant proportion of shoplifting is done by a small number of shoplifters who are repeat offenders and is often linked to substance abuse. Local Reading charities like Change Grow Live do great work to combat that. What more can the Department do to support that work and tackle the cycle of reoffending?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend raises an important point: around 60% of crimes are committed by 9% of offenders. Prolific offending is clearly a challenge that we need to address. That is why we are expanding intensive supervision courts, which combine intensive rehabilitative sentences with close judicial oversight to reduce repeated offending and ensure punishment that works, as well as investing in rehabilitation. Reducing reoffending and relieving our prison capacity challenge is a key focus for us.
Luke Taylor
The outgoing chief inspector of prisons said last week that organised gangs are using drones to smuggle up to 10 kg of drugs into prison at a time, and claimed that up to a quarter of prisoners admit to having developed a habit in prison because drugs are so rife. The Independent newspaper reported Charlie Taylor saying that many prisoners are leaving custody “doomed to come back” because they are not being rehabilitated. He claimed that the
“public are not being protected properly”
when prisoners are freed because their risk has not been reduced. In the year to March ’26, drugs were discovered in UK prisons 26,630 times—up by nearly a third from five years ago. Does the Minister agree that those in prison, and particularly those in for drug-related offences, stand little chance of turning their lives around and reducing their chances of reoffending on release if they are still routinely exposed to the evils of drugs?
Catherine McKinnell
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point and a very clear case for why we have to deal with the prison system we inherited. The system has very deep and complex pressures, some of which he has highlighted: drones, security on the estate, drugs, and ensuring that we can invest in rehabilitation. All those things are made more challenging while our prison system is running at capacity, due to the system we inherited. However, they also make us more determined to achieve the outcomes for which he quite rightly advocates.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
The Ministry of Justice has made significant progress on the responsible utilisation of AI in innovation within the legal services sector. I will offer two examples: first, our launch of the legal services advisory AI growth lab, which brings together Government, regulators and innovators to accelerate responsible AI adoption in legal services; secondly, our commitment to continue to fund LawtechUK, so that we can accelerate the adoption of AI usage across the country. That is what we mean by growth in every postcode.
Steve Yemm
I thank the Minister for her answer. The Labour Government inherited record backlogs in the Crown court system, with victims waiting years and years to access justice. What more could the Government be doing to utilise AI and technological solutions to get the courts moving quicker to improve access to justice and, crucially, to deliver justice for victims?
Sarah Sackman
I thank my hon. Friend for an excellent question. I am passionate about using technology and AI responsibly to address the problem of delays in our criminal courts. We are using AI transcription to improve open justice; we are using AI case readiness tools to help our judges to ensure that cases are ready to be heard on time; and we are using AI responsibly in the scheduling of cases. All those things will ensure greater efficiency over time in our courts.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
The Government are taking end-to-end action to transform the justice system’s response to violence against women and girls in a truly cross-Government effort. Our strategy sets out how we will achieve this by preventing these crimes, pursuing perpetrators and supporting victims.
Rachel Blake
I thank the Minister for setting out comprehensively the Government’s end-to-end approach. The Minister will know all too well the evidence around how difficult it is for women to bring forward sexual assault and sexual violence cases. Can the Minister explain how the Government will make courts safe for victims and survivors so that they are not subject to unfair treatment in court?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this very important and timely question. I want to be clear that rape myths and stereotypes have no place in our courts and that victims should never ever feel as though they are the ones on trial. Through our Courts and Tribunals Bill, which is in the other place, we are taking action to stop rape myths from being weaponised in court by ensuring that any previous allegations of rape made by a victim or the fact that they have claimed compensation cannot be unfairly used as evidence in favour of the accused. We are also introducing independent legal advisers for all adult victims of rape and are advancing with our plans for specialist rape and sexual abuse courts for victims.
Kirsteen Sullivan
Eighteen months ago a woman in my constituency was assaulted at a local train station, but with limited CCTV footage no charges were brought forward. This trauma was compounded by a lack of victim-centred support from British Transport police, with my constituent left feeling belittled and ignored. As we approach this year’s 16 days of activism against gender-based violence, what discussion is the Minister having with the Department for Transport to ensure that the voices of women and girls are heard and not dismissed?
Alex Davies-Jones
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Victims should be listened to, believed and supported, and the Government are committed to ensuring that every single victim of sexual offending feels heard, supported and able to access the information and specialist support services that they need. As part of our flagship strategy to tackle violence against women and girls, we are committed to preventing these awful crimes, as I have said, and this is a commitment that we are signed up to across Government, including with the Department for Transport. I regularly meet with my counterparts in that Department and others to ensure that the Departments are joined up in our approach to tackle these crimes wherever they exist.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
This Government’s early release scheme has put 80,000 criminals back on our streets. They have gone on to commit crimes again and again. Last year, more serious violent and sexual crimes were committed by ex-offenders than in any previous year on record, and around 40 prisoners a day now leave prison homeless. If the Government will continue to release unrehabilitated criminals on to our streets, why have they allowed 11 probation hostels—the very places meant to supervise them—to close under their watch?
Alex Davies-Jones
I will take no lectures from the Conservative party, who left us in this position in the first place, with the result that we have had to make these difficult decisions to keep all our citizens safe. The Government remain steadfast in our commitment to halve violence against women and girls, and the safety of victims and the communities we represent remains central to release decisions. Any offender released from prison will be controlled under strict licensing conditions in the community. We are contacting every affected victim where possible and investing £18.9 million in additional support, including a new national helpline, which I had the privilege of visiting in person last week.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Domestic violence campaigners and charities, including Kaleidoscopic UK, have warned that post-separation abuse is too often missed by the justice system. How many more victims must be failed before the Government take action to ensure that post-separation abuse is properly recognised across policing, prosecution and the courts?
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of post-separation abuse. I hope he will have heard the answer from my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for sentencing and family courts about our strategy to tackle this issue. Domestic abuse protection orders are a flagship policy of this Government, which we are rolling out nationally later this month. They are our strongest ever protective order, and I will happily work with him, stakeholders and victims and survivors to see what more we can do to strengthen support for those experiencing post-separation abuse.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The Russell Brand verdict surprised nobody, and all those who allowed his behaviour to go unchecked should reflect on their own culpability. The truth is emerging also about Mohamed al-Fayed; David Walliams remained anonymous for years thanks to an injunction; and there are many similar cases. Following the attack by Brand’s barrister on journalists who reported similar allegations concerning different victims before the case began, what will the Government do to prevent these abuses of process, and stop the abusive injunctions and super-injunctions, which stop scrutiny, accountability and the work of the free press?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for raising these important issues. All the perpetrators he named are individuals whom the Government have concerns about, and we are working with many of the victims and survivors directly. Just yesterday, I met yet another victim of Fayed who had come forward to me with serious allegations and concerns that the processes have not been appropriately followed.
I reassure the shadow Secretary of State that the Government are determined to do all we can to ensure that anyone who is a perpetrator of these crimes is held to the full force of the law. That includes looking at what we can do regarding injunctions. He will know that applications to the courts for privacy injunctions are considered independently, and it would not be appropriate for the Government to comment; however, we are concerned about their use. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Courts and Legal Services is looking at what more we can do on strategic lawsuits against public participation injunctions—we have already taken action on non-disclosure agreements for sexual abuse cases, as the hon. Member will know—and to prevent abuse of process throughout the judicial system.
Nick Timothy
I thank the Minister for that answer. Sarah Steele was strangled and allegedly sexually assaulted by a US fighter pilot based at RAF Lakenheath. Like in several other cases, some involving child abuse, jurisdiction was wrongly handed to the Americans, with defendants facing a jury of US service personnel. The NATO treaty and the law say that in such cases, our police, prosecutors and courts should be in charge. Victims report charged suspects being free to travel without restriction, dubious acquittals, lighter punishments, and perpetrators potentially avoiding the sex offenders register. I have written to the Justice Secretary about this several times, and so far the replies have been quite general. Will the Government legislate so that any decision to surrender jurisdiction must be approved by an individual Minister?
Alex Davies-Jones
The case at RAF Lakenheath, and others that have subsequently come to light, are extremely concerning. As the Minister responsible for international justice and the rule of law, I take the issue extremely seriously. Decisions on jurisdiction are made by the relevant police force in response to the claim by a visiting police force, and should be taken in accordance with the Visiting Forces Act 1952. However, following that case, the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council has written to all forces to remind them of their responsibilities under that Act. We must ensure that such cases are heard in the correct jurisdiction. I reassure the shadow Secretary of State that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence are also engaging with the United States on the matter. I will happily work across party lines and across Government Departments to see what more we can do to protect victims.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
It is rare that we can achieve cross-party consensus in this place, but I think we have consensus that no party here would want to see rich and powerful men abusing our justice system to silence the voices of victims of violence against women and girls. Eleanor de Freitas took her own life in 2014 after being privately prosecuted for allegedly making a false rape accusation. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women found that the UK violated Eleanor’s rights. Will the Minister please consider Eleanor’s law to ensure that prosecutions concerning allegedly false reports of rape and sexual violence can be brought only by public prosecuting authorities?
Alex Davies-Jones
I will certainly look into the case of Eleanor’s law and do all I can to prevent such a situation from happening again.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
My hon. Friend is right to recognise what more we can do to support victims of violence against women and girls. We are investing £550 million in support services over the next three years. Victims seeking support can find local service information through our victim and witness information website. Under the victims code, all victims are entitled to a referral to victim support services to aid their recovery.
Jonathan Davies
Victims of coercion, abuse and assault have been very much in the news recently, but there are many such victims whose stories will never reach the headlines, including a constituent who came to see me. Her case went to court and the defendant was found not guilty, as is the case in many such prosecutions. She would like to get the transcript from that prosecution to help her process what happened and to access support services, but she has been quoted many thousands of pounds to access that transcript. Will the Government look to make these transcripts cheaper—or, even better, free—so that people in such circumstances can get the help they need?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important point. It is vital that victims and survivors get closure from their cases. Victims of rape and other sexual offences, and bereaved families of homicide, can access their free sentencing remarks transcripts. Our ambition is that, from spring 2027, we will extend this free provision to all victims in Crown court cases, and we are exploring how AI can provide transcripts more quickly and cost-effectively while representing a true and accurate reflection of the case.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
My constituent, Mackenzie, who is a pupil at Peter Symonds sixth-form college in Winchester and is here in the Gallery today, has been campaigning really hard on the issue of catcalling and the intimidation and abuse of women in public spaces. Would the Minister mind laying out what support we are giving, and what we are doing to address the intimidation of women in public spaces?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman’s constituent and welcome her to this place. I applaud her campaigning on this really important issue. The Government are determined to tackle misogyny wherever it exists, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in the Budget, the Chancellor announced £15 million of support for the Minister for Women and Equalities’ misogyny taskforce to tackle these issues head-on. Earlier today, I had the privilege of attending the first cross-departmental ministerial taskforce on this issue, looking at how best we can tackle misogyny wherever it occurs, because we know that misogyny is the issue that radicalises and causes extremism in the issue of violence against women and girls.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Norris)
Since the last Justice orals, I have sworn my oath as Lord Chancellor to uphold the independence of the judiciary and mark the opening of the legal year. We continue to clear up the mess left by the previous Conservative Government as we build a modern justice system, delivering the fast and fair justice that victims deserve. Our landmark Courts and Tribunals Bill has had its Third Reading in this place and is progressing in the other place, and we continue our action for victims by rolling out specialist rape and sexual offence courts to improve their experience of the justice process.
We are launching Respond, the latest phase of our Enough campaign, and we have announced legislation that will help thousands of young adults who lack mental capacity to benefit from their child trust fund savings. I had the honour of representing the UK at the United Nations General Assembly, reaffirming our commitment to the international rule of law. Let me also take this opportunity to congratulate the UK’s candidate for the International Court of Justice, Professor Dapo Akande, who has been elected to the Court; the UK is back on the world stage and I wish him well in his new role.
Mr Foster
Despite the Planning Inspectorate recommending refusal, a third prison is under construction at Ulnes Walton in my South Ribble constituency. Unfortunately, the local community has been hugely impacted by issues around access, highway safety and vehicle movements—the very reasons refusal was originally recommended. Will the Minister please meet me as a matter of urgency to discuss how we can develop solutions for the benefit of the Ulnes Walton community?
Alex Norris
The importance of new prison places in this country has been well rehearsed over the last 45 minutes. Nevertheless, I believe strongly that we must be good neighbours, both in the operation of prisons and in their construction, and I also feel very strongly about our liability through our contractors. I believe that I am already planning to meet my hon. Friend on another important matter, and I will ensure that we talk about this point too, because I want to make sure that we are good neighbours with his constituents.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The ability of powerful men to exert control over and exploit women is again at the forefront of our minds. But it is not just rich and powerful men: we recently debated in this place a petition by Paris Shears, who campaigns against coercive and controlling behaviour. During the debate, the Minister refused to give Paris the common courtesy of explaining whether those convicted of coercive and controlling behaviour are eligible for Labour’s early release programme. Can the Justice Secretary show proper respect to Paris and other victims and at least answer that question now?
Alex Norris
I am slightly surprised that the hon. Member has taken this tack. He will know that, alongside the announcements we made in the summer, we published precisely which offences were in scope and not in scope for the progression model, so all I can suggest is that he refers to that, as he could have done for the last six weeks.
Dr Mullan
It is obvious that the Minister does not want to put on record and own up to the fact that those convicted of coercive and controlling behaviour are, according to our understanding, eligible for early release. [Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position that I should read; I will pass it on to Paris that he feels she should have just read. The public want clarity from Ministers on these complex matters, and it is right for me to ask this question. How can the Minister justify releasing those convicted of coercive and controlling behaviour early when we know that perpetrators who go on to commit offences like rape often start out with lower offences, like common assault, coercive and controlling behaviour and grooming. We know the patterns that emerge over time. Surely we should tackle this at the first instance and not let these people out early.
Alex Norris
I am slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman thinks that making a commencement order for legislation in this place is not putting something on the record. I find that hard to understand. He asks how we got into this situation. I gently point him towards the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister for policy development, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien), all of whom admitted that they did not build enough places. He talks about exemptions, but I note that their early release schemes have no exemptions.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Minister for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending (Catherine McKinnell)
We are making good progress. Around 3,300 places out of our target of 14,000 have been delivered since we took office, including a 170-place refurbished wing at HMP Norwich, which opened in June this year, bringing these places into the 21st century. We are also bringing forward £110 million from existing budgets to deliver additional prison places even faster. We are determined to clean up the mess that the previous Government left us and to build a criminal justice system that is fit for today.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Alex Norris
The hon. Lady will have heard me say two things in this session: first, that there is for the first time a presumption on tagging and, secondly, that we will release full data so that Parliament can scrutinise it in the normal way. I suggest that she waits for that release.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
Catherine McKinnell
As my hon. Friend will know, the contract with Serco was entered into by the previous Government. Serco’s KPI measures include whether installation visits take place within contractual timescales, but being recorded without a tag does not necessarily indicate failure; it may be that the individual has returned to prison, or they may still remain within the installation window. That is why we regularly publish the statistics to ensure that they accurately reflect the situation. I will take her other points on board.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Mr Speaker
Order. The last question was very long. This is topicals. I have to get all colleagues in, and I am struggling. To help me get through, the questions have to be short, as do the responses from Front Benchers.
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
The Government recognise the profound financial and psychological impact that SLAPPs have on individuals, and their corrosive effect on our democracy and public discourse. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we commenced the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, and we remain committed to introducing legislation. I recently met the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), and am grateful to him for the constructive discussions that we are having. I will set out the Government’s position on Second Reading of his private Member’s Bill on 27 November.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Sarah Sackman
I would be glad to meet my hon. Friend to discuss Sophie’s tragic case. The Government agree that the law and procedure on unfitness to plead require updating. We are actively considering how best to take forward the Law Commission’s proposed changes, including modernising the legal test for unfitness to plead and the issue of whether courts should have a broader, more flexible range of disposals when dealing with such cases.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that when any decision is taken across Government, it is done in the round and we have those conversations with our colleagues in other Departments. Giving local leaders the power to make that decision, if they want it, is important and, of course, if people do not follow it, there ought to be sanctions.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
These applications and surrogacy issues raise complex issues around ethics, law and medicine. We have not had those concerns raised by HMCTS, but I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and campaigners to discuss it in more detail.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Last week the Justice Committee heard harrowing testimony about the tragic deaths of 14-year-old Ruth Szymankiewicz, 15-year-old Gabriel Santer and 23-year-old Matthew Caseby from their parents. These are all utterly tragic cases, but only one of them led to a prevention of future deaths case, and even then there is no enforcement of them. Will the Minister commit to reviewing the situation so that when the words “lessons learned” are said, families actually believe them?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I welcome this question and the important point raised by the hon. Lady. I welcome the work that the Justice Committee is doing in this space to look at the prevention of future deaths reports to see what more we can do to ensure they are enforceable, responded to and acted upon. The Government are determined to ensure accountability at all levels on prevention of future deaths reports, and I look forward to laying out my position to the Committee soon.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Catherine McKinnell
I pay tribute to our hard-working and dedicated probation staff, including those who bravely intervened yesterday at Manchester magistrates court to tackle an individual with a knife. Probation staff perform vital work in our communities, we owe them a debt of gratitude, and we need more to come and join the team. While we continue to exceed our recruitment targets with almost 1,400 recruited last year and a target of 1,300 in 2026-27, my message is, “Come and join this important service to protect the public and keep communities safe.”
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
After the sexual predator Russell Brand was convicted last week, the newspapers reported on an injunction brought by him and Jemima Goldsmith against Miss Berki, aimed at stopping antisemitic harassment by Miss Berki. It included a clause, however, that suppressed free speech. Jemima Goldsmith tried to relax that in December, and Brand stopped her. He is still stopping her from doing that. She is a victim of his violence. Can the Secretary of State look at how a convicted criminal can suppress free speech and continue to embarrass his victims?
Alex Davies-Jones
I want to place on the record my thanks to all the victims of Russell Brand for speaking out so bravely, some of them at huge personal cost as well—that is important for this House to recognise. The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of super-injunctions, injunctions and SLAPPs, as we have previously heard, being used by powerful perpetrators to hide their abuse in plain sight. I am keen to work with him and anyone else in this House to ensure that these are not abused or taken for granted. He will know, however, that some of these injunctions are independently assessed; it is not for the Government to comment on them. However, I am clear that any action we can take to prevent violence against women and girls should be taken.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Sarah Sackman
I understand that my hon. Friend is due to meet the Secretary of State to discuss this very issue. It is vital that we support domestic abuse victims with legal aid through the court process. We have already taken steps to extend the equity disregard in the legal aid means test, which means that £100,000-worth of the value of a victim’s home is not considered as part of that eligibility test. It is also the case that the Legal Aid Agency can discount the value of capital that cannot realistically be accessed because of that very abuse. I look forward to discussing this matter with him further.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
There is a close association between domestic violence and animal cruelty. My constituent Annette Bramley’s daughter Holly was murdered by a wicked husband. The Government are working on this, but may I ask them to meet me, Annette and others to look at what further steps can be taken to establish that link and do something about it?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this. Along with my good friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), I have been looking at what more we can do here. He is right that there is a correlation between animal abuse and domestic abuse, and abuse of individuals in general, and I would happily meet him to see what more we can do to tackle this.
Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
Probation services play a vital role in protecting the public, reducing reoffending and supporting rehabilitation. As the UK and Welsh Governments review probation governance in Wales, can the Lord Chancellor update the House on how he is working with the Welsh Government to better integrate probation with devolved services, to strengthen public safety in communities such as mine in Pembrokeshire?
Alex Norris
I met with the Welsh Government yesterday, and we discussed probation. My strong view is that if we are to get the best outcomes for individuals when they leave prison, we need those local services. That might be probation services in this case, but it is also about local authority services, health services and education, to get the best outcomes in exactly the spirit my hon. Friend talks about.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Birmingham and Solihull coroner’s service is still not meeting the expectations of its residents. Will the Minister meet me to see how we could improve the service, which is impacting so many communities?
Alex Davies-Jones
I am aware of issues with coronial services across England and Wales. I regularly meet the chief coroner to discuss this and what more we can do to reduce the backlog. Our coroners perform vital services in their communities, and I want to reassure the hon. Member that the Government are committed to reducing this backlog and giving coroners the support and guidance they need to carry out their vital work.
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
My constituent Tom Hughes, the owner of Red Dragon’s Vault in Wrexham, has repeatedly had his shop targeted by antisocial behaviour, with objects thrown at the window and customers being subjected to abuse. Rather than responding with anger, he is responding with hope, working with local youth organisations to support young people and provide them with more activities and opportunities. Does the Minister agree that while we must be tough on those committing antisocial behaviour, we must also be tough on its causes, such as the lack of youth opportunity?
Jake Richards
I am old enough, just, to remember a former Labour Prime Minister talk about being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. That informs our approach to youth justice. We set it out in the White Paper published earlier this year, and we will be making progress on that issue in due course.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Mr Speaker, ask any legal practitioner and they will tell you about the parlous state of our court estate. Can the Minister set out the estimated number of sitting days that have been lost since the last election as a result of emergency repairs across the HMCTS estate?
Sarah Sackman
As the hon. Member will know, we have uncapped the number of sitting days, and it is very rare for sitting days to be lost due to disrepair. But he is absolutely right: the crumbling courts that we inherited were a symbol of a justice system very much degraded by the Conservatives. I am glad that we are reinvesting £287 million in the capital budget, with brand new courts in Blackpool, London and Reading, and we are starting to see our justice system restored to health.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
It is not right that children who were once in foster care, children’s homes or semi-independent living accommodation find themselves at the hands of the criminal justice system. In fact, over 50% of children in prison were once being cared for by the local authority. What are the Government doing to identify care leavers and care-experienced people in prison, and how are they working to reduce their reoffending and offending in the first place?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend has raised this issue consistently and has done some really important work on it, both from the Back Benches and in government. In the next few weeks we will publish a protocol on exactly this issue. Before we do so, I should meet her to discuss it in more detail, and I will do so.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
Last year the British Horse Society recorded nearly 3,000 road incidents involving horses. However, because horses are classed as property, judges and courts cannot reflect the emotional distress that horse riders have when they lose their animal. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how we can change the law to better reflect the needs of victims?
Alex Norris
The hon. Member raises a really important issue. I have taken part in the Dead Slow campaign with the British Horse Society on two occasions. We are a nation of animal lovers, and I do not think that people would see things quite in the spirit that the law always does, so I am interested in having a conversation with him and the BHS to see what might be done.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I strongly welcome the steps that this Government are taking to help young people who lack the capacity to access their child trust funds. Can the Minister outline how many people he thinks that will benefit? What value will that have to families?
Jake Richards
We simply would not have got to this point without the almost constant championing of this cause by my hon. Friend, so I am very grateful to her. We estimate that up to 120,000 families will benefit from the changes that we are bringing about with my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury. The average amount is £2,600, which will have a transformative effect for many families—I know that for one family in my constituency it means that they can go on holiday for the first time in three years. This is a really important step that this Labour Government are taking.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Victims of crime have asked the Lord Chancellor to publish criminal conviction data by nationality. Will he do so?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman knows that that has been a point of discussion in this place on multiple occasions. We are looking very closely at the data to ensure that we are getting it right. In conjunction with the Home Office, we want the fullest amount of data to be available so that we can have a proper political conversation about what it tells us.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Ind)
When 73% of those released from prison with no home to go to go on to reoffend, the system is clearly setting people up to fail. It is vital that we attack the social and economic causes of reoffending and help people to rebuild their lives. What cross-departmental discussions have Ministers had about improving access to social housing, mental health support and drug and alcohol dependency support?
Catherine McKinnell
Many discussions are ongoing. Ending rough sleeping and tackling homelessness is a key priority for the Prime Minister, as he has said. Those who are homeless on release from custody have reoffending rates that are nearly double those of people released into accommodation. We are already working on the national plan to end homelessness, but we are working at pace on a cross-Government basis to ensure that we can legislate for a duty to collaborate and that we tackle the scourge that is homelessness both for those leaving prison and re-entering the community and across the board.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
Will the Minister meet me to discuss the possible addition of assault in cases of grievous bodily harm to schedule 5 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003? That seems to be the only pathway to justice for a constituent of mine who, despite being the victim of a brutal attack, saw the case against their alleged assailant withdrawn just days before trial because of the erroneous decision of the Crown Prosecution Service not to offer any evidence in support of prosecution.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am so sorry to hear of the situation that the hon. Gentleman’s constituent finds themselves in. I would be delighted to meet him to discuss this issue and to see what more we can do to support victims in that situation.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I recently visited Central Jamia mosque in Southall Green, where I heard about delays in the coroners courts system. In particular, the lack of post-mortem scanning machines locally means that people need to drive to Oxford, causing further delays. What work is the Minister doing with the Muslim community and other faiths to allow them to bury family members according to their religion?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this very important issue. I know that this matter concerns Members across the House and outside this place. I have met representatives from the Muslim and Jewish communities to see what more we can do to help them to bury their loved ones in a timely manner while working with coroners to expedite inquests, and I am happy to work across parties and across faiths to see what more we can do to make that a reality.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
The sentencing of Russell Brand yesterday for his terrible violence against women has had people reflecting on a book he wrote several years ago, in which he said that he repeatedly lured his dog upstairs and kicked it down the stairs again. That is just the latest high-profile example of violence against animals being an indicator of someone who will go on to commit violence against women and children. I know that the Minister cares very much about this issue, so will she meet me and relevant stakeholders and researchers to discuss it?
Alex Davies-Jones
I happily extend to the hon. Gentleman the invitation I gave previously to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), and the commitment I made to look at what more we can do regarding the correlation between animal abuse and physical abuse.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Over 60% of people in prison have speech, language or communication needs. Effective rehabilitation must be holistic. To prevent reoffending and provide support, it is paramount that we address not only the offending behaviour, but the underlying communication, health, education and social needs. What steps is my hon. Friend the Minister taking to ensure that access to speech and language therapists and other allied health professionals is available in prison?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend is an avid campaigner, and with her health background, she is well placed to understand the value of the allied health professionals right across our society. That applies to prison in the same way. Obviously, there is a commitment that any person in prison will have the same access to treatment as they would if they were on the outside, which is vital if we are going to achieve the outcomes we want: reducing reoffending by giving people purposeful activity, education opportunities and the ability to gain skills, so that they can lead a more fulfilling life on the outside. I will certainly take away my hon. Friend’s suggestion about what more we can do.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Earlier today, I heard from the head of the Prisoners’ Education Trust about the chaos and cuts caused by new education contracts. In Scotland, scandalously, all prison education is delivered by a private company owned by a US-based venture capitalist. Surely it is time that we take that service in-house for prisons across the United Kingdom and prioritise rehabilitation, not private sector profits.
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend is right that education in prison is vital to rehabilitation; it provides hope for an alternative future, and engagement with education is proven to reduce reoffending by up to nine percentage points. We are determined to modernise the prison education, skills and work system. We want a joined-up system that maximises opportunities to support prisoners to progress. We recognise that there have been challenges with rising costs, and we are working at pace to ensure we deliver an education system that works for all.
China: Breach of UK Parliamentarians’ Data
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on reports that the phone records and financial information of parliamentarians sanctioned by the Chinese Communist party were obtained by individuals commissioned by representatives of the People’s Republic of China.
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
Before I begin, let me say that my thoughts and condolences—and, I am sure, those of the whole House—are with those who were injured and killed in the horrific attack in Poland on Saturday.
I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for his question, and for the opportunity to respond to it today. While I appreciate that there has understandably been significant personal interest in Daily Mail reporting about alleged activity that took place between 2018 and 2023, hon. Members will recognise that I am rightly limited in what I can say in relation to intelligence matters. I can say that there is an ongoing FBI investigation, as well as a live Interpol arrest warrant, but it would not be appropriate for me or any member of this Government to comment on the specific allegations that have been made. We must not risk prejudicing a live national security investigation.
What I can also say is that this Government, and I personally, take the safety and security of Members of both Houses extremely seriously, and I understand the concerns that have been raised. For that reason, I have ensured that my officials are available to meet any right hon. or hon. Member affected by this issue. Earlier this year, alongside the director general of MI5, I held a cross-party meeting with representatives of political parties to highlight the threat of political interference and the guidance and support that is available. This includes advice provided by the National Cyber Security Centre and the National Protective Security Authority setting out a range of measures that Members of both Houses and their offices can take to protect themselves, their data and their devices from a range of different threats, including espionage. Transnational repression, espionage and political interference will never be tolerated, and anyone responsible for conducting it will face the full force of the law.
This Government have brought forward robust measures to defend our country and our democracy from state-backed threats, including from China. That includes launching the political interference and espionage action plan, running training for frontline police officers to better spot, understand and respond to state threat activity, and investing an extra £600 million in our intelligence services to increase their ability to detect and disrupt state threats. We do all of that, and much more besides, because national security is our first duty and because we will never tolerate attempts to undermine the security of our nation or of those who serve, whether in this place or in any other part of our democracy.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
While I have huge respect for the right hon. Gentleman, I must say that he did not really answer the question. It is not about state security, but individual Members of Parliament who are being attacked and from whom information is being taken so that they can be attacked in future. That is the question we are asking. I understand that Mr Miller, who was originally arrested in an FBI operation for trying to sell arms via a source through to China, revealed that an ex-detective of Scotland Yard, Keith Hunter, had been asked to compile information on the financials and personal telephone calls of certain Members of Parliament, all of whom it appears were sanctioned already by the Chinese Communist party. The bit that it is vital that the Minister answers is that when Mr Hunter was about to do this, or was doing it, Mr Miller told him that China already had the information.
My question, therefore, is what do the Government know about what China has on us, and how much more is China trying to gather? It is important that these questions are answered, because it is not just us who are sanctioned, but our family members too. It is about their security—one of mine lives abroad—and it worries me. What did the Government really know about this? Why have they not spoken to each of us as individuals to explain what was happening? They could have done it under guidance with security, but none the less, they have not done it. Since Sunday, not one single security individual has attempted to contact any of us about the story in the Daily Mail, which is now being read by the British population. Will the Minister answer the question? As sanctioned individuals, with the freedom of speech that we exercise in this House, and under the protection of Mr Speaker, I simply say that this is not good enough. Why are we not being talked to? Why were we not taken to one side and informed?
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman has been consistent in raising concerns about these and associated matters for many years, and we have had numerous exchanges to that end across this Dispatch Box. I have huge respect for the consistency with which he brings forward these issues. He is, though, a very experienced Member of this House, and he is inviting me to provide a level of operational detail that he will understand, and that right hon. and hon. Members and Mr Speaker will understand, I am not able to provide. To do so, or to speculate about the actions of individuals under investigation, runs a very significant risk of prejudicing ongoing investigations or subsequent proceedings. It would be recklessly irresponsible for any Security Minister to come to this House and run that risk. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will understand that, even if he does not like the response.
I reiterate to the right hon. Gentleman what I have said to him previously and what I said in my earlier remarks: my door is always open to any parliamentarian who wants to take the opportunity to discuss these matters privately and in an appropriate forum that will enable a discreet exchange of views. I know that you yourself, Mr Speaker, take these matters incredibly seriously.
The Government have been absolutely consistent in their stated aim to ensure that no malign actor or actors can successfully interfere with our democratic processes. I pay tribute to the last Government and the then Security Minister, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), for their important work in setting up the Defending Democracy Taskforce, but this Government have built on that work and invested in those procedures. The taskforce is the fulcrum that brings together the different parts of the national security machinery to ensure that our response is robust and proportionate. This Government will make sure that we have a proportionate response to the threats that we face, and that democratically elected parliamentarians here and those in the other place can go about their business without fear or favour.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I appreciate that the Minister cannot talk about security matters, so I shall try to broaden the question, and will hopefully receive a clearer response.
It is obvious that agents of the Chinese Government, and the Chinese Government themselves, are targeting pro-democracy campaigners, whether they sit in Parliament, are citizens of Britain or are in Hong Kong. Just this week we saw that Joshua Wong had been sentenced to 10 years in prison for standing up for democracy in Hong Kong, and we have seen the transnational repression of British national overseas passport holders and UK citizens here on our streets. Will the Government summon the Chinese ambassador to talk about the case reported in the Daily Mail and the transnational repression, as well as calling for Joshua Wong’s release, which they did for Jimmy Lai? Will they sanction those responsible for the national security law prosecutions, as the United States has? Will the Minister be able to tell Parliament what further consequences will follow if the Chinese Government do not start to behave differently towards the UK and will not release Joshua Wong and Jimmy Lai?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those points. The Government share the concerns about Mr Wong and Jimmy Lai, and I know that she will have noted recent Foreign Office statements about those particular cases. Let me make it absolutely clear to my hon. Friend and the House that the Government take matters involving transnational repression extremely seriously. Any attempt to intimidate China’s critics overseas, including residents here in the UK, is completely unacceptable.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
May I first send our condolences to those who were killed in Poland?
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing the urgent question, and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for all your support and protection for Members. It is, however, extremely disappointing that the Government did not come forward with their own statement. Members of this House and the other place—including Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Sussex Weald (Ms Ghani)—have again been targeted by the Chinese Communist party. Money channelled through Ministry of State Security front companies was used to secure kompromat to be weaponised by the Chinese state. This is an attack on our democracy, yet it was not significant enough for a Minister to come here of his or her own accord. Most shockingly, those targeted found out from the press. The Government did not brief them—and it is unfair to say that they could not be briefed, because the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), and I were briefed 10 days before the arrest of Christopher Cash, so people absolutely can be briefed in advance.
The FBI arrested two individuals in Serbia in April 2025. They were indicted and fled to China, where they remain under Chinese Communist party protection. When did the Government first know? Has the relationship with the Five Eyes become so degraded that intelligence normally shared by the United States was withheld for over a year, or were they told and did they then decide that Members just did not deserve to know?
This is a damning indictment of the Government’s approach to the Chinese Communist party. In June, the Five Eyes warned of economic honeytraps. In July, Chinese Communist party staff threatened Tibetan protesters with illegal tasers, and there have still been no repercussions. In September, MI5 warned that more than 100 university staff had been contributing to projects run by Chinese intelligence fronts. In October, the United States designated Confucius Institutes a national security threat, yet this Government have refused to implement protections that I secured in law which would enable them to be closed. This month, United Front networks reopened the overseas police stations that the shadow Foreign Secretary shut down in 2023.
Meanwhile, Jimmy Lai and Joshua Wong remain imprisoned in Hong Kong for speaking out for democracy. There are still zero registrations on the foreign influence registration scheme for anyone working for China, and the annual report is 133 days late under this Government. These are not incidents to be dismissed. This is an onslaught against our Parliament and our country, and the Government sit here pretending otherwise.
Mandelson’s China reset has failed. It was dreamed up in conjunction with the National Security Adviser, whose vetting process was opaque at best and who remains missing in action from Parliament. This Government’s one token achievement was lifting sanctions. [Interruption.] Mr Speaker, to quote something you said recently, you were far more lenient with the others. What does the Chinese Communist party have to do for the Government to act? They should put it in the enhanced tier of FIRS and protect our country.
Mr Speaker
Order. When you said that you needed 10 seconds, you did not tell me that you meant half a minute.
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Lady is entitled to make her points in the way that she has done, but I am sorry that she has chosen to do so. She will be furious when she finds out who was in government between 2018 and 2023. I regret the way that she has sought to politicise these issues, which should actually bring the House together in standing to defend our democracy and the rights of Members of this House to do their duty without fear or favour. It is a sad indictment of her position that she has chosen to play the political card in the way that she has done. It is particularly regretful because she was in the House and will remember the bipartisan approach that underpinned the passing of the National Security Act 2023. That has been the approach of this Government, not least when she has had issues that have required our support. That is the endeavour in which we should proceed in order to protect our national security. That is the way in which the public expect us to behave, rather than seeking to score cheap political points.
The hon. Lady made a number of points, some of which are worthy of response, but let me focus on one in particular. She spoke about FIRS and the annual report. FIRS is a very useful tool that will disrupt operational activity by our adversaries. FIRS is an instrument that was included in the National Security Act 2023, which, as I say, was an important piece of legislation that was passed on a bipartisan basis. It is this Government who worked incredibly hard to introduce FIRS on time and on budget, and it is this Government who are developing FIRS as an operational capability in our armoury.
The hon. Lady asked me specifically about the timing of the publication of the annual report. I understand why she would want to do that, and I am sure that I would do the same if I were in her place. We are committed to publishing the first annual report in full, and we will do so as soon as possible, but I reiterate the point that we worked on a cross-party basis with the previous Government to legislate for FIRS. This Government are getting on with implementing that important capability, and we will bring forward the report as soon as possible.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
The threat that this country faces from hostile state actors is of grave concern to Members and parties on both sides of the House, and the security of parliamentarians as they go about their roles is central to democracy. A key component of countering political interference in our democracy is the foreign influence registration scheme. I welcome the Minister’s comments, but can he say more about the funding that is going into tackling hostile state threats? Will he confirm that the foreign influence registration scheme is being operationalised, and will he commit to not politicising the security of parliamentarians, unlike, I am afraid to say, the Opposition?
Dan Jarvis
I can give my hon. Friend the commitments that he seeks, and I am sure that that is what Mr Speaker and the public would expect. They would expect us to behave in a way that seeks to bring together Members on both sides of the House, so that we can stand against the threats that we face and work to achieve common solutions to address them.
My hon. Friend makes an important point about FIRS, which is an important operational tool that is still in its infancy. This Government introduced it on 1 July 2025. We are still working out how we can make sure that it delivers the maximum operational effect, and still working to ensure that it is an effective capability. It is doing good work on behalf of the nation, and we should all get behind it.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Mr Speaker, I know you take the safety of Members of this House very seriously. These revelations are deeply alarming and reflect yet another attack on our liberal democracy. As MPs, we know that our parliamentary staff receive regular reminders to be vigilant against the CCP and its efforts to gain sensitive information. We receive those as MPs, yet we are told that the Home Office has not taken proactive steps to inform the Members concerned in this case.
I do not think the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who asked the urgent question, got the response he possibly deserves, so I will try again. When were Ministers first aware and when were officials first aware of the information that was reported in the Daily Mail this weekend? Will the Minister commit today to reviewing the process, so that Members are told promptly whenever the Government learn that their personal information is compromised, particularly when it is done by a hostile foreign power?
Recent reports have revealed what the Financial Times has described as a
“chronic shortage of China expertise”
in the British state, both in the FCDO and in MI6. Meanwhile, the US has built a dedicated China office. Will the Minister set out a plan to rebuild our China expertise urgently, and will he consider adding China to the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights has recommended?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member, as I always am, although I am slightly perplexed that he has sought to get me to do things that he knows I am not able to do from this Dispatch Box. I always listen very carefully to what he has to say, not least because of the constituency he represents and the extraordinarily important work that his constituents do on behalf of the nation. It is because I value their work, their contribution and their important commitment to our national security that I am not going to take any risks in relation to prejudicing activities that are under way. His constituents will understand that, and I hope that he does as well.
I thought the hon. Member made an important point about ensuring that we do everything we possibly can to protect our democratic processes. I give him an assurance—and I hope you would agree with this assertion, Mr Speaker—that the Government work very closely with Mr Speaker and the parliamentary authorities, the police and intelligence partners to ensure that Members of both Houses receive relevant briefings where that is necessary and appropriate.
I completely understand the demand and clamour among Members to know more information earlier than we are able to present it to them. I fully understand the desire for that information, but I hope he will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to get into a commentary, particularly on the Floor of the House, on issues that may lead to the prejudicing of ongoing investigations, not least given the nature of the allegations that have been made. That simply would not be appropriate and I am not going to do it, but I hope Members do understand how seriously the Government and I personally take these issues, and we will work around the clock to make sure that protections are in place so that Members can do their job.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
Members across this place know personally about espionage risks to our democracy, and I know that that is true of the shadow Security Minister. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must all be vigilant as we go about our work in this place?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend makes a really helpful and important point. She is right that Members across this House have had personal experiences in this regard. I only hope that, rather than seeking to score political points as a consequence of those experiences, we come together and ensure that our response is appropriate and proportionate. That is the approach I will take and the approach this Government will take.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The evidence that China poses a threat to our national security and democracy is clearly overwhelming. We have spent a lot of time discussing this matter in the House, including the threats to parliamentarians and the overall security threat. The Minister has spoken in glowing terms about the foreign influence registration scheme, which the Government introduced, and said that it is working. Can he give an explanation to this House as to why China is not on the enhanced tier of FIRS?
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Lady is a very experienced Member of this House and has served in very senior roles in government, which is why I hope she understands that the Government sometimes have to make quite nuanced, balanced judgments when it comes to national security policy and our relationship with other countries. There will be those in this place—I am not saying that she falls into this category—who seek to categorise our relationship with China in a single word. She knows from her experience in government that it is much more nuanced than that. As successive Governments have maintained, our relationship with China cannot be reduced to a single word. However, we recognise—it is important to be absolutely up front about this, as I have been from this Dispatch Box on many occasions—that China poses a series of threats to UK national security, from cyber-attacks to foreign interference and espionage, as well as transnational repression. We will challenge all those threats robustly and we will make sure that we have the appropriate toolkit to do so.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
The Minister must now recognise the scale and sophistication of the Chinese Communist party’s efforts to undermine our country, this House and the security of Hongkongers who settled here to flee persecution. Despite that, last week the Home Secretary rather flippantly referred to Hongkongers needing to prove their lack of criminality to achieve settlement. It is, of course, vital that no one who is a criminal enters our country, but as we saw in the case of Wu Chi-wai earlier this year, the Home Office has treated a criminal record incurred under the anti-democratic national security law as grounds for refusal. Does the Minister accept that the Home Secretary’s remarks were clumsy and commit to working across Government to ensure that instructions are issued to immigration officials to fix that practice and ensure that Hongkongers fleeing CCP persecution are protected?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that point. I am certain that the Home Secretary intended no offence by the remarks she made, but he raises some important points. If he were to write to me with them, I would be very happy to consider them further.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
Our colleague, the Chairman of Ways and Means—I notified her that I was going to mention her—is sanctioned by China. She was sanctioned because she constantly raised the horrific human rights abuses against the Uyghurs. The Minister is pointing out all the reasons why he cannot answer questions and cannot say anything, but one thing he could do is to say to the new Prime Minister and the new Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero that, having said there would be an ethical procurement policy, there should be a pause on processed renewables materials that come from China, because there appears to be plenty of evidence that human rights abuses of the Uyghurs are taking place to produce them. Will he commit to doing that?
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman is a seasoned commentator on these matters and I always listen very carefully to what he has to say. Let me restate what I have said from this Dispatch Box on many occasions: it is totally unacceptable that any Member of this House has been sanctioned by China, or by any other nation for that matter. He will know that there are a range of processes in place across government to guide Secretaries of State in their decisions, whether in respect of investment or procurement. Sometimes there have to be difficult trade-offs, but in the end the first priority of this Government—and, I would hope, any Government—is our national security. We will make sure that our policies reflect that.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
While it is unacceptable that Members of this Parliament are under constant hostile threat from foreign states, it is also unacceptable that this Government are unwilling to offer protection by taking appropriate action against China. Despite the CCP sanctioning, spying on and now accessing the phone and financial records of parliamentarians, the Government still refuse to publish the China audit in full or to publish any strategy on how to deal with this threat. Why, given all the evidence, have the Government not finally added China to the enhanced tier of FIRS? I draw attention to the fact that the Minister has dodged that question up to now. Given that the revelations we are talking about today happened in 2021, can he confirm whether a full UK investigation, alongside the FBI investigation, is now taking place?
Dan Jarvis
I simply do not accept the premise of the question that the hon. Gentleman has asked, or the way that he asked it. This Government prioritise national security, and we will ensure that—[Interruption.] I find it unfortunate that Opposition Members are questioning this Government’s commitment to national security. There was a time, which will be well remembered, when matters of national security were not thrown across Dispatch Boxes in the way that we have seen done today. It is beyond disappointing that some Members are choosing to behave in that way, and I am afraid that it reflects very poorly on them.
The hon. Member for Dundee Central (Chris Law) has heard what I have said about FIRS. He will understand that decisions about FIRS will be brought forward in the normal way, but I assure him that this Government will ensure that we have the appropriate legislative framework and the right operational toolkit to guard against the threats that we face.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Every Member of this House should be concerned about this affront to democracy, because the threat from China is incredibly well documented. Current and former heads of the security services have talked prominently about the threat from China and foreign Governments. We have industrial espionage and Chinese activity aimed at infiltrating our energy systems. We could not be clearer-eyed than we are, so what more has to happen before the Government put China on the enhanced tier of FIRS? Week after week, we get reports of industrial espionage, hacking and threats to democracy. What has to happen before the Government finally acknowledge that China should be on the enhanced tier?
Dan Jarvis
I accept the important point about the nature of the threat that we face internationally, and specifically from China; I have just referenced that. FIRS is an important operational tool. As I said to the shadow Minister, we will publish the annual report as soon as we are able to. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to speculate about future registrations made using that operational tool. That is not how this has worked previously, and it is not how it will work today.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The targeted harvesting of phone and financial records appears to be part of a co-ordinated campaign of transnational repression against critics of Beijing. Given this escalatory behaviour, will the Minister review the powers available to our intelligence services to disrupt the commercial proxies, and state plainly what consequences the People’s Republic of China will face for executing operations against sitting British parliamentarians, bearing in mind that the website of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, which I chair, was hacked, and articles were replaced with pro-China propaganda? Quite clearly, that is something that we would never have agreed to.
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. It is worth reiterating that the activity that we are debating is alleged to have occurred between 2018 and 2023. The Government are clear-eyed about the nature of the threat that we face from China and a range of other adversaries when it comes to defending our national security. I pay tribute to the extraordinary men and women who serve in our intelligence services. I am proud that this Government are investing record amounts in supporting the incredible work that they do. We owe them a debt of gratitude; they are heroes of our nation.
Alicia Kearns
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are well aware that a number of Members were briefed 10 days in advance of the arrest of Chris Cash, because the last Government deemed that Members deserved to know if they were being spied on. The current Government clearly do not agree. Given your responsibility for Members’ security, and how hard you work to keep them safe, were you at least briefed a year ago, when these reports were shared with the Government?
Mr Speaker
The answer is no; I have not been briefed, even as of today.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would not normally raise this, but I will, given your role in protecting Members of Parliament, who have been under attack by the Chinese Government. I applied for this urgent question so that the Government would have an opportunity to explain, at the Dispatch Box, what they knew, and what actions they may take or have taken. Bear in mind that these cases were brought up in 2021; this did not happen yesterday, or on Sunday. Are the Government categorically telling us that they know absolutely nothing about this, and have done nothing about it? They have done nothing to inform any of us—or you, Mr Speaker—about it, which is an absolute disgrace. It is treating this House with utter contempt.
Mr Speaker
We are not going to continue the debate. I granted the urgent question because I thought it was important. I am sure that this will be pursued through other avenues. Let us leave it at that for today.
Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
We now come to the statement on the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. I was going to call the Prime Minister, but it is not him. I call the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
I have no ambition in that direction, Mr Speaker, but thank you all the same. With permission, I will make a statement on the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting held in Antigua and Barbuda from 1 to 4 November. The Prime Minister led the United Kingdom delegation, accompanied by the Foreign Secretary and me. We joined Heads of Government and more than 30 Foreign Ministers from member states across the organisation. His Majesty the King, as head of the Commonwealth, and Her Majesty the Queen also attended.
This was an important summit for the Commonwealth. At a time when the world is divided and uncertain, CHOGM reminded us of the value of the Commonwealth and what this enduring partnership of nations can achieve. It connects 56 countries and a third of the world’s people to address shared challenges and work together for practical solutions. This meeting also gave the United Kingdom an invaluable opportunity to strengthen important bilateral relationships and build coalitions around shared priorities.
The Prime Minister described CHOGM as the “most successful” Commonwealth meeting of recent times. We took forward important discussions on economic growth, democratic resilience, climate and ocean action, and the needs of small and vulnerable states. Leaders reaffirmed their commitment to the Commonwealth charter and supported a Commonwealth that is more focused, effective and capable of delivering practical results.
I pay particular tribute to the Government and people of Antigua and Barbuda, which is the smallest country ever to host CHOGM. Organising a summit of this scale was a mammoth task, but our hosts delivered it with warmth, energy and ambition. There could be no better summary than His Majesty’s words at the opening ceremony: “Small island, big vibes.”
The Caribbean setting brought into sharp focus the priorities of many Commonwealth members, particularly on growth, investment, climate resilience, debt and access to finance. This CHOGM placed greater emphasis than previous summits on trade and investment, which is in line with the UK’s approach. Governments, businesses and investors came together for the Commonwealth business forum, and for a dedicated investment summit to consider how the Commonwealth can become a modern economic partnership that mobilises private capital, removes barriers to trade and creates opportunities across all its members. The United Kingdom supported that ambition with a substantial package of practical measures. We announced a new partnership between British International Investment and the Inter-American Development Bank to unlock private investment across the Caribbean. We increased our support for the Commonwealth investment network, to help Commonwealth small island states attract climate-positive investment.
We announced a new resilient infrastructure programme worth up to £40 million, building on the UK Caribbean infrastructure fund. The new programme will support renewable energy and infrastructure that can withstand the growing effects of climate change. We announced initiatives worth up to £8.7 million through the global clean power alliance finance mission. Working with the World Bank, these measures will support cleaner and more resilient energy systems across the Caribbean.
We also signed a four-year partnership to support Jamaica’s National Reconstruction and Resilience Authority post Hurricane Melissa. This Government-to-Government partnership will support Jamaica in unlocking up to $6 billion of capital investment for resilient infrastructure, delivered with the expertise of world-leading UK firms, and could become a model for UK-supported reconstruction in the region and beyond. These initiatives will make a practical difference to our partners and their people. They can also create new opportunities for British investors, banks, insurers and professional services.
CHOGM was not a stand-alone diplomatic event; it formed part of the United Kingdom’s wider multilateral approach, and built momentum ahead of COP31 and our G20 presidency next year. The Commonwealth allows us to hear directly from countries that often struggle to have their voices heard. At CHOGM, we worked with partners on climate resilience, debt, development finance and reform of the international financial system. We were pleased that former Prime Minister Gordon Brown joined those discussions in Antigua, and we will carry those conversations forward into the major international meetings ahead.
Our aim is clear: a more representative international system that delivers growth, stability and opportunity, including for small and climate-vulnerable states. Democracy, good governance and the rule of law remain central to the Commonwealth. At CHOGM, we announced a partnership with Australia to protect parliamentarians from online abuse and support democratic participation. This will bring together technology, expertise and practical solutions, with a particular focus on the abuse faced by women in public life.
Formal leaders’ and ministerial meetings were only one part of CHOGM. The Foreign Secretary addressed a United Kingdom-supported event on blue finance and innovation, alongside the Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda, highlighting the need for ambitious action on green shipping, stronger ocean governance and protection, and scaling up blue finance.
I spoke at the Commonwealth women’s forum about our shared responsibility to combat violence against women and girls. I joined a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association panel on safeguarding democracy, alongside colleagues from Malta, the Commonwealth Secretariat and accredited organisations, and I was delighted to see a number of hon. Friends and colleagues in the audience. UK Ministers participated in discussions on small states, civil society, investment, climate finance and ocean protection. UK youth delegates participated in the Commonwealth youth forum, recognising that the Commonwealth’s future rests with young people. These events ensured that the summit gave voice to business, civil society, women and young people, as well as Governments.
We are clear on the value we place on strong relationships with Commonwealth partners, on facing down shared challenges together, on seizing opportunities together, and on sharing our values to build a safer world for all of us, but as the Prime Minister set out ahead of CHOGM, if we are to meet these challenges of the future, we need to be ready to face up to the past. For years, those members of the Commonwealth affected by the transatlantic slave trade have wanted an honest conversation about the legacies of slavery. Before the summit, the Prime Minister set out how this Government intend to respond to those calls. He expressed sorrow and regret for the pain and suffering caused, and offered a new, structured dialogue with Caribbean and African partners. This dialogue needs to be co-designed with partners affected, and will involve listening with respect. It will be time-bound and inclusive. It will consider remembrance, education, culture and calls for a formal apology, to which the Government are open. It will also look to the future and support practical co-operation on the challenges faced by affected partners today, though our position on financial reparations has not changed.
This approach was warmly received by partners. It helped create a positive and forward-looking discussion at the summit. It was welcomed in the CHOGM communiqué. Our focus now is on turning that solemn and sincere commitment into meaningful action.
This CHOGM gave the Commonwealth renewed energy. It showed that this diverse family of nations can work together on the issues that matter most to its people: jobs, investment, climate resilience, democracy and opportunity. It also demonstrated the kind of partner the United Kingdom wants to be: outward-looking, reliable and respectful. We listened to the Commonwealth members, strengthened relationships across the global south and backed our words with practical commitments. We will now work with our partners to deliver on those commitments, carry their priorities into international moments ahead, and ensure that the Commonwealth fulfils its potential as a modern network for practical co-operation. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Speaker
Can I just say that, while I thank the Minister for coming, I would have thought that it would be the Foreign Secretary making a statement on such an important conference as CHOGM? But I thank the Minister for coming, and for being so open and honest. I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
Like you, Mr Speaker, I expected the Foreign Secretary. The Minister has been a friend these many years, and nobody is happier to see him than me, but it does somewhat surprise me—no doubt it surprises him, too—that the head of our delegation at the Heads of Government meeting has decided that it is not worth his effort to come and brief this House. Clearly he has better things to do than answer to the British people, whom I thought he was sent to represent.
Anyway, we shall move on, because the understudy’s understudy is in their place. This statement, much like the meeting, will not answer the questions that we need answered if we are to shape a future for us all. It has instead, sadly, been overshadowed. Let me set out why. First, our Government, by failing to be clear right at the beginning—before CHOGM began, in fact—about their position on reparations, allowed the discussion to be diverted from the future and towards the past. I will not rehearse the arguments; Members will already know my position on the tragedy of slavery, and the endurance of this abhorrent crime against humanity—in Mauritania, for instance, where it continued until 1981, which is two years before the Minister was born, and in the Arabian peninsula, where slavery existed right up until the 1960s. Nor will I rehearse the slave raids from Algiers on to the Cornish coast or the courage of those sailors and soldiers who fought the evil slave trading kingdoms of Dahomey, which King Ghezo referred to as the glory of his people. Of course, Britain’s part in the slave empires was shameful; the past of the whole of humanity in slavery was shameful. The pride of Britain is that the Royal Navy, the West Africa Squadron and our people fought it when others were still defending it.
Today, we can share the blame or we can look at the future. Instead of looking at the past, why are we not focused on the truth of modern slavery: the Uyghur detention facilities in Xinjiang; and the human trafficking enabled by Moscow that sees so many die in the Sahara and the Mediterranean? Let us not go over that; instead, let us focus on where we should be with the Commonwealth. Half of the Commonwealth is India. What lessons has the Minister—perhaps even the Foreign Secretary—drawn from the non-attendance of the Indian Prime Minister at this CHOGM and indeed past CHOGMs?
What has the hon. Member learned about the importance of African nations in the Commonwealth membership? Countries like Nigeria demonstrate such vibrancy and such energy and could benefit from the capital of London. What has he learned from the green energy projects of Kenya about future opportunities in shared data networks and opportunities for growth? Indeed, given that the Prime Minister met the leaders of both Kenya and Nigeria, why have we heard nothing more about that? What is going on with an Africa strategy that would tie us together and give Britain an opportunity to develop the depth of relationship that is, sadly, being taken by China?
Furthermore, where is the consistency in our dealings? What lessons have been learned about the Prime Minister’s swapping sides again and again on Chagos? First, he agreed with the Mauritian Prime Minister; then he agreed with the US President; and now, in echoes of what I can only describe as the Blairite 2000s, there is a consultation and a pledge waiting for resolution at the end of the year. Perhaps the Prime Minister will honour us by outlining what he has made a promise to do this time; perhaps he will have the grace to tell Parliament instead of hiding again.
Given that the importance of the Caribbean to Britain is one subject on which I think we can all agree, what conversations has the hon. Member had on reversing the Chinese infiltration of those islands in the Americas so that we see islanders treated with the dignity they deserve—not, sadly, like the islanders Joshua Wong and Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong?
It is always a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Bridgend. I hope that he enjoyed his trip in the sun. Sadly, he has returned without even a tan and with little else to show for his troubles. At least we have all learned one thing: while our Government waffle and waver, the King commands respect for his clarity and leadership. Thank God, at least, for that.
Chris Elmore
It is always a pleasure to see the shadow Foreign Secretary in his place. It is nice that he checked Wikipedia to see when I was born. The statement is about CHOGM, so while it was nice that he took a canter through the various continents of the world, may I take him back to the substantive point?
I set out in quite significant detail the success of the CHOGM summit. The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the importance of the impact on China—that is the whole point of the structured dialogue. Part of the challenge is about the influence of China around these continents and in these countries. To have constructive dialogue, we need to accept our past, work through it and look forward to the future. I think he would almost agree with me on that very point. [Interruption.] He had his chance and he did not ask that question. If we are to look for improved influence and at better infrastructure investment to allow British industry to influence and develop across the Caribbean and Africa, that piece of work will be crucial in the months and years ahead.
It is always nice to debate with the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sure we will do so again in the months and years ahead. As I have huge respect for the House, I will explain one further point: the Foreign Secretary is at G7 meetings in France; I am delighted that I have the confidence of the Prime Minister to address the House on one of my areas of responsibility, which include the Commonwealth.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for his statement. Alongside CHOGM, the first ever global summit on eye health was held, bringing together world leaders to address the global challenge of avoidable sight loss. With more than 2 billion people worldwide living with sight loss, the challenge is clear: we must ensure that everyone has access to good-quality eye healthcare. Already, 41 countries have made this commitment, with pledges exceeding $1 billion. Now we need the UK, as a world leader in eye healthcare, also to make this commitment. Will my hon. Friend the Minister agree to meet me to discuss this?
Chris Elmore
I was delighted to be at the eye health summit with my hon. Friend, and I want to put on record my congratulations to her on her dedication in leading this work on tackling global eye health. I know how truly committed she is to this process. I am more than happy to meet her and to sit down and engage on this subject, not just because it is important to her but because it matters across the Commonwealth and across nations beyond the Commonwealth. I am very happy to do that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
It remains crucial that the Government engage wholeheartedly with our friends and partners in the Commonwealth, especially now, in an insecure world, when other partnerships may be fraught. While I am pleased to see CHOGM emphasising the challenge of food insecurity, protecting our oceans and tackling climate change, it added up to warm words but sharp cuts in UK aid to Commonwealth nations. The aid budget to the Commonwealth has been slashed from £546 million in 2024-25 to £131 million in 2028-29, with over half of that going to Nigeria alone. All this is happening while humanitarian crises are continually underfunded and El Niño is already causing havoc around the world and is likely to force many millions more people into acute food insecurity over the next year. The King attended the launch of the Commonwealth nature initiative, but the UK Government failed to make a contribution. These cuts to official development assistance are hurting our partnerships in the Commonwealth, our international understanding and our influence.
The Prime Minister has talked about Labour values driving his agenda and not making the mistake of wearing too many Tory clothes. Does the Minister agree that presiding over the deepest aid cuts this century—deeper than Donald Trump’s in America—looks like trying on the last Conservative Government’s clothes, and that Labour values would involve a return to the 0.7% aid target, which has been legislated for by this House? Will the Minister lay out a timeline to do this? I applaud the Foreign Secretary’s desire to take action on development finance and tackle unsustainable debt, but with the G20 fast approaching, will the Minister make a statement on how he will do this, alongside taking action on illicit financial flows and multilateral development bank reform, and with COP31 in Antalya this week, will he reassure the House that the UK will uphold its commitments to tackling the climate crisis?
Chris Elmore
I thank the hon. Lady for her various questions. I agree with her on food security and I hope she knows the importance that the Government, and particularly the development Minister, place on that. She is right to challenge me on ODA funding. We do not agree, however. We have made difficult decisions in relation to defence spending and ensuring that the defence of this country is a first and clear priority. We have 0.3%, and we have set out on multiple occasions that the ambition is to return to 0.7%. I am not going to set out a timeframe for that from the Dispatch Box. I talked in my statement about the priorities around the G20, and I said that CHOGM was the first in a series of events, including COP, that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister will be in attendance for as we build towards the G20. I can confirm to the hon. Lady that we have allocated additional support in relation to pressures around El Niño. She is right to mention this, and the UK Government will always be supportive of tackling the climate crisis, however we are able to.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. He may not know that I am a former chief executive of the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council, which is responsible for the business forum. I hear that that was a great success this year, and I want to put on record my congratulations to Sam Cohen, its chief exec, and her team. If the Minister is keen to do a teach-in for the shadow Foreign Secretary on his learnings from India and Nigeria and our relationships with the Commonwealth, I would be very happy to join. Does the Minister agree that trade should be at the heart of our Commonwealth relationships, and that with such a trusted network of 56 countries with shared values, we should be supercharging trade around the Commonwealth and improving the lives and jobs of the nearly 3 billion people who are Commonwealth citizens?
Chris Elmore
My hon. Friend is right that the benefit of the Commonwealth is a significant part of our work and that trade should be at the front and centre of that. I am confident that the shadow Foreign Secretary is always keen for some educational improvement, so I am sure, between the two of us, we could give him some lessons on the work of the Commonwealth.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Shamefully, some 12.5 million slaves were sent across the Atlantic during the slave trade, and it is reckoned that 90% of them were captured and traded in horrific circumstances by African kings. Does the Minister agree that it would be ridiculous to hold the descendants of those African kings responsible for the sins of their fathers? Should we not learn from the King, our chief diplomat, by expressing sorrow from the depth of our soul, but not getting involved in apologies, let alone reparations?
Chris Elmore
I reassure the Father of the House that, as I said in my statement, there is no plan for, and our position has not changed on, reparations. I will not comment on any other countries’ part in the slave trade or any other type of offence, whatever the grievance, but this constructive dialogue is a clear way forward to engaging with Commonwealth nations, including African countries. It is about working and moving forward in the best way possible, and in a way that is honest and straightforward. I would argue strongly that those are British values. This is about a hope that this country can look forward, move forward and ensure that the Commonwealth is fit for the future, and does not simply focus on the past.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his statement. If he casts his mind back, he will remember the many conversations we had about Hurricane Melissa. I thank the Minister for the strengthening of partnerships among the 56 Commonwealth countries, but what steps are the Government taking to bolster the climate resilience of Commonwealth partners, particularly those on the frontline of climate change?
Chris Elmore
My hon. Friend is right about the many conversations that we had on behalf of her constituents during Hurricane Melissa and about the response of the UK Government. A succession of Administrations have worked to deliver climate resilient infrastructure that can withstand the impact of multiple hurricanes; I saw that myself when I was the first international Minister to visit Black River following the hurricane in December last year. We will continue that focus on climate resilience investment, and in some cases we can use procurement to offer British firms that work in individual countries. That will always remain a priority, and it is something that we take extremely seriously.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I gently remind right hon. and hon. Members that “Erskine May” is very clear, in paragraph 22.20, that the King’s name should not be used to try to influence debate.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
What was noticeable about the Minister’s statement was that there was no reference to discussions that the Prime Minister had with the Prime Ministers of Nigeria or Mauritius. Did he raise the issue of the more than 4,000 Christians killed in Nigeria this year? Did he raise the fact that my constituents, and the vast majority of the millions of people in this country, do not want to surrender the Chagos islands?
Chris Elmore
It is a matter of record that Ministers, including me—I am the ministerial lead on freedom of religion or belief—frequently raise with other countries the abuses of people of Christian and other faiths. I cannot comment on the individual conversations the Prime Minister has had, but I assure the House that these issues, including on all the various human rights abuses that take place internationally, are raised at the highest levels.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his statement. Like everyone across the House, I find it deplorable that any person can think they have the right to own another person and treat them like property, whether that is a historical or current injustice. What conversations has the Minister had with our Commonwealth allies about defence and security, which my Harlow constituents take very seriously? As I visited the BBC World Service recently, may I emphasise its importance to our soft power and influence?
Chris Elmore
My hon. Friend is quite right to raise the importance of defence and national security, particularly in relation to the Caribbean and other parts of the Commonwealth. He is also right—as the Minister within the Foreign Office responsible for the World Service, I wholeheartedly agree with him—about tackling disinformation. The investment we were able to secure during the spending review round to tackle Russian and other state interference, as well as misinformation, is absolutely crucial to the wider work of the Commonwealth and beyond.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I mean no disrespect to the Minister when I say that this statement should have been made by the Prime Minister. The Government have rightly championed the value of Commonwealth partnerships, but is the Minister aware that the Global Health Partnerships scheme set up by the coalition Government at a time of economic austerity—that has been enormously valuable to Commonwealth countries, as well as enhancing Britain’s national interest and our health services—now faces being defunded thanks to the savage cuts to the international development budget made by the last Government? Will he personally look at whether this great scheme can be saved?
Chris Elmore
I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for the work he has done across the international development space for many years. I take no offence from his requirement for the Prime Minister, but I am afraid he will have to put up with me. I am more than happy to review the matter. He will know of the difficult decisions we have taken in relation to ODA funding and the challenges it faces, as I said in answer to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding). These decisions are not easy. However, we take them extremely seriously and will keep them under review, particularly if at some point in the future we are able to move back towards higher ODA allocations.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
We are told that one of the core areas of discussion at last week’s meeting was climate resilience. Given that building climate resilience is now absolutely critical, particularly for small countries in the global south, could the Minister tell the House how he explained to them his Government’s decision to cut overseas aid by more than £1 billion last year? Could he share with the House what impact he was told that cut has had on many of our Commonwealth partners, many of which are having to live with and mitigate the worst effects of climate change, despite having contributed virtually nothing to creating the problem in the first place?
Chris Elmore
We are still investing in critical infrastructure and climate resilience developments right across the Caribbean and further afield. That work is not changing; it is still a focus of the Government. As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), I have seen this work up close. One of the ways in which we are mitigating some of the ODA funding cuts—I think he is aware of this—is by channelling our influence with philanthropic donations to ensure that we can work in this space and offer additional support. I know that it does not please him, but our support for Caribbean nations on climate resilience funding is warmly welcomed across the Caribbean, and that did not change in CHOGM.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Nobody disputes the evil of slavery, but I would caution the Government that they are being somewhat naive about going down the path towards an apology, because I fear that it will be seized on, as other pronouncements have been, by left-wing dominated international institutions and courts for which the ideology of decolonisation and the hostility to Israel is axiomatic. Before we know it, we will find ourselves going down a path whereby a Minister will stand at the Dispatch Box in a few years’ time and say, “I’m terribly sorry—we have no choice but to offer reparations.” We will find ourselves in exactly the same absurd position that the Church of England finds itself in; it is paying £100 million in reparations when its buildings are falling down. Can I urge the Minister not to go down this path? It is a very risky path indeed, as I know from Chagos and other negotiations.
Chris Elmore
I have huge respect for the right hon. Gentleman—he is a former Deputy Prime Minister of this country. I do not, however, agree with him on the path that he has somehow managed to weave in this Chamber by focusing on what may or may not happen. This constructive dialogue is time limited with a clear purpose, working with international partners. It is about trying to learn from our history but, crucially, to move forward into the future. As I said in my statement, our position on reparations has not changed.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Minister think that an apology for the slave trade issued by a Government who have absolutely no responsibility for it having happened, on behalf of a country in which there is no one alive who has any responsibility for what happened 300 and more years ago, will make the people who are seeking reparations more likely or less likely to intensify their demands?
Chris Elmore
I can say to the right hon. Gentleman that the response of international partners has been nothing but positive, and progress has been made on the constructive dialogue. We will not agree on this, I am sure, but the adult approach—the UK approach—is to respect and understand our past and move forward.
Chris Elmore
I am afraid it is indeed our past; the right hon. Gentleman might want to read a history book if he does not think it is the United Kingdom’s past. We will do this with an open mind and work towards a constructive solution over the coming year or so.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Overseas aid is critical to improving our security not just at home but around the world. It improves resilience, strengthens institutions and enables our Commonwealth brothers and sisters to thrive. The Minister references defence and national security spending decisions. I am sure he recognises how ODA investment makes our interests at home and overseas more secure. I am particularly concerned to see the cuts to funding for countries with existing programmes from £546 million to £131 million. Can the Minister explain in more detail how those cuts have been assessed and what impact they may have on programmes that are already in progress and on our security at home and overseas?
Chris Elmore
I am more than happy to explore in more detail with the hon. Gentleman individual country profiles and work, although this is published in the usual way in terms of the impact of decisions on countries. I will make a wider point, and he touched on it in his question: these are difficult decisions—I am not shying away from that—but I believe they are the right ones.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Today the Prime Minister has not come to the House to answer questions on his trip to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. Not answering questions is becoming a pattern. The Prime Minister broke with convention by not allowing journalists with him on the trip to ask questions on this matter. Is it because he is running scared and only likes to answer soft-soap questions on social media, or is it because he is partway through changing his mind on giving reparations to these countries, just like he changed his mind on Brexit and let down the country and his Makerfield constituents?
Chris Elmore
It is interesting that the right hon. Lady says there were no journalists there, because I am pretty sure the political editor of the BBC was there, along with a number of other journalists, but maybe she and I have different views on what we class as a journalist. I hasten to add that the last CHOGM statement was given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), not the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister, and that in 2022, which is the last time the statement was made when the Conservative party was in government—I hope it is the last for some considerable time—it was delivered by a Member of the House of Lords. Frankly, we have seen more leadership from my Prime Minister than the several dozen we went through in the 14 years when the Conservatives wrecked this country and left us the mess we have inherited.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
First, I thank the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for the opportunity to attend CHOGM as a Member of this House, along with the hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) and for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd). I know the Minister is here in place of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, but I want to congratulate him on how he handled himself in the panels that he spoke on, which were about some very challenging topics for this Government. As we all agree on the value of the Commonwealth, what steps will the Government take to enhance the resilience of supply chains across the Commonwealth, to ensure that every part can benefit equally?
Chris Elmore
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments about my panel performance; I do not do them often, so it is nice to know that when I do, there is at least one person in the audience who is glad of it. He is quite right to talk about the importance of supply chains. Part of our focus is ensuring that all Commonwealth nations, no matter how small or large—but crucially, the smaller states—have these tangible and meaningful benefits of being a member of the Commonwealth family.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
The Minister played a significant role in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association UK branch and internationally prior to his appointment. Were there any discussions at CHOGM about the role that Parliaments and parliamentarians across the Commonwealth can play in the future shape of the Commonwealth?
Chris Elmore
The right hon. Gentleman is my successor as the Opposition ranking member in CPA UK, and it is nice to know that he probably does a better job than I ever did. [Hon. Members: “Aw!”] I have got the sympathy vote, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I was very glad to meet the secretary-general of CPA International to take part in a panel on democracy and the need for improved scrutiny, as well as support for Clerks, Speakers and Deputy Speakers, and I pay tribute to the work that Mr Speaker and his deputies do in this space. We see it as an absolute focus of how we can improve future CHOGMs, and of how—between CHOGMs—we can work internationally with Commonwealth Parliaments right across the globe. It is a crucial part of our work and the work of CPA UK and CPA International.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
The only thing that is exceptional about Britain’s record on slavery is that we were the first country in the world to abolish it. We are the country of William Wilberforce. We are the country of the West Africa Squadron. Why are we entertaining this performative far-left nonsense? Why does the Prime Minister not just focus on what the British people actually want, which is to cut the cost of living and do something that helps our own constituents? [Interruption.] Government Members can groan as much as they want, but I wager this: what I am saying is more in tune with the people of this country than anything that we have heard from them today.
Chris Elmore
If the right hon. Gentleman is looking for performative nonsense, he should engage a mirror. In relation to this work, I know it is difficult for him to comprehend, but two things can be true at the same time. I am extremely proud of the work that the Royal Navy, the Government and William Wilberforce did—I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the history lesson—but we can also say that there is an important piece of work to do around acknowledging our past and moving forward. As I say, I know that is difficult for him, but nevertheless that is really what is going to happen.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I draw the Minister’s attention to the comments that he made about the conversations with world leaders at CHOGM and not being able to engage. Half of the Government’s written statement on CHOGM was about conversations with Navin Ramgoolam around Mauritius and the Chagos deal. The Government are prepared to discuss a shared handover plan before Christmas with regard to Chagos. Last year, they also cited the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea as the main and most proximate threat to our ownership of the Chagos islands. Yet today and tomorrow, the Attorney General and six King’s counsel are in Hamburg at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea discussing British sovereignty claims. Why are the Government prepared to defend against ITLOS with regard to the Falkland Islands, but are prepared to give the Chagos islands away due to the potential threat of ITLOS?
Chris Elmore
I understand the connection that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I am going to disappoint him and not bite. The reality is that if he wishes to engage in this matter, he should engage with the Attorney General directly and, more importantly, with the Minister for the Overseas Territories, who I am sure would be happy to speak to him.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)
I thank the Minister for his statement, and I am pleased that he put on record his thanks to the Government of Antigua and Barbuda for hosting the conference. The issue of slavery obviously came up. Many in this House do not want to discuss it, but the reality is that the slave trade and slavery made a lot of wealthy people in this country even wealthier, the compensation paid was massive, and many big British companies still benefit from the profits of it. That leads to the issue of the systemic debt that many former colonies have, the imbalance of trade, the inequality and the poverty. The issue of reparations will not go away just because the Minister wishes it to go away; it is live, strong and will be debated for as long as it takes to get some kind of global justice.
Chris Elmore
The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of debt relief. That is part of the work that happened at this CHOGM, and the whole point of the constructive dialogue is to look at some of the Caribbean Community asks and wider pieces of work on culture, heritage and education. However, to be clear, our position on reparations has not changed. I refer him to the fact that various Governments around the Caribbean, and indeed in west Africa, have warmly welcomed this dialogue from the Prime Minister and accept that there are parts of this work on which Britain will have clear positions. That does not mean that we cannot set up a constructive dialogue jointly and work on the priorities together, but our position on reparations is not going to change.
Mobile Phones in Schools
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on education technology and mobile phones in schools.
Today’s children are growing up in a world shaped by smartphones, social media and artificial intelligence. Technology can bring enormous opportunities, but schools remain—and must remain—a place where children can focus, learn and connect with one another. Technology’s role in education should be to support learning, not to get in its way.
Earlier this year, with support from across the House, the Government strengthened guidance on mobile phones in schools to back teachers and parents in making schools mobile phone-free. Since that updated ban started in September, many schools have taken great steps to tackle the disruption that mobile phones can cause, and I am grateful to school leaders and teachers who have worked hard to create calm, focused classrooms. However, many teachers and pupils tell us that phones are still being used under desks, in the toilets and in the playground. Department for Education data published today tells a similar story: only 16% of secondary pupils say that their school’s mobile phone rules are followed all of the time. That means that teachers are spending valuable time spotting phone use; that school leaders are having difficult conversations about enforcement; and, most importantly, that digital distraction continues to crowd out learning.
How schools choose to implement the existing policy really does matter. Leaders need to feel more empowered by Government to make schools genuinely mobile phone-free environments. In schools where pupils are allowed to keep their phone in their bag or blazer—those with so-called “not seen, not heard” policies—only 20% of school leaders report that the rules are followed all of the time. By contrast, in schools with mandatory collection policies, 74% of leaders report that the rules are followed.
That is why I am today announcing that we will update statutory guidance to make it clear that schools should have policies that ensure children cannot have unsecured mobile phones in their blazer or bag throughout the school day. This backs teachers and leaders by giving them the clarity they are asking for. It still gives schools the choice as to whether phones are collected at the start of the day, kept in secure lockers or stored in a lockable pouch, or any other strategy that ensures phones are not within reach of children. We—parents, teachers and Government—need to work together to change children’s expectations about what the school day looks like. It should be a time to get lost in learning and make friendships that last a lifetime, not to be stuck doomscrolling in the corner of the playground.
The revised guidance will come into effect from September 2027, although we encourage schools to move towards implementation sooner if they can. Schools will continue to be able to make reasonable adjustments and exemptions where appropriate, including for pupils with medical needs and those with special educational needs and disabilities. We will work closely with school leaders as the guidance is developed. We want to learn from schools that have already led the way on this issue, ensuring that the approach is practical, proportionate, and able to meet the needs of children and teachers in different settings.
The second plank of this change is a new approach to deploying technology in schools. Today, we are launching a public consultation on establishing independent safety certification of education technology, or edtech, in schools, colleges and early years settings in England. Well designed and purposeful use of technology can support teaching, learning and the smooth running of settings. We also have a duty to support children and young people to learn to use technology confidently and safely. However, technology should never get in the way of learning. It should enhance, rather than shortcut, cognitive development, and without question it must be safe. Children’s safety and their educational outcomes, human interaction and teacher-led direct instruction must remain at the heart of our education system.
The Department for Education already sets standards for the safe use of technology, but settings are often still left to make sense of whether technology products meet those standards. These can be complex and technical issues about data protection or content safety, for example. That is why we are launching today’s consultation, which will invite views on whether certification for specific categories of technology should be introduced. It will explore which types of technology pose the greatest risks, including through exposure to harmful content, the use of children’s personal data and the impacts on cognitive development or social and emotional wellbeing. The consultation will ask about the standards and criteria that should underpin any scheme. The aim is to reduce the risk of harm to children, remain proportionate for suppliers of all sizes, be robust over time and be useful for educational settings. Findings from the consultation will inform the design of any future certification scheme, including the appropriate timescales for its introduction.
The proposed change to mobile phone guidance and the consultation on edtech safety certification meet the Government’s wider vision for childhood and education. International evidence, including the latest results from the programme for international student assessment, shows the strength of England’s education system. We are determined to go further to improve reading, writing, oracy and numeracy; to strengthen engagement; and to make schools unmissable for children. We want to go further on the depth and rigour of reading, so that we can inspire a love of reading for all children.
PISA highlights the risks when technology begins to replace the challenge, rigour and human interaction that define great teaching and learning. Technology has a place in our classrooms, but it should always be in support of learning, not become a substitute for it. To quote directly from PISA’s recent report:
“Technology can be a powerful amplifier of learning, but only if students are equipped with the cognitive and metacognitive tools to use it wisely. That means protecting time for reading in the school day. It means designing digital learning platforms that reward reflection, not just reaction.”
This Government are determined to get ahead of these challenges by shaping the role that technology plays in children’s lives, rather than leaving children to be shaped by it. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I am delighted to come to the House today to welcome a proper phone ban in place for schools. The Government have finally done the right thing, but they have been on what I would euphemistically describe as a journey. We should remember that the former Prime Minister told us that a legislative phone ban was “completely unnecessary”. The previous Education Secretary, the right hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), stood opposite me here and, in her warm and friendly manner, dismissed it as “a headline-grabbing gimmick”. When I raised this topic at Education questions, a then Education Minister told me to think of something better to go on—not condescending at all. When I asked the Government in this House to rule out a “not seen, not heard” policy, they refused. The stats that the Minister is citing today are correct, but they are essentially the same as the stats we quoted a year ago in this House, and the Government refused to act on them.
Let me remind Labour Members how many times they voted against a legislative phone ban in schools: not once, not twice, but seven times. Even the Minister, who I am sure has agreed with me all along, was forced through the voting Lobbies time and again, and the new Education Secretary, who also voted against it, has clearly had a change of heart.
The Conservatives and, to be fair, the Liberal Democrats, who also supported the ban, were told by Ministers that the majority of schools had a phone ban in place and that the existing guidance was working. It was therefore quite something this morning to have facts that I was repeatedly told in this House were incorrect being used by the Education Secretary, in the media, to justify the new guidance. We must also remember that the guidance was put on a statutory footing only a month ago. One month, and already the Government have to come back and toughen it up. We could have saved a lot of time and confusion for schools if the Government had just listened to us in the first place.
The Minister has confirmed that the guidance will only come in next September. That is a self-inflicted whole extra year of lost learning time while schools have a previous set of guidance, issued only a month ago, that the Education Secretary admitted this morning is not working—all because the Government refused to listen to the evidence. That is at best frustrating and at worst chaotic.
We have got there in the end, however, and this is a significant moment. I pay tribute to the many campaigners who have fought for this, the many parents who have spoken out and the many pupils who have bravely spoken about their own experiences. Smartphones in schools are a disaster for learning, a disaster for safeguarding and a disaster for happiness. This is an important step forward in giving children their childhood back.
I welcome the news that the Government are consulting on an independent safety certification for edtech. Will the Minister clarify whether the review will look at all edtech products currently being used in schools or just new edtech products entering the market? Will he also confirm that the review will look at education outcomes as well as safeguarding? Does he have a timeframe for the consultation? How is the review consistent with rolling out unevidenced AI tutors for the most disadvantaged? Those are the very pupils who need evidence-led, teacher-led support. Will the Government commit to not rolling out the programme until they can guarantee the safety and efficacy of AI tutors?
I welcome the Government finally getting to the right place. A full phone ban in schools is the right thing for behaviour and attainment in our classrooms. It will keep schools as places of learning and will turn the tide on the pervasive screen creep that is destroying childhood. We must never accept that just because something is new, it is progress; just because it involves technology, it is automatically better; and we must never again allow anything into our classrooms that has not been proven to be safe for children.
Josh MacAlister
In the spirit of problem solving, I welcome much of what has been shared by the right hon. Lady in response to the statement, and I too thank all the campaigners outside this House and all the Members, both Government and Opposition, who have been pushing for progress on this issue for so long.
This is an issue that we, as politicians, will have to keep coming back to in future. If we look back at what happened with legislation to respond to the rise of the use of motor vehicles, we had to pass Bill after Bill in this House to make sure that seat belts and car safety were brought up to the mark. It was genuine iteration. Government and Parliament took action and the industry responded. In truth, we will have to stick at this for years to come. Hopefully, it is a point of reassurance that this Government are committed to getting ahead of these issues and to iterating time and again to get ahead of the problem.
A lot has changed in the last year on the strengthened guidance that we introduced. The proportion of schools with full bans has doubled since September, which is extremely welcome. I also draw the House’s attention to the fact that this was an issue that the Conservatives did a lot of speaking about when they were in government. I have here a list of all the occasions on which the 10 Conservative Education Secretaries had a chance to do something about this. They were raising the point as far back as 2018. [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady says that I said they were right. I felt a lot of sympathy with those views when they were shared originally; the difference—and it is a big difference—is that we have done something about it. In a way, the best reflection of a party’s priorities is how that party chooses to use the precious time that is available to legislate, whether we choose botching Brexit, making a mess of a Budget, pushing a phoney war with trade unions—as the Conservatives were doing in their final few months in government—or prioritising children and legislating for children. We have done the latter, and I am delighted that we have done it. We were only able to do it because we had a Bill, and we prioritised it in this House.
Josh MacAlister
Well, we put it on a statutory footing because we had a piece of legislation.
The question that is worth a moment of response was about the educational outcomes being within the scope of the certification process. AI tutors are a real concern, but there is an opportunity there. The Government are funding some of the leading companies around the world to develop products. They will then go into a separate programme for which we have funding, led by the Education Endowment Foundation, to establish the impact on educational outcomes and attainment. It is entirely right to suggest that there should be no widespread deployment of this technology before we know its full effects on cognitive development. Of course, there are also safety issues.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Education Committee.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, and welcome the announcement of strengthened guidance on mobile phones in schools. It constitutes agreement with the Select Committee, which called for a policy whereby children have no access to their phones during the school day rather than a “not seen or heard” policy. The Committee also said that schools should be given the resources, where needed, to implement such a policy in full. For secondary schools, the cost of buying pouches can be as much as £20,000. How will the Government ensure that schools have the resources to implement the policy effectively?
The Committee is currently undertaking an inquiry on AI and edtech. We have received a vast amount of evidence about the complexity of this landscape and the challenges that schools face in respect of procurement and the deployment of technology, and understanding the pedagogical basis that underpins it. Standards should be set, and I welcome the Government’s consultation, but they should be set in relation to a clear sense of the educational purpose of the technology, a deep understanding of pedagogy, and an understanding of the technology itself. What work has been undertaken on those aspects to underpin the Government’s thinking in this area?
Josh MacAlister
I thank the hon. Lady for her long-standing campaigning and support for these issues, including the work that she has done in her role as the Chair of the Education Committee. The source of the Government’s confidence in recommending this as the approach that all schools should take from September next year is that 39% of secondary schools are already, from within their existing budgets, able to implement a full ban, which means that young people are not taking phones around the school in the middle of the day. They have found a number of means of doing that, which include pouches. We will work closely with school leaders very closely to ensure that this is implemented effectively next September.
The hon. Lady asked about the role of the certification process, and the deployment of AI tools and the need to ensure that they are effective. I completely agree with her description of the complicated landscape that headteachers and subject leads face when deciding what to use: that is exactly why we want the certification process to go alongside the trials and the evaluation work that we want to do, specifically on the use of AI tools in the classroom. We need to do that as quickly as we can, but, as the hon. Lady will know, the quality of these trials needs to be robust enough to provide schools with really clear guidance.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I very much welcome this change of heart from the Government. There is no place for phones during the school day, and stronger guidance for schools on mobile phone use is a very welcome step, as is the edtech review. Classrooms should be places of focus and learning, free from the addictive and demanding world of social media that, sadly, so often leads to bullying, but schools need the right equipment and procedures in place.
We Liberal Democrats are very clear that it should be up to headteachers to decide how they keep phones out of reach of pupils, but I reiterate the Chair of the Education Committee’s comments that this will come at a cost and that school budgets are already stretched to breaking point. Some schools will ask parents to buy the pouches, but parents are already facing the ever-rising costs of sending children to school. Can the Minister assure me that school leaders across the country will have the necessary funding to implement the guidance effectively?
For schools that want to ban smartphones completely—some are going down that route already—one barrier is that some bus companies require bus fares to be paid on an app on a smartphone, and they are not willing to change their ways. Is the Minister looking at these sorts of barriers for schools that want to go a step further?
I welcome the clear assurance from the Minister that, for pupils with medical or special educational needs and disabilities, appropriate exemptions and adjustments will be made by schools. This must not be onerous or discriminatory towards individual children. Will he confirm that young carers will be included in such exemptions?
Finally, with an increasing number of schools giving children digital devices to do schoolwork on throughout the school day, and then homework at home, can the Minister confirm whether the edtech review will also look at the amount of screen time that children in schools are being exposed to?
Josh MacAlister
I know that the hon. Member has been a keen campaigner on these issues over a number of years. On resources for implementation, as I shared in response to the question from the Chair of the Education Committee, we know that 40% of secondary schools have already implemented, from within their existing budgets, some version of a complete ban during the school day. With the range of options that are available, we are confident that schools will be able to implement this change, but we will engage closely with school leaders over the coming months to ensure that we have a version of this that is effective and can be implemented with the resources that are available.
I turn to buses. Payments are an issue in my own constituency, where Stagecoach requires young people to have an app much of the time. It is something we need to look at, and the hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight it. Setting out the changes now, with the lead-in that we have, means that we can get to work on tackling some of those issues. There are lots of other options for how bus companies can get young people to use their services without insisting on payment through a smartphone.
The hon. Lady’s important point on young carers is well made, and I would be very happy to look at that further.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Parents across Bracknell Forest will welcome the strengthened guidance on mobile phones in schools and the fact that the Government are having a look at edtech. I agree with the Minister that we need to make sure that the guidance is implemented in an intentional way, guided by pedagogy. May I ask him to touch on data concerns? One of my concerns about AI being utilised in the classroom without clear guidance is that we need to make sure that the data is kept safe and secure. It should not be the case that foreign tech companies are profiting from sensitive data from our young people.
Josh MacAlister
I thank my hon. Friend for flagging this issue. The edtech certification process that is out for consultation today asks questions about this, and the intention is for the design of the scheme to go beyond classroom edtech and apply to edtech that may enable the smooth running of a school. That includes complex technical questions about things such as data privacy and collection.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I presume it is too much to expect a Government Minister to admit that the shadow Education Secretary was right to propose this measure previously and that the Government were wrong to vote against it, so let me ask him something easier to answer. What does he think the measures will be in the evolutionary process that he describes when schoolchildren start returning to the classroom with long essays that have clearly been the result of the application of AI? It will put teachers in an extremely difficult position, and it would be good if we could be ahead of that particular curve.
Josh MacAlister
The right hon. Member asks excellent questions in this House, and I am very happy to answer the specific one about homework and AI. He is right to highlight that this is an issue to which we will need to return in years to come. In fact, in many ways homework has already been highly disrupted by the use of generative AI tools. The issue for school leaders and teachers is ensuring there are methods of assessment and pushing learning that have grit and friction. Often that will need to be in the classroom, where we can be confident that AI tools are not being used to do the cognitive offloading, meaning children miss out on the opportunity to grow and develop, which is what our schools should be all about.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Speaking as a former teacher and, indeed, as a parent, I warmly welcome this announcement from the Minister. Our schools should be phone-free environments focused on learning. Furthermore, as a parent, when my daughter Alice leaves the front door in the morning to go to her brilliant Hartlepool school, and when she leaves the school gate at the end of the school day, I do want to be able to contact her and to know where she is. Does the Minister agree with me that schools banning pupils even being able to arrive at school with a phone are going too far, and that lots of parents would have serious concerns about that?
Josh MacAlister
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the challenges in some of these debates, but I think headteachers are in an incredibly good position to make these judgment calls for their school community. They do not do that lightly; they often do it in deep collaboration with parents and the wider school community. I have been to schools that have completely banned mobile phones, including on the way to and from the school. In some places, there will be reasons why that is not appropriate—we have heard from some Members about public transport options—but I do think it is down to headteachers to make those decisions. They of course have the best interests of children at heart, and they can see the impact some of these measures have on children in their school.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I am proud to say that we are ahead of the game in Tunbridge Wells. When the Government failed to pass the legislation originally, its secondary schools got together, agreed a shared policy and implemented it. The policy was to have no smartphones on the school grounds, which therefore means pupils will not be taking smartphones on buses either. Dumbphones can be carried for the purposes of safety if necessary, but they have to be switched off during the school day. That was rolled out this September, the feedback is good and it seems very successful. Have the Government considered this as an option?
Josh MacAlister
We are aware of that option being available to schools, and I know of some schools that have taken that approach. Part of the reason why we are making this announcement this week, with sufficient time ahead of implementation of updated guidance for September next year, is to extract the best learning from existing practice in the school system, including the school referenced by the hon. Member. We want to make sure that the way in which this is described allows for the best existing practice that has been developed, including the use of what are sometimes called dumbphones.
Dr Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the announcement of this updated guidance. I still remember not long ago the look of embarrassment on the faces behind the shadow Secretary of State when she opposed the Government’s efforts to get to grips with Grok and nudification apps. Of course, the most harmful behaviour on phones happens outside school, so would the Minister update us on the Government’s progress in keeping children safe from the features of their phones that can cause real damage?
Josh MacAlister
Yes, there is a wider set of issues to do with children and technology. The Government have taken action on a full social media ban, which will come into effect next year. Action has been taken against AI chatbots and nudification images, and there is of course the action we are taking today, which builds on action we took earlier this year. All of that taken together is this House and the Government trying to wrestle with the best way to move on this issue and get ahead of it. As I said earlier, I believe we will have to come back to this issue time and again to be ahead of the curve.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
On the conversation about exclusions, may I make the case for young carers not to be excluded from the freedom to learn because of the distraction of what might be going on at home? That is why I have been calling—in conjunction with MYTIME Young Carers, a wonderful local charity—for a young carers champion in every school. I have written to the Minister to ask for a meeting to discuss that. Will he now agree to meet me to see how we can protect young carers not just in having a single point of contact, but in everything we do for them in our schools?
Josh MacAlister
I apologise for the lack of response to the hon. Lady. As I am not the Minister responsible for young carers, I would be the wrong person to speak to, but I am sure my colleague would be happy to meet her. As a former teacher, I recognise and agree wholly with what she said about the need for children to be freed up, especially if they have that burden and responsibility in their home life. Most of us in this House are, I think, of an age where we did go to school without smartphones in our pockets. There were ways of speaking to the head of year, going to the school reception and contacting home, and there is no reason why that cannot work in the future.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I stopped being a teacher in 2020. I am pretty certain that kids had smartphones in 2020, yet I heard nothing from the then Government about banning them, so it is a bit rich of the Opposition to suggest that we have done nothing about it.
On young carers, the Minister will know that I am a big advocate of supporting them and have often raised the issue of young carer leads in every school. Will he add to what he has said about ensuring that young carers are not disadvantaged, taking into account what he said to the previous speaker?
Josh MacAlister
My hon. Friend mentions young carers about as much as he mentions Harlow! [Interruption.] Yes, very disappointing!
To repeat the point, it is important that young carers at school have the freedom to get on and learn. There are ways of ensuring they have the ability to contact home. I know there are thousands of heads of year and pastoral leads in schools who have a very good understanding of the children in their school and will help to facilitate that connection so that they are not isolated or disconnected.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I welcome the steps the Minister outlined to ensure phones will no longer be a distraction in the classroom, but for many children they can be a lifeline if they have chronic conditions such as type 1 diabetes. I am pleased to see an acknowledgement about an exemption for medical or disability purposes. My concern is that if there is a supply teacher, or if children are moving year group or moving school and transitioning, how will the information be passed on to ensure we do not end up in a situation where a child needs to use a medical device or app on their phone to monitor their health condition and they end up being denied it?
Josh MacAlister
I thank the hon. Member for making that important point. Schools already have systems in place for ensuring that there are handovers between teachers. I cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and guarantee him that in every single case across the entire country, 22,000 schools will always get it exactly right, but it is important that schools have those systems in place. The Government support them to do that. He is right that having that exemption and clarity for those who need to use a device that assists them with medical needs will still be important in future.
Mary Creagh (Coventry East) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the staff, students and governors at Stoke Park secondary school, who have a “Never used, seen or heard” mobile phone policy? They were in this place yesterday at the Education Centre with a bunch of year 9 students, and we debated the ban on social media for young people. Does he agree that that is an essential next step in giving our children their childhoods back and protecting them from extreme anorexia, the manosphere, pornography and self-harming websites?
Josh MacAlister
I agree with my hon. Friend’s statement and thank the leaders at Stoke Park secondary school for being ahead of the curve and taking action on the use of smartphones in schools. This measure is part of our action to ensure that those below 16 are unable to access social media, so that they get their childhoods back. My hon. Friend will know that I have supported that from a number of different positions in Government, as well as with a private Member’s Bill that set out exactly that, along with some of the changes that we have now brought in for schools.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I have had over 500 emails from constituents calling for a smartphone-free childhood, so I welcome today’s announcement. However, while restricting access to smartphones, schools are increasingly issuing laptops and tablets that pupils can take home and use beyond the school day. As some independent schools are re-examining the role of screens in education, technology use is expanding across the state school sector. Will the Minister explain how the Government will ensure that one form of screen dependency is not simply being replaced by another? What consideration has been given to the amount of time that children spend using school-issued devices both in and outside the classroom?
Josh MacAlister
The hon. Member has hit the nail on the head: that is the issue that schools need to navigate at the moment, and we need to help them. The edtech certification, on which we are starting the consultation, is designed to tackle exactly that issue and help school leaders navigate some of those choices, as are the trials and evaluations that we will put in place on AI chatbots. That is linked to the warnings from PISA about school systems elsewhere in the world, where technology has been left to let rip in the education system and has displaced books, reading, writing and some of the more tactile things that we know children need in school to have the right cognitive development.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. On Friday, I visited Lancaster high school in my constituency; under the leadership of Colin Malone, it has seen its best-ever GCSE results. During my visit, I did not see or hear a mobile phone. It is an example of a mobile-phone ban ensuring that children’s educational outcomes are improved. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Colin Malone on his leadership? My question to the Minister is about changing technology. While we are talking about mobile phones, I am aware that technology is moving on, with AI glasses and smartwatches also in the mix. Does he have any thoughts on that?
Josh MacAlister
Yes, certainly. First, congratulations to the students and staff at Lancaster high school on their GCSE results. It is encouraging to hear that part of that success is the leadership of the school driving down the use of smartphones altogether. I share my hon. Friend’s concerns about some of the advances in technology, and I am determined and prepared to further clarify guidance, particularly in relation to smart glasses, so that it is absolutely clear—it is clear already—that they should not be anywhere near our schools.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and the way that he has addressed other issues around edtech, which are also very important. Could he say more about the work that will be taken forward with parents in the next few months, so that there can be further discussion about this important issue to help parents understand how the Government are taking policy forward?
Josh MacAlister
Absolutely. I have not had a chance to share with the House that we will be issuing guidance for parents of older children at the start of next year on healthy screentime use, which is linked to the action we are taking for education settings as well as the wider social media ban that will come into effect next year. It will build on guidance that is already in place for very young children, where there has been concern about excessive screen use for those in early years settings.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
Will the Minister congratulate King Edward VI high school in my constituency, which has rolled out a phone-free school programme this year that the young people have welcomed? However, other headteachers across my constituency—at Sir Graham Balfour, Stafford Manor and Blessed William Howard schools—have said that the resources needed to administer a phone-free school are a challenge. Will the Minister say more about the support we can provide to schools that are putting the measures in place?
Josh MacAlister
I thank the teachers and the headteacher at King Edward VI high school. I will also share a reflection that many Members of the House will have had from school visits, which is that children who may have gone into the process thinking that they would miss accessing their smartphones in break time—or sometimes in lessons, when they should not be on them—often described the freedom that comes from focusing that big chunk of the day on in-person interaction and learning. As I have said, just under 40%—39%—of secondary schools already have a full effective ban in place in line with what we are proposing. We will, of course, engage with school leaders in the coming months to ensure that our proposal is designed in such a way that it will be implemented effectively.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
It was great to see local schools like the Priory and Hitchin Boys’ and Girls’ lead the way on keeping phones out of the classroom. Having campaigned with parents and teachers to make this a norm, I am delighted that the Government are leading on this issue. As others have alluded to, the growth of generative AI is threatening to tread on children’s learning in the same way that smartphones did; just as we did with smartphones, we should not treat that as inevitable or unavoidable. How does the Minister intend to support our schools to ensure that generative AI can be used as an effective tool to support learning, but kept out of the spaces where it can be harmful to learning?
Josh MacAlister
My hon. Friend is right to highlight this matter. He has been a massive campaigner on these issues in his constituency and in this House, as have others. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) has also been a big advocate for these issues. Earlier this year I was in Estonia, which has a high-performing school system and is adept at making good use of technology. While I was there, I saw the care and thought that went into the development of generative AI models that could be Socratic with pupils—they could coach and teach back and forth. Anything like that would need to go through rigorous testing to ensure that educational outcomes would be improved, but that shows the care and thought that needs to go into the deployment of such technologies.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement on smart glasses, which I profoundly believe should be banned from all public buildings as a matter of urgency. In the Information Commissioner’s findings about edtech, it already has concerns about the data that those companies admit they are farming on children. My concern is about the totality of the information that can be gleaned about children from across both the technology they use at home—such as their smartphones, including their location, and from apps that they might have, such as menstrual trackers, where children might not understand the importance of the personal data that they are sharing—and edtech. I am concerned that by the time AI recruitment decisions are being made, when the current generation are 25, 30 or 40 years old, the totality of information that could be known about them online will be staggering. Will the Minister take an approach that involves high levels of scrutiny of the totality of information that could be held about children, both from the edtech sector and outside of it?
Josh MacAlister
My hon. Friend has done a very good job of describing the complicated nature of some of the risks and concerns that will affect this generation of children, the first to grow up online to this extent. It is because of the issues my hon. Friend raises that we are proposing an edtech certification scheme. As I have stressed in response to other hon. Members, it is about not just edtech in the classroom, but any use of technology in education settings, including colleges and early years settings and schools, that captures data in order to improve the running of the school or homework or other services. We want to ensure that that certification scheme covers all those services.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
I welcome the thought that has gone into this new guidance for schools on phones, but young people have told me that their worst relationship with their devices is when they are at home, not when they are at school. I really welcome the independent safety certification approach, but we need to close the loopholes on safety for digital devices across the board so that they meet the same standards as technology everywhere. Does the Minister agree that we have more work to do to implement digital product safety so that technology is safe for everybody, everywhere, all the time?
Josh MacAlister
I wholly agree with my hon. Friend that we have much more work to do. The magic of the social media ban, which comes alongside a series of other Government actions to reclaim childhood, is that if we get it right, it will give hours of time back to children. The time that is being used for doomscrolling at the moment is taking away time for children to do real-life things that are hard and rewarding and that give them genuine joy. When I have spoken to young people and asked, “If you got an hour back from your screen, what would you do?”, there is such a variety of answers, and that gives us a real sense that those things are what children should be doing. It just goes to underscore the importance of the ban.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
I have been inundated with hundreds of messages from parents and my local Smartphone Free Childhood group, who are deeply concerned about the impact of their children’s smartphone use. Many have felt that the missing piece has been a decisive intervention—the hard stop that a complete ban in schools can provide. Does the Minister agree that this clearer, stronger guidance can provide parents with the confidence that they need that a phone-free school is just that?
Josh MacAlister
Absolutely. The action that we are taking today, building on action that the Government have announced in recent months, is all about trying to make this a common effort across parents, schools, Government and society. We do want to draw a line and recognise that it has gone too far and that we did not get ahead of this issue as a society. We want to get children their childhood back. [Interruption.] Members on the Conservative Benches who are heckling me on this point will know that we are only able to do that because we have prioritised legislative time to focus on children—not something that could be said of the Conservatives in their final few years in government.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, which answers the call from many school leaders in my constituency for the Government to lead on this issue and provide a consistent approach that all schools can follow. Will he join me in praising Winsford academy in my constituency, which took bold action in early 2024 to introduce phone pouches after more than 350 incidents over a five-week period. The school reported immediate improvements in concentration and social interaction, and they were sustained over time. Does he agree that this is exactly the sort of outcome we want replicated across all schools?
Josh MacAlister
Absolutely. Winsford academy, like many schools, has got ahead of this issue. I imagine that the teachers there saw the big impact on learning and teaching that uncontrolled smartphone use had in the school. It is because of the work of those schools—40% of secondary schools have gone ahead of the existing statutory guidance and are making sure that children do not have access to phones in their blazers or bags—that we are confident that we can do this for the whole of England. We are drawing the line in the sand a bit further and saying that when children are in schools, they should not have any of the distractions that come with a smartphone or any phone at all.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
The Stanway school in Colchester gained national attention through a Channel 4 documentary called “Swiped: The School That Banned Smartphones”, in which phone-free experiments saw pupils who took part reporting lower anxiety, improved concentration and an extra hour of sleep each night. Does the Minister agree that the experience of students in Colchester demonstrates the benefits of smartphone-free schools? What support will be in place to help more schools adopt those policies?
Josh MacAlister
I went to the screening of “Swiped” when it came out and met some of the staff who were involved in the project and some of the researchers. The project showed the impact on children over a period of weeks when they had that time freed back up. If I remember rightly, part of the experiment involved children putting their phones in a perspex box on the way into school, and it was left there for a number of weeks. I do wonder what the impact on this House would be if we were to do the same as an experiment.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for today’s announcement. As a former teacher, he knows better than most that the best kind of learning happens away from the screen. We are joined in the Gallery by my mum, who is a wonderful grandma to my boys, baby Louis and Robin. Does the Minister agree with me and my mum that those early screen habits are very important and that the Government should set clear guidance for parents, grandparents and carers about the importance of screentime habits at home?
Josh MacAlister
Quite. What a what a lovely answer to be able to give: I agree with my hon. Friend and his mum about this issue. Of course, this is an intergenerational issue as lots of young people grow up with the care, love and support of aunts, uncles and grandparents. It will be essential to ensure that everyone is on board with these changes so that we can set that new norm.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his strong and consistent leadership on this issue over the last two years. I totally agree that the expectation should be for school leaders, parents and the Government to work together. I really welcome what he said about further guidance being on the way for parents.
Some constituents have contacted me with concerns about how some schools have been proactively sending out guidance from the Smartphone Free Childhood campaign whereas others have said that that is perhaps a partisan campaign, which seems to me to be overly cautious. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the Smartphone Free Childhood campaign and expand on whether he thinks that some of its campaigns, such as the parent pact, are useful tools for parents?
Josh MacAlister
I thank my hon. Friend for his campaigning and leadership on this issue in his constituency. I know that he has an active Smartphone Free Childhood campaign group and that he has been a big advocate with Joe and Daisy, the leaders of the movement. Many hon. Members across the House will be familiar with the campaign; I would not describe it as partisan at all. The campaigners have built a remarkable community behind the change, and the attention that they have brought to this issue has been part of what has shifted politics on it in recent years.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I welcome these measures. Parents and teachers have called for them. This is the right thing to do.
The Facebook whistleblower Sarah Wynn-Williams said that Meta would target teenage girls who deleted selfies with advertising for beauty products, skincare and even cosmetic procedures, monetising their insecurity. Tech giants have repeatedly shown that they will not regulate themselves. Is the Minister having conversations with the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that algorithms are regulated to protect our kids?
Josh MacAlister
I thank my hon. Friend for the question. I am familiar with Sarah Wynn-Williams’s book and the claims made in it, which are extremely serious. The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is concerned about the need for the public square, which we find now to be largely online, to reflect the British values we have in everyday life. She is personally passionate about that, and that approach is shaping her attitude towards the forthcoming social media ban.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
In Cheshire, we are leading the way on Esther Ghey’s phone-free education campaign, with 92% of state high schools in the county using lockable phone pouches this school year. That was made possible in no small part thanks to funding and leadership from our Labour police and crime commissioner, Dan Price. Will the Minister visit Cheshire to see the difference that that is making to safeguarding and educational outcomes in our local schools?
Josh MacAlister
I join my hon. Friend in recognising the heroic leadership and commitment of Esther Ghey following the shocking, appalling circumstances her family have faced in recent years. She has been able to turn that into such positive, hopeful campaigning, which is proving to be very effective. I saw Esther a couple of weeks ago, when she raised issues to do with this very guidance with me. It is a tribute to her.
I also recognise the leadership of Dan Price, whom I know. He has spoken to me about the work he has done with schools as police and crime commissioner for Cheshire. He caught on to the link between what children and young people are doing on smartphones and social media and incidents and concerns in the community. He has been ahead of the curve on that.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
In 1943, Churchill reportedly said:
“We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us.”—[Official Report, 28 October 1943; Vol. 393, c. 403.]
Later, the academic John Culkin said,
“We shape our tools, and thereafter our tools shape us.”
Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will ensure that that trap is not fallen into as regards edtech and other forms of digital technology relating to our children?
Josh MacAlister
My hon. Friend has asked a really great question to finish the statement on. In line with the quotes he shared, either we as a country will have young people who are disrupted by this technology, or we will need to choose to disrupt it so that it benefits children, young people and the whole country. We do have agency and control over these issues; when we believe that we do not, we end up in a dangerous place. The action that we are taking on education follows a series of other actions that the Government are taking to get ahead of the issue.
I look forward to working with hon. Members across the House on further action in the future as the technology develops. We will need to ensure that we shape it so that it benefits our children, rather than having the disruption that it can cause impacting children’s outcomes.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
May I thank the Minister for his statement and, indeed, for his comments on mobile phone usage in the Chamber?
English Ethnic Identity (Census Particulars)
Tuesday 10th November 2026
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate English Ethnic Identity (Census Particulars) Bill 2026-27 View all English Ethnic Identity (Census Particulars) Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the inclusion of English ethnic identity within census particulars in England; and for connected purposes.
Madam Deputy Speaker, do you have to be white to be English? This St George’s Bill says, “No, you do not.” I am a proud Englishman. I have proud Nigerian heritage, but my parents and I were born in England. We grew up in England. Our home is in England. Yet some voices attempt to reduce Englishness to a skin colour and to a bloodline.
If we are to go down that path, my mum’s side of the family has been English for as far back as we have traced, yet since I announced the Bill, some of those voices have said:
“You’re not English and never will be.”
“Your family is foreign and will always be foreign, it doesn’t matter if you’re born here.”
“Go home while you have the legs and breath to carry you. Your days are counting down.”
“No deport, only kill”—
death threats for daring to say that you do not have to be white to be English.
If those people want to gatekeep Englishness on the basis of ancestry, let us talk about ancestry, because there is one thing their argument cannot withstand: English history. English ethnicity is real, but it is a matter of historical fact that it has never been one bloodline. The very word “English” comes from the Angles who sailed here from what is now Germany. Then came the Danes. Then came the Normans, the Flemish weavers, the Huguenots who fled France, the Windrush generation who helped to build our NHS, and the Ugandan Asian shopkeepers who lifted our high streets. Even our royal family has German roots: it was the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha until 1917. Is the King not English either, I ask?
The layered, multifaceted Englishness that I am talking about is not a new thing. In fact, it is the subject of Daniel Defoe’s best-selling piece, “The True-Born Englishman” in 1701. He said:
“A true-born Englishman’s a contradiction,
In speech an irony, in fact a fiction”.
Of our descent from the Angles, the Romans, the Danes and more, he said:
“Fate jumbled them together, God knows how;
What e’er they were they’re true-born English now.”
He was saying that the English have never been one pure group—that the people some now call the original English were once the newcomers. This is not a dilution of the English people. This is the unique story of the English people.
But ethnicity is about far more than descent. As per the Oxford English Dictionary, its definition is having
“a common cultural or national tradition”.
It is about having a shared life, a shared soul. It is the things we cheer for together and the things we grieve together. There are few places we feel that shared life and soul more than when we watch England play, but I remember the final of the men’s Euros in July 2021, when three black men stepped up to take penalties for their country. They missed, and within minutes were drowned in racist abuse. The message from those dark corners was brutal and it was clear: you are English when you win, according to some, but you are something else when you lose. Well, I refuse to accept that Englishness can be whittled down to the colour of one’s skin, and so do the public. According to More in Common, 74% of people in this country say you can be English, whatever the colour of your skin, and British Future’s findings are similar. The question is whether the state will now catch up.
In the ethnicity question in the census, the only box that says “English” sits under the “White” category. If you are black, the form offers you “Black British”, and if you are Asian, it offers you “Asian British”—but not “English”. The same question in the Welsh census offers a “Black Welsh” category, and in Scotland the census offers “Scottish Asian”, for example. Yet the best that England offers in our census is a miscellaneous write-in box that may as well be the margin. Is the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), a former Prime Minister, only marginal to our country? Is the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), a former Deputy Prime Minister and co-sponsor of this Bill, only marginal to our country? What about Ian Wright, Lewis Hamilton and Cynthia Erivo? The list goes on. Are they just marginal, too? Of course not, and the census should say so.
This St George’s Bill fixes that. It provides for the addition of categories such as “Black English” and “Asian English” to the census. The Bill takes nothing away from anyone. “White English” stays exactly where it is, and so do “Black British”, “Asian, British” and the rest. The Bill simply adds choices that reflect how people already see themselves, because it is not for politicians to decide who is English. That is for people to say themselves.
To those who feel uneasy about all this, let me say something directly. To those who feel it sincerely: you are right to be proud of England, its traditions, its quirks and its eccentricities, as I am, but every institution we honour survives only because new people join it and come to care. This includes our churches, our communities and our families. History tells us that Englishness is no different. History tells us that Englishness is not a pie that gets smaller with every slice taken from it; Englishness is a chorus that grows louder with every voice. Nationalism says, “This country is mine, not yours”, but patriotism says, “This country is all of ours.” In this House, we must be patriots.
While this St George’s Bill may add just a few words to a form, we all know that words tell people that they count—that they belong—so let us move people out of the margin and on to the page. “White English”, “Black English”, “Asian English”, “Mixed English”—all are English. Let the next generation never have to ask whether they are allowed to be English. Let the next generation never have to wonder if the St George’s flag represents them. Let them simply know it. Do you have to be white to be English? No, no, no. I commend this St George’s Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Josh Babarinde, David Lammy, Sir James Cleverly, Adam Jogee, Ben Obese-Jecty, Victoria Collins, Munira Wilson, Layla Moran and Mark Pritchard present the Bill.
Josh Babarinde accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 April 2027, and to be printed (Bill 178).
Financial Services and Markets Bill [Lords]
Tuesday 10th November 2026
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 53-I Marshalled list for Third Reading - (14 Sep 2026)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (John Healey)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Two weeks ago at this Dispatch Box, I set out a Budget to provide breathing space now and fresh hope for the future. It was a Budget to steer Britain through the global economic storms and a Budget built on fiscal discipline, which now more than ever underwrites every promise that this Government make to the British people. But as I said then, the only way for British families and for Britain’s finances to be secure in the long term is to have an economy that is growing more strongly. That means we must raise investment, back wealth creation, support innovation and help to create good jobs in all parts of the UK.
I welcome the constructive spirit in which the Opposition in the other place have approached this Bill, and let me also pay tribute to our Treasury Minister, Lord Pitt-Watson, for the way in which he led the Bill in the upper House and for the expertise he brought to the debates. It was during those debates that the Opposition Front Bench declared that this Bill was
“moving in the right direction”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 July 2026; Vol. 858, c. GC122.]
I hope we can continue in this House in a similar spirit of cross-party support.
Let us take the example of child trust funds. Back in 2003, I was with the then Chancellor, Gordon Brown, when he promised that the funds would
“enable all young people to have more of the choices that were once available only to some.”—[Official Report, 9 April 2003; Vol. 403, c. 286.]
Around 6.3 million of these accounts were then opened, but then, regrettably, they were closed in 2011 when the child trust fund was abolished under the Conservative-led coalition. For some families, accessing that money since has not been straightforward. Where a young person lacks the mental capacity to manage their own financial affairs, their parents or carers generally have to obtain formal legal authority through the Court of Protection before they can access a matured child trust fund on their behalf. That can be lengthy and confusing, and up to 126,000 young people have struggled to get and benefit from the money that was set aside for them. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) and the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne)—who I had expected to see in this place, but he is not—and others for their work on highlighting this issue. The Government have listened, and we will amend this Bill in Committee to deal with this frustration and unfairness.
There is also strong cross-party recognition that the financial services sector is a growth powerhouse for Britain, not only in London but across the rest of the UK, where nearly two thirds of the jobs in this sector are based: in Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham, for example. In Scotland, 94,000 people work in financial services, alongside 36,000 in Wales and 20,000 in Northern Ireland. This one sector generates 8% of the UK’s entire economic output, exports to all corners of the globe, and every year backs thousands of British firms to start and succeed here in Britain.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In relation to Belfast, the Chancellor mentions those 20,000 jobs. The sector gives young people in Northern Ireland an opportunity to gain an exceptional job with good remuneration, and to travel, should the opportunity arise, within their companies. What has he done to increase the number of jobs and give more such opportunities to young people in Northern Ireland in the future?
John Healey
The short answer is more investment—encouraged by the UK Government, but decided, often, by the financial services sector itself. My right hon. and learned Friend the Economic Secretary was in Belfast recently to mark the opening of new Bank of America offices—a sign to the hon. Gentleman, I hope, of a flourishing financial services sector in Northern Ireland, and one with a good, strong future.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Has the Chancellor made an assessment of the investment and wider economic benefits that would arise from these deregulatory measures? If so, can he share it now? If not now, will he publish it and share it with the House?
John Healey
We have indeed. As the right hon. Gentleman would expect, an economic impact assessment, which he may see in the Vote Office, has been published alongside the Bill. In rough terms—this is probably a conservative estimate—we think that the benefit of the measures in the Bill as it stands will have a value of about £1.6 billion over the next 10 years.
The UK is home not only to some of the deepest and most liquid capital markets in the world, but to some of the largest global banks, the world’s premier insurance market—Lloyd’s of London—and huge digital success stories such as Revolut and Wise. That is why I will always talk up the immense contribution that the sector makes to our economy and to the services that underpin everyday life: funding for the small firm looking to expand, mortgage finance for the first-time buyer and investment for the saver planning for the future. That comes not only from our world-leading banks, insurers and asset managers, but from our mutuals, building societies and credit unions, which are all essential parts of the UK financial system. Just last week, I was pleased to appoint my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) as the first ever co-operatives and mutuals champion in Government. He will help to fulfil our aim of doubling the size of the co-operative and mutual sector.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I was remiss not to mention my Harlow constituency earlier, so I will make up for that now. Will the Chancellor join me in paying tribute to Harlowsave, a brilliant credit union in my constituency of Harlow—I think that is three times—which supports residents in Harlow to save over the long and medium term?
John Healey
I had not come across the Harlowsave Credit Union, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will be encouraged by the provisions in the Bill, and will tell the members and trustees of the credit union about them. Its provisions, as well as those we will introduce in Committee, are designed to reinforce the strength of credit unions, their ability to extend membership and the common bond that binds them.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend rightly mentions our commitment to double the size of the co-op and mutual sector. One key measure that is needed to achieve that aim is allowing financial co-operatives and mutuals to have better access to our capital markets. I understand that the Law Commission has completed the work to prepare the legislation to enable that to happen, but those proposals are yet to emerge into the sunlight. Does he have any indication of when those proposals might be made public?
John Healey
I cannot tell my hon. Friend exactly when our response will be brought into the sunlight and made public, as he puts it, but I can reassure him that we have followed closely the Law Commission’s work. My right hon. and learned Friend the Economic Secretary has the commission’s report, and we are giving it due consideration, as my hon. Friend would hope and expect.
Britain is in the midst of global economic storms and uncertainties. The conflict in Iran is driving up energy costs, inflation and the cost of borrowing. At the Budget, I rejected broad-based tax rises—keeping the promises made in our manifesto—and crude cuts to public services, but there were difficult decisions to meet our fiscal discipline, to fully fund the new policies I set out, and to provide some breathing space for families. Those included asking banks, through the bank surcharge, to help to pay for the energy help for households this winter. This is time limited and will end in March 2028. The time limitation is set out in the Finance Bill.
The ask that we made of banks at the Budget goes hand in hand with support. On my second full day as Chancellor, I convened a roundtable discussion with leading executives in the City, because I wanted to confirm my fullest commitment to the Government’s financial services and growth strategy and to this Bill.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
I welcome the commitment to make changes to the financial sector, but I have deepening concerns over security and cyber-attacks. The banks’ rush to go digital and pull out of our high streets has left a huge vulnerability for people, particularly in rural areas. What work is being done to ensure that cash services and face-to-face services remain in our towns and high streets, given that such attacks may occur in future?
John Healey
As a very active member of the Defence Committee, my hon. Friend probably knows better than many about the threats to our computer and cyber-systems from cyber-attacks. She will be aware that Richard Lloyd has recently completed a report on access to banking, which the Government have just received. In Committee, we will look to reinsert a provision that will allow us to respond to the recommendations of Richard Lloyd’s report. I aim to publish that report and the Government’s response shortly.
The Bill does four key things. First, it streamlines regulation and reduces administrative burdens on business while maintaining high standards.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Restore Britain)
Why does the Chancellor not go the whole hog by, rather than reforming regulation, scrapping the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority, which since 2000 have held back London as a risk-taking centre? That would allow people to return to the concept of caveat emptor, which is what our success was built on, and release the UK economy from the manacles that are holding it back.
John Healey
I think that most would regard the total removal of consumer protection or regulation as a reckless move. I hope the hon. Gentleman accepts that the Bill will reduce and remove unnecessary and duplicative regulation. I also hope that, where he has constructive, practical suggestions to offer, he will offer them as part of the House’s scrutiny of the Bill.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I am grateful to the Chancellor for talking about consumer protection, but one group of consumers is missing from the Bill: people who have been victims of economic abuse. They are trapped with financial products through no market failure or fault of their own, even if they want to move to something that is cheaper and therefore a smaller risk to their joint borrower. The Bill does not do anything for those people. Will the Chancellor consider some amendments to help them?
John Healey
If the hon. Lady wishes to table amendments for debate and consideration, she should please do so. If she looks at the detail of the financial inclusion strategy that we have published, with some of the measures now being put in place, she will see a recognition of concern for that group of people and some of the measures that may help in the future.
I will return to the four headline purposes and definitions of the content of the Bill, the first of which is the streamlining of regulation, and the second is allowing credit unions to expand, enabling more people to benefit from membership. Thirdly, the Bill modernises consumer protections and access to redress. Fourthly, it supports business lending and investment here in Britain. I am grateful that the Bill has received support from across the sector. UK Finance has confirmed that the Bill supports
“growth and competitiveness while strengthening consumer outcomes”.
TheCityUK has reasonably and rightly said, “Get on with it” and that the priority now needs to be on fully delivering these reforms. Before I move on, I want to pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for all her work in developing the policy in the Bill and on the issues ranging from financial inclusion to the digitisation of markets.
Let me take those four major sections briefly in turn. First, on regulation, good growth demands an active state that is willing to deliver better regulation and quicker decisions. The Bill does that by updating the regulatory framework to support innovation, speed up decision making and streamline processes that at the moment add little value. It does so in five ways. First, it reduces the number of regulators that firms need to engage with by abolishing the Payment Systems Regulator and consolidating its functions within the Financial Conduct Authority. Secondly, it speeds up regulators’ decision making with ambitious new deadlines, including when deciding to authorise a new firm. The Bill also creates a new provisional licence regime to support innovative new firms while they apply for full authorisation. Thirdly, it strengthens oversight of the regulators. The Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority will now be required to publish long-term strategies, so that regulated firms and consumers can better understand their priorities, and Government and Parliament can better hold them to account against delivery.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
The Chancellor mentioned the importance of widening access to lending, which I value very much. On the topic he is talking about, does he agree that it would be great to see in some of the new strategies brought forward by the regulators a greater focus on access to credit for people who are perhaps disadvantaged, who have thin credit files or who have had adverse experiences, such as domestic abuse, as the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) mentioned, such that we can get them back on to the credit ladder?
John Healey
One of the things I like about my hon. Friend is that he is a regular attendee of a range of different debates in this Chamber, and I welcome him here tonight. He may not have had a chance to study it, so after this debate I will send him our financial inclusion strategy, in which he, like the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), will see set out some of the points of concern he raises. If not, then either I or my right hon. and learned Friend the Economic Secretary would be happy to discuss it with him further.
Kirsty Blackman
The financial inclusion strategy does indeed highlight the problems and areas where improvements could be made. However, the actual strategies for doing that, and the things that actually need to be put in place to ensure better access to credit across the board, for example, are not quite solid enough. Could the Chancellor commit to looking again at how to improve fair access to credit for everybody?
John Healey
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Economic Secretary has just said to me, the strategy and action plan are relatively new. In many ways—the hon. Lady will know this from her own nationalist Government in Scotland—government is always, in some ways, a work in progress, and where there are improvements and strengthening measures that we can take, we are certainly willing to consider those.
The fourth measure on deregulation is that the Bill will give the Bank of England a new secondary innovation objective when regulating systemic payment systems and digital settlement asset service providers. This will ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of innovation in payments and digital finance. Fifthly, it reforms the senior managers and certification regime, retaining its core guardrails while saving firms an estimated £240 million a year.
Turning to the second part of the Bill, credit unions expand access to affordable credit, encourage saving and strengthen financial resilience in communities right across Britain. At the heart of a credit union is its common bond—the connection that brings together its members, be that place, employer or sometimes occupation. Yet in too many areas, the rules that govern how credit unions operate have simply not kept pace with the way people live and work today. In many cases, moving home, retiring or studying somewhere can stand in the way of someone benefiting from credit union membership. The Bill therefore ensures that credit unions will be able to admit a wider range of relatives, to deal with retirement and to accommodate students, even when they do not live or work in the same place as they study.
I turn to the third part of the Bill: consumer protections and redress. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 was designed and passed over 50 years ago. Research from the debt charity StepChange shows that parts of the Act can be harmful, resulting in many consumers feeling scared, depressed and overwhelmed by what they face. In part, that is because currently much of the information sent to consumers about their credit product is tightly specified by this 50-year-old Act—down in some cases to specific words and even which letters must be capitalised in the advice given. It requires the reading age of an undergraduate, when at least one in seven adults have the literacy skills expected of a nine to 11-year-old. The Bill repeals many of the prescriptive provisions in the 1974 Act, enabling the FCA to develop new rules around the information that consumers will receive, allowing this to be more flexible and tailored to the particular needs of different consumers.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I have raised previously in this Chamber the situation of my constituent Pam Beevers, who had a cheque cashed in and misread, which meant she lost out on £125,000—down to a bank error. We are talking about punctuation being the real killer. What is in this Bill to help constituents such as Pam to find redress when a bank admits an error and the ombudsman says there is a problem, but they fail to properly compensate people?
John Healey
If the hon. Member would write to me or the Economic Secretary, she would be willing to take another look at that. I was not quite certain whether he was saying that Ms Beevers’s cheque was misread by a human or a machine, but it sounds in any case like there is an established error and that some form of redress and recognition is required. If he writes to us with the details, we will certainly take a look at it.
Alongside these measures, we are reforming the legal framework governing the Financial Ombudsman Service to improve the consistency and predictability of its decision making. Currently, decisions made by the ombudsman are not required to align with FCA rules. That has the potential to cause, and indeed has caused, delays in redress for consumers. It has caused uncertainty among firms on what standards they should apply. The Bill takes measures to ensure that all decisions taken by the ombudsman apply FCA rules, including the FCA consumer duty. That should deliver a more consistent set of standards across the board, both for firms and for consumers.
Dr Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The FCA failed to protect many people—mostly pensioners—who invested in legal investment scams. Does the Chancellor feel that the FCA’s current mandate and remit is broad enough to protect people from scams such as London Capital & Finance in future?
John Healey
The straight answer to my hon. Friend is, yes, I do regard it as sufficient. If he has a stronger case to make to the contrary, I encourage him to make it. To answer his question directly, as things stand, I do regard it as sufficiently robust and strong.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Financial Ombudsman Service is much loved by consumers because it provides an impartial fairness test. The Chancellor can correct me if I am misunderstanding this, but under the new proposed rules there is a presumption that the firm is right, and the consumer therefore has to go through more hoops to raise a concern. Is that really fair on consumers?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is so expert and well read in this area. In fact, her assertion about an assumption that the firm is always right is incorrect. At the heart of what is proposed in the Bill is the consumer duty of the FCA, with a single, clear set of standards that firms must meet and that consumers who feel their service has fallen short are able to use as reference for challenge, redress and appeal to the ombudsman. Instead of the ombudsman having its own set of standards and criteria and the FCA having its own, which has led to confusion and inconsistency, we will have a single set of standards that are clear and consistent for both the consumer and firms.
Turning to the fourth and final area, we must do more to increase lending and encourage firms to start and succeed here in Britain, as I did with measures in the Budget.
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman has had one go. Quite a few Members wish to speak, and it is beginning to get into the evening, so I am going to make a bit more progress and let others come in. But if he wants to sit on the Bill Committee, he would be welcome— I am sure the Whips on his Front Bench will have noticed his keen interest in the debate. If that does not put him off, I don’t know what will!
The ringfencing regime requires major banks to separate their UK retail banking services from riskier investment banking activities. This regime has strengthened the resilience of UK retail banking since the financial crisis, but the independent Skeoch review identified areas where the ringfencing regime and the resolution regime could be better aligned. That is why we are introducing a series of reforms, such as the new growth allowance, to give ringfenced banks greater flexibility to provide growing businesses with the support they need as they grow. The measures in the Bill go a stage further, including allowing the Prudential Regulation Authority to remove unnecessary duplication in its rules, and we are introducing new powers to expand the commercial credit data-sharing scheme.
Graham Stuart
In lieu of other people seeking to intervene, would the Chancellor allow me to?
Graham Stuart
I am grateful to the Chancellor, who is being typically generous. On the subject of lending, he will be aware that the doubling of the bank tax, which was red meat for his Back Benchers, will raise £1.5 billion in just 15 months. The regulatory rules suggest that that could reduce the lending pot by a maximum of perhaps £25 billion. Is it not fair to say that that dwarfs any of the benefits of this Bill? My final question is, can he commit that it will be 15 months and 15 months only before this credit-reducing measure is brought back again?
John Healey
Two questions in one intervention—that really will be the last time I give way to the right hon. Gentleman. The answer to his first question is that, as I have said already, this is time limited. It will end in March 2028. If he looks at clause 7 of the Finance Bill, he will see that set out.
On the question of hitting investment, I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that none of the discussions I have had with banking and financial sector leaders before or subsequent to the Budget suggests they want to do anything other than raise their levels of investment into British firms. I understand the reaction to and view of the temporary 3% additional surcharge that I put on banks to help pay for household energy help this winter. I certainly would not describe it as welcomed by the banks. I do believe it is manageable. I do not believe, and I have seen no evidence, that it is going to hit the levels of investment or the commitment they make to this country. As I said earlier, I will miss no opportunity to talk up the importance of the financial services sector to the UK.
John Healey
Given that the right hon. Gentleman has served with such distinction in the Cabinet Office and the Treasury, I will give way one last time.
John Glen
I am extremely grateful. Of course, one way of mitigating the anxieties of the banking sector is to ensure that the capital requirements directed by the PRA are significantly reformed. I understand from what the Chancellor has said that there is provision for that possibility, but what instinct does he have about the space that exists for the PRA to move decisively to signal to the banks that there is room for more capital to be lent by British banks in London, as a way of countering the concerns about the tax?
John Healey
I think I can do better than answer about my instinct on the scope for that. I would point the right hon. Gentleman to the measures in the Bill. I would also point him to my exchange of letters with the Governor of the Bank of England about capital requirements and the expectation to see material change, bearing in mind the importance of the internationally competitive position of UK banks. He will know that the Bank is undertaking its own review of this area at the moment, and I hope we will get the results and any consequent changes before too long.
Finally, I have spoken about the importance of maintaining the UK’s pre-eminent position as a global financial centre. That requires maintaining the very highest standards in tackling illicit finance. We have in the UK a strong set of anti-money laundering rules, but the supervision of compliance with those rules is currently fragmented and inconsistent. Last year, the Government announced that the Financial Conduct Authority will take on responsibility for the anti-money laundering supervision of legal and accounting service providers, as well as trust and company service providers.
The Bill enables the FCA to take on those new responsibilities, meaning that we can reduce the number of bodies that have a role in anti-money laundering supervision from 25 to three. Additionally, as financial crime increasingly involves cryptoassets held outside the UK, the Bill will enable the Government to update existing cryptoasset recovery powers through secondary legislation. [Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, you are encouraging me to conclude, so I will, but I hope you appreciate that I have taken a large number of interventions.
I believe there is a shared determination in this House to ensure that the UK remains the global location of choice for financial services firms to invest, innovate and grow. This Bill is a necessary step to strengthen that leading UK position on financial services: streamlining regulation and reducing the burden on businesses, supporting financial resilience through our credit unions, reforming consumer protection so that it is fit for this digital age, and raising levels of investment in our high-growth firms, all while maintaining our high standards of regulation and oversight. It is a Bill to generate good growth in every postcode and provide fresh hope for the future. I commend this Bill to the House.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I thank the Chancellor for his speech’s very positive tone. As he so rightly said, there was a lot of collaboration in the House of Lords as our colleagues were taking through this Bill, and I certainly intend to enter the conversation in a similar spirit of collaboration over the coming weeks and months.
As the Chancellor has said, the financial services sector is incredibly important to this country. It is the engine room that powers our economy. As the Chancellor has also said, it generates 8% of our national economic output, contributes £12 in every £100 of tax paid and makes up 3% of all jobs in the UK. As the Chancellor so rightly said, two thirds of those jobs are outside London.
The sector truly is a jewel in our economic crown, but it is important to remember that financial services underpin our everyday lives—for example, they support my constituents in opening and running businesses. They support all our constituents across this great country to get on to the housing ladder. They support people across the UK in ways that are not truly understood, including financial support for their employer; ensuring that their homes and other assets are insured; providing liquidity to buy expensive items such as a car; and helping to provide for our retirement. What happens just a mile or so up the road and across the country helps every one of us in pretty much every aspect of our lives.
Despite that, we must be careful. The UK’s financial services and related professional services sector are at a crossroads. TheCityUK published earlier this year its “No Time to Lose” report in conjunction with PwC, which I will quote directly. It said that
“the hard truth is that overall industry growth has stalled over the last decade and the UK is falling behind other financial centres.”
Our international competitiveness should be our priority, because the UK market is so internationally focused. As we know, London is the second-biggest financial services centre on the planet, second only to New York. However, while New York’s financial services market is 80% led by its domestic economy, here in the UK London is 80% international. At the most basic level, our international competitiveness is four times as valuable to us here as it is to the Americans across the Atlantic.
The Chancellor rightly mentioned the Budget, during which he said to the banks that
“I celebrate, and am grateful for, the role that you play.”—[Official Report, 28 October 2026; Vol. 792, c. 307],
But then he increased the bank levy by 3%. To be fair to him, bank stocks did go up on the day, because they were expecting a 5% permanent levy. None the less, we have to bear in mind that that takes the marginal tax rate on banks to 49.5%. That is not competitive on the international stage. We need to be mindful of that, because we need to attract international banks to come to our shores, and it is very important that we get this right. We understand that that generates a little more tax, but we want more people to invest in this country, and that is why we were against that measure. It sends the wrong signal.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Will the hon. Member join me in congratulating J.P. Morgan? It is in its 40th year of operation in Bournemouth, and this year it is investing £350 million into Bournemouth and the wider UK economy. It is doing that because it sees the overriding talent in Bournemouth and across the UK. The Bournemouth site is the second-most important site across 38 in Europe, the middle east and Africa for the world’s largest bank and seventh-largest technologist. Is that not a vote of confidence in the UK economy?
Mark Garnier
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is incredibly important to remember that banks such as J.P. Morgan invest in the wider community, but Jamie Dimon has said that he is worried about uncertainty around the tax regime on banks in the UK. He has warned that if we are uncertain and increase the level of tax on banks, they will not invest another £300 million or so into Canary Wharf. That is the point: we have to be mindful of international competitiveness. It does not take much, when we are taxing close to 50% on banks, for them to change their mind and go to another financial services centre. However, the hon. Gentleman’s point is absolutely right: the value of international investment by banks in communities such as his is really important.
Graham Stuart
Following that last intervention on the tremendous importance of banks to this country, does my hon. Friend share my concern? Notwithstanding what it says on the face of the Finance Bill, I rather fear that a Labour Chancellor with this particular set of Back Benchers will not turn up after 15 months and say, “I have a great idea, comrades: let us get rid of the doubling of the bank tax.” I fear that there will be some other new financial pressure—there are always financial pressures—that will mean that this socialist Government further reduce the credit available to this country and make us all poorer as a result of satisfying Government Back Benchers, who understand nothing about economics.
Mark Garnier
My right hon. Friend makes a very reasonable point. It is certainly easier to tax banks than it is to cut benefits, for example, but we have to be careful about this. He raises a very good point; if we reduce the amount of cash available to banks, we reduce the amount of money getting into the wider economy. I will come to that a bit later in my speech. We have identified certain areas where we can make it easier for banks to lend more money in the economy, but, as I say, I will come to that in a minute.
This Bill is an important opportunity to change the signal that we are sending to the wider world. We believe that, in general terms, this Bill takes steps in the right direction, so the Chancellor and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will be glad to hear that we will not vote against it tonight. There is a one-line Whip, and it is fantastic that so many people have turned up on the Government Benches for this debate. However, while the Bill takes a positive step, it should be taking a positive leap. Just like the Budget, it feels like a missed opportunity to take the bold action needed. As I have said, we intend to work constructively with the Government, but we want them to be braver and go further.
Let me be clear: when it comes to this Bill, we should be talking about the level of risk that we are willing to accept, not how we can pursue perfection. This is about how we can keep talent in the UK, not about how we can make it jump through more hoops. This is about how we can empower the financial services sector, not about how we can bind it in further red tape. This is about the bold action that we should take to cement the future of the sector, not about how we can tinker at the edges. I hope that colleagues will follow that advice as the Bill progresses.
First, though, we should celebrate our past, because we have so much to be proud of in this country. The financial services ecosystem started in the UK in the 12th century, when the Knights Templar first issued receipts to pilgrims and crusaders for valuable assets such as gold. Those could be exchanged in the Holy Land for funds, creating what we recognise as the first iteration of bank notes. In the 17th century, Jonathan’s Coffee House was the first to advertise share prices. From there, the London stock exchange grew, setting up the model for equity ownership the world over. Similarly, Lloyd’s Coffee House created the insurance market that we see today. From that, the UK has continued to be a world leader in innovation, and we have built a reputation as a major financial centre.
The statistics do not lie. We are the largest net exporter of financial services in the world, at £119 billion last year. The London market alone is larger than its five closest international competitors combined. We have the most unicorns in Europe, the second largest asset management sector globally, the third largest insurance market globally and the fifth largest domestic banking sector globally. The point is that we start in a good position, and we have a great deal to be proud of. However, if we are to continue to succeed today and in the future, we must be bold, and we must be aware that others seek to steal our advantage. We must respond to that challenge and restore our economic powerhouse.
Where do we want the Government to go further? The first area is ringfencing. As the Chancellor alluded to earlier, the Bill talks about ringfencing, which, as we know, is the structural separation of certain retail banking activities from the activities conducted by international wholesale and investment banks. It was proposed by the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards back in 2013—following the Wright review, if I remember rightly—which was created in response to the global financial crisis.
Let me be clear that ringfencing was well intentioned— I know that well, because I sat on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards and was part of the process that recommended it. However, 13 years later, I can see that the implementation of the ringfencing regime has not gone in the way that was intended. It costs our banking sector about £1.5 billion a year to implement. To go back to the competitiveness point, no other jurisdiction ended up bringing in ringfencing at all, and it has been superseded by more recent regulatory developments, such as the resolution regime. That last point is especially important. To quote the 2022 independent review of ringfencing and proprietary trading:
“The reduction in the implicit government guarantee and progress in ending too-big-to-fail was not found to be attributable to ring-fencing. The last point is instead attributable to the development of the UK resolution regime”.
As I say, that is from an independent review of ringfencing.
The Government are making changes in the Bill that will make ringfencing more flexible. That includes amending the PRA’s duty to make ringfencing rules, helping it to avoid duplicating protections that are already provided by the bank resolution regime. Along with other measures in the Bill, that measure takes a positive step forward, but we feel that the Government could have been bolder.
At times of change, we need to remove rules that no longer serve their intended purposes. Some of these rules have been superseded by subsequent legislation—last year’s Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Act 2025 is a case in point, together with bail-in bonds and the minimum requirements for own funds and eligible liabilities regime. We believe that ringfencing is the clearest example, so we will push the Government to go further and not just reform ringfencing, but remove it altogether.
Dame Meg Hillier
I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s thoughtful comments and the research he is quoting, but he is now talking about removing ringfencing completely. Can he explain to the House how that would mitigate the risk posed by the bad players who led to some of the problems in 2008? As a result, some of us were in this place voting to nationalise banks, at a cost to the British taxpayer. How can the hon. Gentleman be confident that that could never happen again? We do not legislate for today; we legislate for the worst possible scenario—the mad, the bad and the dangerous—not the good people who I am sure he is talking about.
Mark Garnier
The point of ringfencing at the time was to separate the retail banks from the wholesale and investment banks. If the hon. Lady remembers, the Liikanen reforms sought to cage the tigers and ringfence the investment banks into units, whereas our reforms looked to put a fence around the deer park to look after the retail banks. The problem is that this creates a cliff edge as customers get past a certain turnover—I think they go from being in the retail bank to being in the wholesale bank when they get to £5 million of turnover. The only bank that has changed that is Barclays; it has set that limit at £100 million, which makes the retail bank much more open, and arguably could make it slightly more vulnerable.
Of course we do not want the big banks to fail—although, having said that, we have to have an element of risk within the banking system. It is important that we keep that. However, we have a number of systems that have come in later and that other countries have looked at, such as the bail-in bonds and the MREL regime. Returning to the competitiveness point, we now find ourselves with a ringfencing regime that creates extra costs and administrative burdens for banks that other countries do not have. We also have a system that can protect consumers, the bail-in bonds, whereby we have regulatory capital that can potentially be converted from bonds into equity to solve that problem.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
I am sure that many Members of this House would entertain the idea of taking a targeted look at the way in which ringfencing regulation is implemented and agree that, where it is helpful, there should be much more of a free flow of information and discussions with clients across universal banks. However, can the hon. Gentleman categorically rule out the complete abolition of ringfencing that he has suggested, if only for the sake of consumers who do not want to see their retail money swirling around in an investment bank?
Mark Garnier
The hon. Gentleman raises a number of points. We are getting deep into the debate, but the very quick answer to his question is no, I cannot rule out getting rid of the ringfencing regime. It has already been made public that the policy of a future Conservative Government will be to do so. That is the debate we will be having in Committee, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to join us in Committee, where we can get into the debate in depth. It is great to see so many Members across the House putting themselves forward with their enthusiasm to get involved in the debate—my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) will have found a friend.
My second point—of a number of points, although I am conscious that I am taking up a lot of time—is that we would like the Government to go further on bank capital requirements. UK banks, building societies and PRA-designated investment firms are required to maintain minimum levels of capital in proportion to their risk-weighted assets. That is to help ensure that firms remain resilient and to reduce the impact of failure. Clearly, no responsible Government would abolish capital requirements, but we need to question whether banks should be required to hold capital beyond what is genuinely needed for resilience. This is an important point.
We should acknowledge that the Bank of England has eased bank capital requirements in recent years, specifically at the end of 2025, when it revised down the benchmark for tier 1 capital from 14% of risk-weighted assets to 13%. However, it is worth remembering that the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards recommended 11%, so that benchmark is higher than we originally asked for. We believe that the current level is still too high. The most recent stress test carried out by the Bank of England found that
“all banks remained above their set capital minima at the low-point of the scenario. No individual bank was required to strengthen its capital position as a result of the test.”
From memory, it was a one-in-250-year event that the banks were being stress tested on. The system has to allow an element of risk—when I was on the banking commission, we made it very clear how important that was. We made it clear that it was okay for a bank to fail, but it was not okay for banks to bring down the entire system.
The important point is that there has to be an element of risk in the system, but that is not what has been delivered, meaning that the potential lending and financing capacity of our banking sector is significantly reduced—to the tune of about £450 billion each year, we reckon. That is an awful lot of money that is not going into the economy. UK Finance has advised me that each percentage point of the tier 1 capital stack potentially represents about £600 billion in liquidity, so 2% above the recommendation of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards represents about £1.2 trillion. Leverage that up under the banks and we are potentially talking about £12 trillion that is not in circulation because of over-interpretation of the rules. But we do not want to get ahead of ourselves; we reckon that £450 billion is not in circulation because of that over-enthusiasm on the tier 1 stack. That is money that could be used more productively. It could be invested in our communities or in businesses, but it remains stuck on banks’ balance sheets.
While the Bill does not contain any specific measures dealing with bank capital requirements, we believe that it is a perfect opportunity to make the necessary changes—specifically, to reform the parameters within which the Financial Policy Committee and the PRA operate. As such, we will be putting forward changes in areas where we believe the Government may be encouraged to take some advice from the Opposition.
As we have heard, the Financial Ombudsman Service plays an incredibly important role in the UK financial services sector. It provides redress for consumers and small and medium-sized enterprises against FCA and PRA-regulated firms outside of the court system, and crucially, it provides a service that is low-cost and accessible for consumers. However, over the years, the FOS has gone beyond being a dispute resolution mechanism and has become a quasi-regulator. This is creating significant costs for firms, with research from TheCityUK suggesting that the cost of regulatory compliance across the financial sector now exceeds £34 billion. Importantly, firms are also being retrospectively penalised, despite having followed the law on the day of an occurrence that was subsequently deemed to be problematic.
The Bill makes some positive changes in this area, which we welcome. It narrows the fair and reasonable test so that there is no longer a presumption of guilt, and creates a 10-year complaint deadline. Those positive changes will help prevent the FOS from acting beyond its remit. However, again, we do not believe that they go far enough, and there are a number of issues that we will raise during our debates in Committee.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be pleased that this brings me to my final point.
Mark Garnier
We are getting there. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the UK is a major financial centre with a rich history of innovation. We cannot afford to lose that reputation, so we must also be looking to the future. Digital assets will be a key part of that, as will the technologies that underpin them. We have been told time and again that the UK has no clear direction on digital assets, meaning that companies in the UK are being restricted from innovating, so we need to create a strategy that sends a clear signal to that industry. That is why the digital assets strategy in clause 50, which was introduced in the other place, is so important.
We tabled that amendment in the Lords for a few reasons. First, we want to send a clear message about where the UK is going; it is incredibly important that we define what the UK’s ambition is. Secondly, going back to the competitiveness point, other jurisdictions have these strategies. Thirdly, the significance of digital assets has not been identified in any recent Government strategy. Finally, the digital assets sector is incredibly diverse, beyond where the Government are currently looking—it is very innovative. For all of those reasons, we believe that the digital assets strategy and clause 50 are necessary, and that removing that clause from the Bill—if that is the Government intend to do—would send the wrong message to the sector.
Do not take our word for it; take the word of the organisations that support clause 50: the UK Cryptoasset Business Council, TheCityUK, Innovate Finance, the Payments Association, techUK, Global Digital Finance, the Crypto Council for Innovation, the International Digital Assets Counsel Association, CryptoUK and the Digital Money Association. All of those organisations know that
“Other jurisdictions are moving rapidly to attract digital-asset businesses, investment and talent.”
A clear strategy will help the UK to keep up with those other jurisdictions and demonstrate that we are embracing these new technologies. I know that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury feels passionately about this area of her brief, so I hope she will use her closing remarks—we will all be waiting in the Chamber until 10 o’clock to hear them—to reassure the industry and commit to retaining the digital assets strategy in the Bill.
To conclude, financial services and the related professional services are incredibly important to the UK. When they succeed, they help to empower our communities and unlock growth. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury understands that. She has a very good reputation in the City of London as being somebody who gets it, so I look forward to working with her over the next few weeks and months. I am sure we will have our disagreements, but where we do, it will be about the detail, not the overall direction of this Bill. I know we can remain focused on empowering the sector.
The financial services sector is also important to me personally. I spent the bulk of my working life—27 years—working in the City, and I know the amazing things it can do. Being the shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury, I have seen at first hand that we still have so much potential across this great country of ours. If we get this Bill right, we can unlock even more. While the financial services sector may be at a crossroads, it is now time for us to get behind the sector, to shift into gear, to accelerate our efforts and to focus on the exciting journey ahead.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I agree with both the Chancellor and the shadow Economic Secretary, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) that the financial services sector has an important part to play in our economy. As the shadow Economic Secretary said, the sector represents 3% of jobs in the UK, and it is important for growth and investment. It is therefore important that we understand its role and that we get things right. This Bill, in the Government’s terms,
“will modernise how the sector is regulated, and enable it to grow and lend more to businesses. It will also make consumer protections fit for the digital age”.
I do not think any of us would disagree with those intentions.
The Government have also set out clearly that they want to maintain high standards of regulation and oversight at the same time. There is a balance to be struck in leaning in to support a sector, while also protecting the many consumers—millions of our constituents—who are borrowing, investing and using the services of financial institutions. Having a strong and competitive financial services sector is important for driving growth, but the protection of consumers is important, too. The Treasury Committee has looked at that balance between the growth objective that the previous Chancellor set the Financial Conduct Authority and its role in regulation.
As a side point, I mention remit letters. The new Chancellor has not had a chance to write too many yet, but the number of remit letters that go to our regulators runs into quite high numbers. Those bodies then have to consider the “have regard to” comments in those letters in their work, and it makes for a very long list of things to do, some of which just cannot all be done at the same time. The Treasury could look to prune some of these requirements, or to decide what the key areas are at any point, so that those organisations know what they should be focusing on.
This Bill could be seen as moving the pendulum more towards the financial services sector and further from regulation to support consumers, and we should be careful about that. The Committee has made some comments on it, but for me, consumers should be front and centre. My question to the Government—the Economic Secretary may expand on this in her closing remarks—is: how far should that pendulum swing? How far is too far? Who is the arbiter of what level of protection constituents and consumers should expect? We have a number of bodies, and I will speak about the Financial Ombudsman Service a little later.
It is not just me or the Treasury Committee who have been raising these issues. Nikhil Rathi, the chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority, said to us in July that the FCA needs a clear indication of the Government’s risk tolerance when it comes to markets. He is up for the challenge, but he needs to know as a regulator where to draw the line between promoting growth and consumer protection. We know that even a small increase in the percentage of customers harmed is a lot of people. One of the pleasures of our role as MPs is that we get to see people face to face at our surgeries. We see people in the raw. Whitehall is a long way from that direct contact, and it is us who will be picking up the problems if they arise. As this Bill proceeds through Committee, we need to be cautious and make sure that we are stress-testing that point about consumer protection at each stage.
The Government are encouraging more investment. In fact, the Economic Secretary, during her previous time as Economic Secretary, made a number of public statements encouraging people to invest more. I can understand the Government’s position. People can make a lot more money from savings if they invest them carefully and well, but it is about changing the language. There has been concern about investment, particularly since the financial crash of 2008—it is a bit like the “Smoking kills” signs on cigarette packets—so the Government are changing the language, but I need to ask what level of risk they are willing to take. As they change the language and encourage people to take not risky, but less safe approaches to managing their money, where will the Government draw the line?
My main concern is the changes to the Financial Ombudsman Service, which has been a vital consumer protection. It is popular with consumers, and the source of much complaint from the City. The shadow Economic Secretary highlighted some of those concerns, as did the Chancellor. We know that the Financial Ombudsman Service is not perfect. It has had a bit of a rocky ride in the past few years, but it is already undergoing some changes without the need for legislation. It is having to adapt to the modern world, and AI is no doubt causing it even more challenges, but it was dealing with a high volume and not always reacting quickly enough.
I have a couple of particular concerns to raise. One is the time limit on complaints. While 10 years sounds like a long time, some of the financial products that our constituents take out have a very long life, with pensions being the obvious example. When something goes wrong in that area, it can have a long reach back into the past. I understand the challenges for banks, such as we have seen with the motor finance issues. When the issue was payment protection insurance, I spoke to one bank that employed 10 people just to go through the complaints coming in from people who were not even customers of the bank. There is a lot to be done in that area. This partly relates to those online promising the earth to people if they take up a complaint, even if they do not have legitimate grounds. I do not believe setting the time limit at 10 years is the answer. The Economic Secretary might not be able to discuss it now, but perhaps she will meet the Committee or me—whoever—to talk about how the Government will protect people taking out long-term financial products, including pensions.
The Treasury Committee has heard evidence on the Financial Ombudsman Service from the Citizens Advice, which noted that although it believes that consumer protection and growth do not have to be competing objectives—I agree with that—this Bill reduces protections and access to redress for consumers. Which? wrote to the Committee and noted that the proposed referral mechanism in clause 6 risks making redress slower and more complex, creating additional barriers to redress for consumers. I know that the Chancellor answered that point to a degree in response to my question earlier.
Clause 7 constrains the fair and reasonable test that the FOS has worked under for such a long time, which will make it harder for consumers to receive redress, even when they have been treated unfairly. I can see clearly what the Chancellor and the Government are trying to do here. We have heard the noise from the financial institutions, saying, “We adhere to the rules of the FCA. We take into account the consumer duty, as the FCA requires us to do. Then something goes to the ombudsman and suddenly it seems to be judged by a whole different set of rules.” Most financial institutions do a reasonably good job most of the time and treat their customers fairly, and the consumer duty weighs heavily on them. When something goes to the ombudsman and is not considered to meet the fair and reasonable test, it should be something that is egregiously outside that consumer duty. It is important to have that backstop for our constituents. The Financial Ombudsman Service is already, as I said, undergoing non-legislative reforms. We should focus first on improving the system, rather than adding more layers of legal reform. Perhaps giving it that chance to reform itself would be the best first step.
In March this year, the Committee wrote to the Government outlining the importance of the Financial Ombudsman Service’s independence. The perception of that independence is vital. I propose—I would like to talk to the Economic Secretary further about this—that we introduce a statutory lock for the Treasury Committee on the appointment and dismissal of the chair of the Financial Ombudsman Service. There is precedent; the Chancellor of the Exchequer may not know it, but he cannot appoint or sack a chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility without the agreement of the Treasury Committee. That is a lock on a mad, bad or dangerous Chancellor taking away the independence of that important body. We think that there should also be a lock on a mad, bad or dangerous Chancellor doing the same for the chair of the FOS.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend, who chairs the Treasury Committee, agree that in other jurisdictions it is quite common to have more parliamentary oversight of these sorts of appointments?
Dame Meg Hillier
I agree with my hon. Friend, who is also a member of the Treasury Committee and a constituency neighbour of mine in London. We are not suggesting for a moment that the Treasury Committee starts rolling up its sleeves, conducting job interviews or getting in CVs. That is not our role. Our role is to be a check and a balance on the Government.
As I said to the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, we are not legislating for the people here in this Chamber, who I believe are good and honourable Members with all good intent. We have to legislate for the worst possible set of legislators and the worst possible Government, and we need to make sure that we have that commitment to the independence of the Financial Ombudsman Service. This would be one small step that would take nothing away from the rest of the Bill. It would not damage any of the Government’s set-out intentions. I know that the Chancellor is a strong advocate for a strong Parliament, and he should be praised and recognised for that, so I hope he will consider this option. I am happy to share my thoughts with the Economic Secretary on how an amendment could be tabled; it may be that it can come up in Committee—I would hope that it would not have to wait until a later stage, on Report.
It is essential that the Chair of the Financial Ombudsman Service, which is a key public role, has the necessary independence and professional skills to maintain the balance between consumers and the financial services industry. The Treasury Committee has a number of pre-appointment hearings—more than a number of Committees do—and our measure is professional competence and independence. I would hope—and so far, Members will be glad to know, this has proved to be the case—that when the Treasury goes through a proper recruitment process, it recruits people with professional competence. We measure against that. Again, if there were a mad, bad or dangerous Government in future, that might not always be the case, but so far it has been. The independence point is important too, and that is what is often tested in the room when we have someone before us for a pre-appointment hearing. We do not have a power to sack, but in this case, we think we should have an extra power of a lock on that appointment.
The Financial Ombudsman Service is accountable to Parliament. The Treasury Committee was compelled, due to the actions of a previous chair of the Financial Ombudsman Service, to underline that point in our ninth report of the session 2024-25, which was entitled— I say this for Hansard’s purposes and I am sure that colleagues will avidly look this up in a moment—“Financial Ombudsman Service: Accountability to the House of Commons”. Providing the Treasury Committee with a statutory lock on the appointment of the FOS chair would help to guard against a repeat of that incident. I was saddened at the time to receive a letter from a public appointee to say that they did not have to appear in front of the Treasury Committee because they were a Member of the other place. That is another issue that I will take up in due course. The Second Reading debate is obviously about arguments in principle, but I am happy to have a further conversation with the Economic Secretary on the detail.
I want to raise a couple of other quick points while I have the floor. On financial inclusion, I know the Economic Secretary has played her part—I think four Economic Secretaries have dealt with the financial inclusion strategy. Now that it has been published, the Committee will keep an eye on how it is going. We published a report on the matter, and the Government told the Committee that the Bill would include a reserve power on access to face-to-face banking services, recognising the limitations of voluntary action. The power was removed in the other place following concerns about its breadth. In their response to our report, the Government said they intended to restore that power during the passage of the Bill in the Commons, and that they would use evidence from the access to banking services review to do so. I would be interested, if the Economic Secretary could cover that in her closing remarks.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I entirely agree with the point my hon. Friend is making. In my constituency of Ealing Southall, Santander and NatWest have recently closed down, although Barclays is still there and is being refurbished. There is a very large north Indian population in the constituency and many of them are first generation, with English as another language. Does my hon. Friend agree that face-to-face banking is particularly important for those people and for older communities?
Dame Meg Hillier
My hon. Friend raises an important point, because there are many excluded groups. There is an important challenge here, too. I am proud to be the Member of Parliament for Hackney South and Shoreditch, representing a very high percentage of fintech companies. Of course, those companies never had branches on the street, so it is not unreasonable for the larger banks, which have had a network of high street banks, to say that the playing field is not level. Some tech innovation has been amazing, making banking very accessible to some people, but there are still points in life—for instance, death, or maturity to 18 when products have to be turned from junior to adult—when we need to have conversations face to face.
Even if it is not very often, there will be times when even the most digitally-savvy will need to have face-to-face contact. I recognise this is a difficult challenge for the Government to wrestle with, and there is no easy, simple answer, but it is important if there is to be financial inclusion. The danger is that if there is no proper ability to have contact with trusted banks, people get advice from elsewhere—a friend or a relative—that is not good advice; I have seen that in my own constituency. There is a danger that people get driven to the wrong place if we do not have a lock on some sort of provision, though I recognise that particular challenge for the Government.
Gareth Thomas
One of the encouraging things in the financial inclusion strategy was a proposal to build a coalition of employers willing to offer a payroll deduction service to their employees to join and save with a credit union. Does my hon. Friend think that one of the ways to give that coalition new life and new energy would be if more parts of Whitehall—perhaps even the Treasury itself—were willing to make that commitment?
Dame Meg Hillier
There we go: a stretch target for the Chancellor to sign up every civil servant in his Department to a credit union. I am sure that he is listening closely to that suggestion.
I do not want to segue too much from the subject, but many years ago I tried to establish a mutual in Government and there was a limited understanding of what that meant. I am proud that we now have a co-operatives champion in my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes)—a Labour and Co-operative MP—who has access to all areas and can go in and challenge, shake up and educate parts of Whitehall about the benefits of mutuals.
To finish on financial inclusion, the financial inclusion strategy is a good first step, but we said that the Government cannot rely solely on voluntary action from financial services to drive financial inclusion. We have made our comments clear in our report, and I hope that we will continue that dialogue with the Government to ensure that financial inclusion is a real thing.
There has been some talk about access to capital markets in the banking sector, but there is a particular issue for building societies too. It is interesting how very few failures and repossessions there are with some building societies. I was talking recently to the chief executive of Skipton Building Society, whose default rate is very low—in fact, a number of those are people who have voluntarily given up their mortgage. That means the building society’s repossession rate is even lower, yet it has to capitalise to a very high degree to ensure that it is covering any potential losses. I think there is a real opportunity there.
As was raised earlier, changes to credit unions are necessary and overdue. We have seen some of the measures for co-ops and mutuals in government get stuck, whether with the Law Commission or somewhere in the depths of Whitehall. We now have an agenda in government to double the size of the co-operative sector. We are seeing a strong building society sector and a mutual sector in finance. We have an opportunity to get credit unions on a stable footing. This is the opportunity to ensure that we get those things in place so that they are embedded and we make sure that the sector works and delivers.
If it is about growth in every postcode, those are the organisations that reach every postcode, that are from the grassroots up and that can make this Financial Services and Markets Bill much more relevant to the people on the ground. It is not that the City of London is not relevant to me in my constituency and to a number of us who neighbour it, but for people in other parts of the country, Whitehall and the City seem like a long way away. Having co-ops and mutuals written in is important. I hope that the Economic Secretary will respond to some of those points when she sums up.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The UK financial services industry is vital to our economy. It enables us all to buy houses and cars, to save and invest safely and to insure against bad outcomes; it provides millions of jobs, not only in London but right across the UK; and it contributes hundreds of billions of pounds to GDP. It is one of the UK’s only world-leading industries. We have 160 foreign banks in the City and twice as many US dollars are traded on the UK foreign exchange in the UK than in the US. We have the largest source of pension funds in Europe—and if I mention Europe, as a Liberal Democrat I must also mention Brexit.
It is true that the UK financial services industry has remained strong after Brexit. Of course it has: it is a world-leading industry that has many advantages beyond its access to European markets. We have, for instance, the advantages of location, language and law, and there is enormous talent here in the capital. However, we should not mistake that resilience for evidence that Brexit did not harm financial services. Exports of financial services have declined by 5.9%, and, according to TheCityUK, that is at least partly due to Brexit frictions. The loss of passporting rights, for example, makes it harder to acquire clients across the continent. Compliance and administrative costs have risen, and we are now less attractive in relation to becoming a pan-European headquarters. Whatever the dispute may be when it comes to the precise numerical impact of Brexit on financial services, this negative track has to be acknowledged.
Bobby Dean
Uncertainty is always unwelcome in the financial services industry, but Governments must make decisions for the very long run, and I think that in the very long run it would be in our best interests to be part of the single market again.
The industry has remained resilient, not only in the face of Brexit but in the face of other challenges, but that should not be taken for granted. It is due, at least in part, to hard work and the reforms that were introduced after the 2008 financial crash. Prior to that, a reckless, deregulatory and ignorantly optimistic environment led to a complete and utter disaster, and not only for the industry but for society as a whole. The debts that stacked up in response to that crash are still squeezing the present Government’s potential to deliver better public services or lower taxes to this day, and the reputation of the industry among the public still suffers because of that event.
However, it is worth stressing that the reforms made in the aftermath have broadly worked. The sector has remained financially stable. Repossessions are low, pension funds are healthy and stable, and bank failure is rarely speculated about—and if it were to happen, I trust that it would happen in an orderly way. This has remained the case despite some serious stress tests in recent years, not least the global pandemic and the global energy shocks, and it shows that measures such as the bank capital requirements, the liquidity rules and the ringfencing have created a system that can hold. I think that the Government should be mindful of that as they set out on a path to—in their own words—deregulate again. They should resist the Conservative party’s calls to abolish ringfencing entirely. I think that savers across the country will be shocked to hear that there is a party advocating for that money once again to become available to the investment banking industry. In a wider context, the Government should tread cautiously. They should not fall for the same old cycle of deregulation, crisis, and then regulation again. Instead, they should try to plot a more stable path through this moment.
Nevertheless, there of course remains a case for reform. We are decades on from the financial crisis, and there will be plenty to do to modernise, to move with the times, to learn lessons, to tidy, to simplify, to clarify and to adjust, to make our financial services system work for the 21st-century economy. There is much to be supported in the Bill. I support, for instance, the move to make the Payment Systems Regulator part of the Financial Conduct Authority, and I hope that will mean we can continue some of the good work on open finance. I broadly support what I think is the intention in relation to improvements in access to banking, although we have yet to see some of the detail because we are waiting for the review to be published. I support the move to expand credit unions, and of course I support the intention to table amendments on child trust funds, for which I credit my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey).
More broadly, the Liberal Democrats support the thrust of the Bill, but there are some key areas where we want to work with the Government to get this rare opportunity for reform right. In particular, on consumer protection I fear that the Bill is in danger of overcorrecting. It starts from a false premise, which is that consumer rights and economic growth are somehow in contention. They are not; they are two sides of the same coin. There can be no booming economy without consumer confidence, and poorer protection and more difficult redress are in the interests of neither consumers nor firms.
I am struck by the volume of lobbying material that I receive from industry, and by how little I receive from the voice of the consumer. It is because of that inequality of arms that we in this place should be so mindful of the decisions we make in respect of this legislation. Some of it looks like a shopping list of demands from industry, and that should give the Government pause for thought. We should remember that the same inequality of arms in the lobby industry is repeated when it comes to legal disputes, and indeed at the point of purchase of financial products. Information asymmetry is a known economics concept, and in the development of financial products there is a huge information asymmetry. Experts are developing complex products that are inherently difficult for consumers to understand, and we should legislate accordingly with that in mind.
I therefore ask the Government to listen carefully to the 15 organisations—including Martin Lewis’s MoneySavingExpert, Citizens Advice and Which?—that have got together and warned that the reforms of the Financial Ombudsman Service could lock consumers out of independent redress, removing that vital safety net of free dispute resolution. Indeed, the former Member of Parliament for Makerfield, Yvonne Fovargue, has concerns that these reforms do not meet the Prime Minister’s “Makerfield test”. That should be a strong warning to the Chancellor.
The Financial Ombudsman Service stands accused of being a quasi-regulator, making precedent-setting decisions that firms cannot anticipate. I admit that there has been dysfunction in the service in recent years and that there is a case for better co-ordination and clarity, but the reforms, as they stand, will tip the balance too far in favour of firms, and I think we are in danger of making the FCA a quasi-ombudsman. The rules set by the FCA are necessarily high-level, especially if they are principle-based, and they cannot account for every situation in detail. The ombudsman must retain the power to make a judgment on what is fair and reasonable in the round, or we will descend into a dispute over strict legal compliance that will always favour firms in the way that I have described.
The chief executive of the FCA has repeatedly expressed concerns to the Treasury Committee about the possibility that the referral mechanism may create a back-door appeals mechanism for firms, gum up the system, and lead to the regulator doing the job that the ombudsman should rightly be doing. We will go into all the details in Committee, but I urge the Government to find a way through this that suits consumers too.
There are further issues that we will want to pursue in Committee. The Consumer Credit Act protections that are being rolled into the FCA are important provisions that need to remain in primary legislation. I recognise the need for regulatory power to respond to developments dynamically, but we must also ensure that such important provisions are protected in law, and I do not think that the FCA’s strategies will afford sufficient protection. Other Members have mentioned access to affordable credit, and this is a huge opportunity for us to take meaningful action in that regard, looking at some of the provisions proposed for the fair banking Act, and ensuring that when the washing machine breaks down or the car fails, people can access the credit they need to get through those crisis moments.
I have some simple asks in relation to the Bill, involving transparency and the current status of the access to affordable credit that banks are providing, and their links with credit unions and other community organisations to improve that access. I note that we now have a Co-operative Prime Minister. The Co-operative party backs such amendments, so I look forward to seeing whether they make it into the Bill. We would also like to see tougher action on the big tech companies in relation to fraud and scams. At present, the UK financial industry is on the hook for scams that nearly always originate on big tech platforms. Just last week I heard in the Chamber that Ofcom’s regulations would probably be sufficient, but we now have an opportunity to write into legislation liability for those tech firms, and I do not think we should miss it.
There is more that I could talk about, but in the interests of time I will move on. I support the Conservatives’ point about the digital asset strategy, and I think it would be a missed opportunity not to include something about that in the Bill. I would also like to speak up on the injustice facing mortgage prisoners, and I will say more about that in Committee.
Let me end by saying that we welcome the thrust of the Bill. It reinforces the position of the financial services sector as a great contributor to the UK economy, and its status as a global leader and a beacon of stability. However, there is a real danger of overcorrection and damage to consumer rights, as well as the potential to miss some big opportunities for long-running problems to be solved. I look forward to working with the Government in Committee to further the Bill’s progress.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, welcome this legislation and its goal of modernising consumer protection arrangements and making them fit for the digital age. I congratulate the Chancellor and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on their work, and on their ongoing engagement with Members from across the House as the reforms proceed.
I am very pleased to see measures that enable credit unions to expand by widening access to membership. I have seen the challenges experienced over the years as a Labour and Co-op MP, and I have worked to increase access to credit unions for local people in Feltham and Heston. It has been a challenge, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) on these reforms and on making sure that they become a reality for our constituents. It is clear that if anything can focus our mind’s eye on how important this is, it is seeing the importance of household resilience and being able to plan financially, given the challenges that the cost of living crisis has brought.
It is important for us to think ahead and make sure that we do all we can to improve household resilience, and these reforms will help more than 200 credit unions across Great Britain to reach new communities, with millions of people having more access to affordable and community-based financial services. Credit unions are known and trusted by local communities, and trust is really important for giving people confidence about where to save, how to save and whom to trust. It is also vital that we take steps to protect access to in-person banking services for the future, and we look forward with anticipation to the publication of the access to banking review and the Government’s response.
I want to raise three matters that I believe need to be further addressed in the Bill, some of which have already been referred to: the proposed 10-year time limit on complaints, the referrals process, and the fair and reasonable test. Finally, I will mention mortgage prisoners, as discussed by the Liberal Democrats’ spokesperson, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean)
First, on the 10-year time limit, the Government are putting forward a wide range of reforms to the Financial Ombudsman Service, but I am concerned that they are not being clear about the impacts on the public. The proposed 10-year time limit on Financial Ombudsman Service complaints risks locking thousands of consumers out of compensation. It can take years for people to realise that they have been ripped off, and firms often do everything they can to conceal misconduct.
Dame Meg Hillier
On that point, one of the issues is document retention. Firms do not necessarily keep information, so the process can rely on the consumer keeping it. Even if they can get redress from a firm, they may not have the documentation.
Seema Malhotra
I think we all agree with my hon. Friend’s important point.
I am concerned that the Government’s assessment appears to underestimate the true cost by assuming that historical cases are worth little more than average complaints, and by ignoring many complaints that firms will simply reject, without considering their merits, due to the application of the new time limit. I am very happy to share with the Minister more of my analysis of the implications and of what is in the impact assessment.
Secondly, the process of referral to the FCA could create a bureaucratic logjam, with firms incentivised to seek FCA rulings whenever a case looks likely to go against them, adding delay and administrative costs while allowing binding interpretations of the rules to be made without proper consultation. The referrals process should be reformed so that it is a rare occurrence, rather than the 1,000 to 3,000 referrals a year that the FCA expects will happen, which will cause delays as well as administrative costs and all the pain that that will entail. Proper consultation needs to be built in, so that the FCA gets full input from consumer groups before making binding decisions on what the new rules mean.
Thirdly, there are important questions about changes to the ombudsman’s fair and reasonable test, which could narrow the ability of the FOS to take account of industry codes and good practice, including protections that victims of economic and financial abuse rely on. If we want economic growth, we need consumers to save for retirement, take out insurance and engage confidently with long-term financial products. We need small businesses, like many of those across Feltham and Heston, to borrow and invest, and undermining trust in dispute resolution mechanisms risks undermining that confidence. Martin Lewis has warned that
“Restricting consumers’ access to free and fair redress is not a recipe for economic growth. Once consumers are warned about the erosion of their rights, it’s possible it will lead to disengagement from the financial services industry and diminishing trust.”
That is why we must look very closely at the proposals in order that we are confident that consumers will retain the necessary confidence in financial services.
Finally, in the last Parliament, the all-party parliamentary group on mortgage prisoners, which I co-chaired for a number of years following the experience of mortgage prisoners in Feltham and Heston, raised concerns that poor decision making at the FOS was leading to detriment for mortgage prisoners. In all honesty, no real progress was made. The situation is ongoing, as thousands of mortgage prisoners remain stuck and are suffering significant detriment. Many are still trapped on expensive variable rates with inactive lenders and are unable to switch to cheaper deals, so they are paying hundreds or thousands of pounds more each year and facing a far greater risk of losing their homes.
In 2024, the previous Prime Minister promised to get everyone around the table and ensure that this issue was properly addressed, but that has not yet happened. Mortgage prisoners remain trapped, and are paying higher interest rates to inactive lenders and vulture funds. They are told that they cannot pass affordability tests in order to pay less for their mortgage, and as the Bank of England increases interest rates following six cuts, there is nothing that vulnerable mortgage prisoners can do to gain any certainty on their payments. Many are former Northern Rock customers who are still experiencing severe harm because their loans were sold to inactive lenders by the previous Conservative Government. The London School of Economics report, funded by Martin Lewis, put forward solutions including improved access to financial advice, targeted equity loan schemes, and a Government-backed guarantee mechanism to help borrowers move back into the active market. I would be grateful to hear when the Government plan to respond in full to the proposals in the LSE report, and I would also be grateful for a meeting to discuss what more the Government can do to help mortgage prisoners.
I very much look forward to the Minister’s response and to working with colleagues from across the House on these reforms to make sure that, together, we can ensure the leadership and the fairness of our financial services sector, which is so renowned across the world.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. After John Glen, I will introduce an immediate eight-minute time limit.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to my ministerial experience as the Economic Secretary between January 2018 and July 2022. Listening to the opening speeches gave me pause to reflect on some of my decisions. I hope that I am the sort of politician who is ready to concede where I did not go far enough or where mistakes were made, but after I have gone through some of the measures in this Bill, I want to offer some broader observations about the interaction between the Treasury, this place and our regulators, because it goes to the heart of how we move forward effectively as a country.
as the shadow Economic Secretary said, the Bill contains some very welcome measures. Although the detail will be worked through in Committee, I think we can be positive about the reforms to credit unions. I made some changes to expand the common bond, and I wish the Government well with their extension of it. I ask the Economic Secretary to examine the issue of the interaction of credit unions and Help to Save. For many of the people who use credit unions, the opportunity, on an automated basis, to sign up to Help to Save—it gives everyone on universal credit the opportunity to save up to £600 a year, and after two years receive a 50% bonus from the Government—in these times would be very welcome. I am not sure exactly how that would be achieved, and I realise it is complicated, but it just stands to reason that it should be more readily accessible.
I also welcome the reform of consumer credit. These matters were discussed in my office four or five years ago, and I welcome the Government bringing it forward. I certainly did not seek to slow it down, but it is an incredibly complicated piece of work to update our consumer credit framework and how we protect consumers in a world where financial products and the interactions of consumers when taking out products have transformed considerably over the last 52 years. However, as we look at the changes—I note the comments of the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), on the Financial Ombudsman Service changes—we have got ourselves into a bit of a mess in this country.
In the Treasury Committee, I found myself talking about motor finance, and reflecting on being told that harms have been done to me when, from my perspective, I had made a decision about the amount of the deposit and the monthly payment in a financial agreement. However, I fully accept that the consumer credit legislation as it is at the moment means there was an obligation of proactive disclosure on behalf of whoever provided me with that product, rather than some reasonable test of what I should reasonably ask of the person providing the product. To me, that goes to the heart of the dilemma we face in financial services: to what extent can we in this place legislate against risk or put some reasonable responsibility on an individual consumer to take ownership of the decisions they make?
Bobby Dean
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman was anticipating my intervention, as we have had this conversation in the Select Committee. I made a point earlier about information asymmetry. Does he not accept that when financial products can be so complex, if providers are not utterly up front about the conditions, it is quite impossible for the consumer to take the responsibility he implies they should take?
John Glen
I absolutely take on the challenge, but I think we need to level with the British public about this and have a better conversation about it, rather than say there is an ultimate backstop provision apparently for absolutely everything. We have to reset that dynamic.
I have mixed feelings about the proposed reforms of the Financial Ombudsman Service. I feel it has become an unreliable pathway to resolution, but I am also concerned that by wrapping it into the FCA, as with the decision to apparently streamline regulations by putting the Payment Systems Regulator into the FCA, we will just create a bigger FCA, with different functions under one banner.
Dame Meg Hillier
It is worth noting that, in the end, there were two redundancies as a result of the merger, all the backroom costs were the same and the only thing that will change, when the legislation finally goes through, is that the board will go, which is a saving of about £100,000.
John Glen
I am very grateful for the hon. Lady’s characteristic grasp of the detail of this subject, and she absolutely makes the point. Just removing a banner from a front office does not streamline, so I urge the Economic Secretary to retain a forensic view, as I know she will, of what processes faced by businesses and consumers are actually streamlined.
I note the streamlining of the senior managers and certification regime by abolishing mandatory annual employee certification below senior manager level. I note the comment of the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), who is no longer in his place, on that regime, which was, “Abolish everything.” I understand the frustration that leads to many people saying that, but I think we have some new challenges, which have not been properly addressed, when it comes to AI in financial services.
The Chair of the Select Committee mentioned this in passing, but AI, in automating the evaluation of which products would suit individuals, is transforming most consumers’ interactions with financial services. Following the Mills review, there does seem to be a bit of a gap in what will happen with appropriate regulation. It seems that the essence of the position of the FCA is that it does not want to slow down the pace of innovation and growth in financial services, so it will be very reticent to put in any regulation. That is not an unreasonable sentiment, but we must discuss where we as a society feel responsibility should lie. If a financial services firm essentially allows an AI regime to produce offers of products that are sold, somebody has to be responsible for the terms and the basis for such a product going to market.
I welcome the changes to the PRA to streamline the bank rules on ringfencing, but I was the Minister who commissioned the Keith Skeoch review, which essentially came to the conclusion that it was not really necessary, but because of the legacy of the global financial crisis, we had better keep it in place. I urge the Economic Secretary to ask this question: what does that ringfencing actually give us? Many senior people at the PRA told me that we do not really need it, and we have a resolution regime that would actually satisfy all our requirements. However, it has a totemic significance, because it is associated with that season of under-regulation that led to the global financial crisis. We must have an honest conversation, not one based on received wisdom about what happened 18 years ago. We should not be reckless, but we do not need to carry unnecessary burdens when they do not really add anything.
Time goes quickly in this place, and I respect the need for everyone to speak, but I would like to make two or three broader points. One is about the imbalance of power and expertise. When I became the Economic Secretary, I hardly slept for the first few weeks because it was just so complicated, after I had been the arts, heritage and tourism Minister. From museums to MiFID in one step was a big move, but I did my best to master it. Every six weeks or so, I met the head of the FCA and the head of the PRA. These are some of the most brilliant people in public service, who have at their disposal some of the most intelligent, numerate individuals who are aware of all the nuances of different conditions, the capital requirements of banks of different sizes and the different mitigations for them. I was trying to mediate all the representations I had had from TheCityUK, UK Finance, the Association of British Insurers, the London Market Group and all the consumer organisations, essentially to try to challenge them on the right way of liberalising the regime or having a strong and simple regime to, for example, make it easier for smaller banks.
I probably got that right sometimes and on other occasions did not press hard enough, while at times there was a reasonable expectation that I would be moved on. Indeed, since July 2022 there have been eight Economic Secretaries—I am glad the sixth one is now back again as the eighth one. I just do not feel that that is a grown-up way to deal with our financial services Minister—the person responsible for this industry that we have all said is so important in terms of the jobs it creates and the GDP it accounts for. There is well-meaning intent, when we come to this place, to mediate consumer groups’ concerns and the concerns of our constituents, but we need to think about how we can do this better. Perhaps there should be a joint committee of the Commons and the Lords, properly staffed with the sort of expertise and advice that would really allow us to take on our friends at the PRA and the FCA, but it is something that does need scrutiny.
The legacy of the global financial crisis is important. It obviously had an enormous impact on our country and our public finances. “Too big to fail” must never happen again, but we must recognise that financial services in this country compete on an international basis. Too often, when legislation is passed in this place, there is another “have regard to”. I have been in Select Committees where colleagues have asked about some piece of legislation—some provision or “have regard to” that I probably allowed to pass through the House of Lords because I wanted to be collegiate—that led the regulator to make assessments that were not going to go anywhere, but added significant compliance costs to our financial services industry with no material outcome. I urge the Minister to really think about what is a necessary legacy of the global financial crisis and what is a sort of received wisdom of defensiveness that does not serve us well any more.
My final point, which I alluded to earlier, is about the consumer reset. The Chair of the Select Committee rightly pointed to Nikhil Rathi’s challenge to us at the Select Committee that we, as politicians, need to be clear about what level of risk we are prepared to tolerate. That is a difficult question for us as Members of Parliament. We are never going to want to say to our constituents, “We are happy to allow lots of risk,” but we have to put it in context. The measures we put in place on risk mitigation, the mandate and responsibilities we give the FCA and the PRA, make quite a big difference to the way the industry functions and how competitive it is.
I welcome what the Government have done on financial education. The Economic Secretary and I were at the launch of a report by UK Finance this morning. I welcome the progress that has been made and needs to be made in that area, but we must get to a better place in terms of enabling people, when so much more information is available, to own the choices that they make. Of course the responsibility to look after consumer interest exists, but let us calibrate that appropriately for the age we live in.
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With an eight-minute time limit, I call Lauren Edwards.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for her work in bringing the Bill to Parliament, and the other place for its scrutiny to date. I should begin by making it clear that before being elected, I worked in supervision at both the Prudential Regulation Authority and the financial market infrastructure directorate at the Bank of England. I associate myself with some of the comments others have made about the importance of the financial services industry not just to London, but to the whole of the UK.
I would like to begin by welcoming the Government’s retention of the proportionality requirements, following debate in the House of Lords. Although I worked on the larger financial companies when I was a frontline supervisor, the proportionality lens was very important in day-to-day decision making, alongside a robust risk framework, not least because as the person who had to deliver a message to a firm, I needed to make sure that I could justify it. In line with that risk-based and proportionate approach to supervision, which I believe is the right one, I wonder if the Bill could make more of the opportunity to stimulate growth in the commercial and specialty insurance markets.
The London insurance market is a world leader, with annual income larger than its five closest competitors combined. It insures everything from planes to nuclear power stations, and has an important role to play in helping the Government to tackle climate change, protect against cyber-threats and unlock investment across the UK. As others have said, it competes internationally against markets in places such as New York, Singapore and Hong Kong. Its market is for sophisticated corporate clients, professional investors, insurance firms, banks and pension funds, rather than the individual purchasing travel insurance ahead of a holiday or pet insurance for the family dog, but currently the supervisory approach is rather similar for those very different types of customers.
Will the Minister and the Government consider whether more could be done in the Bill to differentiate the way we supervise wholesale insurance markets that have professional clients versus retail markets, where the focus, quite rightly, is on protecting the individual consumer? An obvious example to follow would be Australia, the country of my birth, which makes that distinction between wholesale and retail insurance through the Australian Corporations Act 2001, and tailors its supervision accordingly. There is scope in the Bill to consider what a UK version of that approach could look like to ensure that regulation is proportionate while maintaining strong protections where they are most needed.
I support the Government reintroducing the power to be able to act quickly after the access to banking services review reports, but hope that when it is reintroduced it will be narrower in scope to address the concerns raised in the other place that saw the original provision removed from the Bill. It is also important that any action that follows from that review is properly consulted on.
In my constituency, my initial efforts to get a banking hub were frustrated by the focus on access to cash under the current rules, when it is really access to face-to-face banking, advice and services that my constituents want to have, particularly on the Strood side of the River Medway and in the more rural populations on the Hoo peninsula. Digital inclusion is very important for people of all ages, but we know that the over-65s in particular place a lot of value on face-to-face banking services and it is important that they do not lose out. Age UK statistics from September suggest that 1.4 million over-65s are fully digitally excluded. Banking hubs can be part of the digital inclusion plan if we follow the example of places such as Singapore, which I know from a recent visit with the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has very high levels of digital take-up and success using hubs to assist older citizens with building their confidence in using digital services for banking and public services.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point, and I have a similar need in my constituency. Does she agree that the benefits of banking hubs extend to many disabled people, as well as to older residents?
Lauren Edwards
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that they should be part of our efforts to ensure that our services are as inclusive as possible.
Moving on to the Government’s aim to halve the burden of the senior managers and certification regime for firms, the cost saving is expected to be material. The Bank of England quotes an estimated £2 billion over a decade. It is important that those who present the biggest systemic risk to financial stability remain on the hook if things go wrong. There were very good reasons why the SMCR was introduced after the 2008 global financial crisis and there is scope for streamlining and shorter processes, but we must remember, as we do that, how few people were accountable for the risks that were run in the lead-up to the crisis and how the taxpayer was left to pick up the bill. Once again, it is a question of balance in proportionality and risk. We must always ensure that we maintain high standards of conduct and accountability.
Finally, on authorised push payment fraud, I believe that during debates in the other place the Minister said that there were other vehicles, such as the Government’s online safety legislation and fraud strategy, to address APP fraud and so provision was not needed in the Bill. However, we should consider whether the tech giants have been required to sufficiently take on their share of the responsibility for tackling this pervasive harm. The economic cost of APP fraud is significant. It was estimated at £450 million from UK businesses and individuals in 2024, although thankfully the Payment Systems Regulator reports that reductions have been achieved since then, thanks to the APP reimbursement policy. Call me cynical, but I think the only way that online tech giants will care about tackling APP fraud is if they also have some responsibility for reimbursement, rather than it all falling to the retail banks. They should also be held to higher standards for preventative measures, such as user identity verification and enhanced fraud monitoring.
To conclude, I welcome the Government’s approach and the progress being made through this legislation, but hope that Ministers will remain open to further refinement. Working in partnership with industry, regulators and Parliament, we have an opportunity to strengthen the UK’s position as a world-leading financial services centre, while maintaining the high standards and consumer protections for which our system is rightly respected.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
We on the Liberal Democrat Benches broadly support the Bill. Modernising a framework that has grown complex over decades is sensible and there is much here to welcome, from wider credit union membership to protecting in-person banking and tougher defences against financial crime.
I want to use my brief time to talk about a missed opportunity, and I hope the Government will take me up on it. It relates to the Chancellor’s former job. The Government rightly want to rebuild our defence industry, and small firms are one of the bedrocks of that goal. With the way that warfare is accelerating, the cutting, bleeding edge is with small tech firms innovating in things such as AI and autonomy. The Ministry of Defence works with around 12,000 small and medium-sized enterprises through its supply chains, and spends about £5 billion a year with them. It is further set out in the defence investment plan and the strategic defence review that the MOD wants to spend a further £2.5 billion with SMEs by the summer of 2028. That is where defence is moving—if we want to win wars in the modern age, we have to have a robust defence SME sector,
Every small business, no matter what sector it is in, knows how hard it can be to raise finance, but many defence firms face an extra barrier. They are often refused bank accounts, loans or insurance simply because they work in the defence sector. SC Group—formerly Supacat—has won MOD contracts worth tens of millions of pounds, yet it has struggled to get investment or loans because it is not seen as acceptable. Another example is 4GD, which uses AI and robotics to run training simulators for British soldiers; the company stopped attending investment meetings and was actually turned away from one once the host found out it was a defence firm.
A couple of years ago, 15 SME defence firms formally raised the issue with their trade body, ADS, as they had actually had accounts closed by UK financial institutions. Obviously, those were just the firms that were willing to speak up; there are plenty that will have suffered adverse reactions when seeking credit but have chosen not to speak out—because what firm wants to advertise that they are unable to get capital or credit? The crucial point is that this is not because of regulation. In March 2025, the FCA stated very plainly that:
“There is nothing in our rules, including those related to sustainability, that prevents investment or finance for defence companies.”
The problem is that many investment and financial services firms have environmental, social and governance policies that explicitly name defence firms as being unacceptable for investment. The Government know that, because in the MOD’s SME action plan, which was published in July, they commit to working with everyone, from venture capital to high street banks, to make it easier for the financial sector to back defence SMEs. But there is a difference between knowing about a problem and setting out a robust way of fixing it, and that is what I want to focus on.
The Bill started in the House of Lords, where my noble Friend Baroness Kramer tabled amendment 67, which proposed a practical step that might go some way towards solving the problem. The amendment essentially required the Financial Conduct Authority to review how easily SMEs in sectors critical to our national security can get finance. More specifically, that review would examine the availability and cost of finance for defence firms, whether the FCA’s rules create barriers, whether lenders’ ESG policies, sector exclusions or risk assessments are shutting defence firms out, and whether defence SMEs find it materially harder to get finance than firms in other industries. Crucially, the review would finish with the changes that should be made to improve access to finance for defence SMEs—it should speak to the problems identified in the review.
When my noble Friend Baroness Kramer presented the amendment, among a package of others, the Government declined, saying that the framework was already proportionate to SMEs. I think something has been lost in translation there. Proportionality is not the issue; the FCA has told us that its rules are not the barrier. The question is about what regulated investment firms are actually doing. At the moment, nobody is monitoring that, but amendment 67 sought to do so, by mandating the FCA to carry out a review on a regular basis—once every two or three years.
I urge the Government and the Economic Secretary to use the Bill to honour the commitment made by other parts of Government to support SMEs—including defence SMEs—to have access to finance on a level playing field with other sectors. This is not a party political issue: in March 2025, more than 100 Labour MPs and peers wrote to banks and investors about exactly this problem, and it has also been raised on the Conservative Benches. On Report, pursuant to any conversations that the Minister might like to have with me, I intend to re-table the same amendment and seek cross-party support. I am pretty sure there will be robust support across the House. I would welcome the chance to meet with the Minister to discuss the issue, because I think we have an opportunity to strengthen the Bill as it goes forward.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)
This is my first speech in this House since being appointed as the Government’s co-operatives and mutuals champion, a role that speaks to my purpose in public life and gives me the responsibility of championing the co-operative and mutuals sector across Parliament and Government. It is a pleasure to contribute to a debate with my right hon. and learned Friend the Economic Secretary sat on the Front Bench; I know she is a champion for the sector in a diverse and resilient financial market. In the spirit of cross-party consensus that we have had this evening, I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), who I know secretly carries a co-operative dividend card in his wallet and is a champion of the sector as well.
I am proud that this Government have an ambitious plan to double the size of the co-operative and mutual economy, and this Bill will contribute to that ambition. I am proud to take on the role that I have been given, because mutuals, building societies and credit unions embody a simple but powerful idea: that financial services should work in the interests of the people who use them. They are owned by their members, rooted in their communities and focused on long-term value rather than simply short-term shareholder returns.
On taking the role last week, my first meeting was with the boards and executives of building societies from across the country, and this morning I met with Royal London. I put on record my thanks to the boards of all our building societies and credit unions, and the staff who work for them and support them in their endeavours, providing growth in every postcode already. We see people like this working in our building societies and mutuals across the country.
We have seen this movement in Peterborough, just like in many other cities. In 1954, the Co-operative Permanent Building Society opened its office in our city. More than 70 years later, now as Nationwide, it continues to serve and help people to save, buy a home and access trusted financial advice. That long-term commitment to communities is exactly why building societies and the wider mutual movement remain such an important part of our economy and financial services. It brings somewhere to save, somewhere fair to borrow and somewhere that understands the communities that the institutions serve.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I am a director of Slemish ń tha Braid Credit Union. Will the new champion meet me, the Irish League of Credit Unions and the Ulster Federation of Credit Unions to ensure that the support he is talking about covers the whole United Kingdom and all the savers who use those services?
Andrew Pakes
One of the delights of my role will be juggling my diary to meet all the brilliant different mutual movements and community banks and assets across everywhere represented in Parliament—I will be delighted to do so.
In particular, I welcome reforms to the credit union common bond. By increasing the membership limit, we can help credit unions to reach more communities, widen access to affordable credit, and help more people to build savings and financial resilience. At a time when many families are still feeling pressure on household budgets, access to fair and affordable lending matters more than ever. Credit unions provide a trusted alternative to high-cost lenders and, as other Members have said, they play an important role in tackling financial exclusion.
The Bill also gives us an opportunity to recognise the contribution that building societies make to banking access. Across the country, many banks have reduced their physical presence, yet building societies have continued to invest in local services and maintain branches. Evidence cited by the Building Societies Association shows that building societies now account for around a third of UK banking branches, operating more than 1,400 branches nationwide. That commitment should be recognised and encouraged, but any future banking access requirements must also be fair—building societies cannot be expected to become the catch-all provider for responsibilities abandoned by others.
We need a framework that reflects local need, supports innovation and ensures that mutuals are not penalised for continuing to serve the communities that others have left behind. I echo comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) and the Chair of the Treasury Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), that the rules governing capital and mutuals need to be looked at as well, so that we do not leave the mutual movement behind as we modernise and reflect on financial services as a whole.
More broadly, regulation should reflect the distinct nature of mutual organisations. We can maintain strong consumer protections while ensuring that the rules are proportionate and support growth, competition and innovation. Mutuals are not asking for special treatment—they are asking for a level playing field of access and role.
The test for this legislation is straightforward: will it help people to save, borrow and own a home? Will it support access to financial services in every community? Will it enable mutuals, building societies and credit unions to grow and serve more people? Mutuals, building societies and credit unions are a vital part of the future of our diverse, resilient and community-focused financial services sector, and I hope the Minister will ensure that the legislation helps them to grow, to serve more people and to continue making a difference in communities such as mine in Peterborough and those of the hon. Members we have heard from this evening.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I want to pick up on the Chancellor’s comments in opening the debate, when he said that he wanted to continue moving the Bill in “the right direction” with a collegiate approach across the House. I intend to table an amendment to the Bill on one specific issue, which builds on the work of Baroness Hoey of Lylehill and the British Insurance Brokers’ Association. It relates to an ongoing campaign of mine to tackle the rising and disproportionate cause of car insurance costs across Northern Ireland.
The amendment will seek to include claims management companies in Northern Ireland under the FCA regulations. As it stands, Northern Ireland remains the only part of the United Kingdom where claims management companies are not regulated by the FCA, due to the fact that the Northern Ireland Assembly was not sitting when the legislation was introduced in England, Scotland and Wales. With no room to legislate under the current timetable and an Assembly election coming in May—who knows what happens after May—I believe that the Bill provides the perfect vehicle for bringing forward the solution to what is a technicality on the support of claims management companies and car insurance users in Northern Ireland.
Motorists across Northern Ireland continue to face disproportionately high premiums, placing severe financial pressure on our households and particularly on young drivers. Unregulated claims management companies actively pursue customers after collisions and can take anywhere between 15% and 30% of compensation payouts, which significantly inflates overall claims expenses. Those excessive costs then act as a major driver pushing up the cost of car cover for our drivers.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
I know that the hon. Member has been working extensively on this matter. He rightly highlights Northern Ireland’s higher premiums; there are also fewer providers, as well as the matter of the unregulated claims management companies. He will know that public transport and cycle infrastructure is failing as well, driving more people into their cars. Does he agree that it is a symptom of Stormont’s failure that another collapse meant that this gap was not plugged, and does he share my concern about the sluggish response of Stormont on providing data and agreeing to co-operate on this matter, and the belief of many drivers that nobody is really at the wheel?
Robin Swann
The hon. Lady is correct in some of her assertions on this matter, because correcting this legislative anomaly has not been on the Executive’s agenda. I do not think it will be on their agenda even after the election coming in May.
This vehicle—this piece of legislation—does provide the solution for those who need affordable car insurance in Northern Ireland more so than in other parts of the United Kingdom. Extending the FCA’s regulatory remit to Northern Ireland is a vital, practical step to properly govern those firms. It will prevent exploitative practices and bring much-needed fairness to our local insurance market.
While various factors contribute to higher insurance costs in Northern Ireland, closing that regulatory gap, which the Bill will be able to do, will actually make a tangible difference. As the Economic Secretary will see, there is support for such a measure across the Northern Ireland parties. It has also been brought in the other House, too. I hope she will listen, and meet me to explore this anomaly and bring about the solution.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate and to follow the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann). Members on all three Front Benches have rightly set out the importance of financial services to the UK economy. It is indeed one of the UK’s most international sectors, and one that holds great significance for the prospects of UK industry, businesses and households across the United Kingdom, including in my constituency.
I am very pleased to support the Bill this evening, as it retains the UK’s hybrid combination of strong institutions, high-quality regulators and, ultimately, clear rules that are critical not only to maintaining investor confidence—a currency more valuable than ever before in an incredibly volatile world—to put their money here, but to people and businesses across the UK who use financial services in their everyday lives.
Given the limited time I have, I will restrict my comments to a few areas. First, I will mention credit unions and clause 2. My hon. Friends the Members for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) and for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes), whom I congratulate on his appointment as co-operative and mutuals champion—a very wise choice by the Chancellor and the Economic Secretary—have made incredibly powerful points on credit unions. They are absolutely right to say that the current common bond rules date from another era, when society organised itself very differently. I am pleased that the Bill fixes those matters by ensuring that relatives can join in if they live in different households, that retirees can stay in and join after they stop work, and that students can qualify under the new locality bond. I also welcome raising the membership cap from 3 million to 10 million, as it enables credit unions across the UK to once again have a fair go at expanding and scaling.
I want to make a few comments about the regulators. Clauses 15 to 25 reshape how the FCA and the PRA do their jobs, and I welcome the broad direction of travel that the Government have set. Clause 16 makes regulators more considerately and thoughtfully weigh the experience of small and medium-sized firms by having greater regard for proportionality, which is important both in terms of the size of firms that are required to comply with rules and regulations and the cost and benefit of any rule that is made. Having worked supporting smaller quoted companies and then large institutions at the London Stock Exchange Group before I entered this place, it is to me pretty much intuitive common sense that a small firm cannot staff a compliance department or answer every consultation that is issued by Government or a regulator with the same vigour as larger counterparts.
It is therefore incumbent on all our regulators—in this case the FCA and PRA, but I would similarly make the comment with regard to regulators operating across our economy—to properly and proactively account for this if they want to be a genuinely constructive partner in supporting economic growth and cultivating meaningfully competitive domestic markets. I also understand that the Government will retain the Lords amendment to keep proportionality as an explicit test in the day-to-day work of both regulators. If that is the case, I very much welcome that.
Under clause 19, the FCA and the PRA will be required to report at least once a year on how they are advancing the competitiveness and growth secondary objectives. These reports will feed in the Treasury’s twice-yearly performance reviews with the regulators’ respective chief executives. I think that is a highly appropriate measure, given that almost all the financial institutions—be they large or small, market infrastructure, bank or insurer—were incredibly keen for the previous Government to ensure that regulators adopted such an objective. Given that it has probably been four or five years now since that obligation was placed on our regulators, it is right that those regulators who have such a large impact on our economy explain their record to Parliament, in particular the Commons Treasury Committee and the Lords Economic Affairs Committee.
In the three minutes or so that I have remaining, I want to close on the Bill’s most forward-facing clauses: those relating to cryptoassets and digital assets more broadly. FCA analysis has found that as many as 7 million Britons own or have owned cryptoassets, and just a few more—9.3 million—hold a stocks and shares ISA. I will spare the Economic Secretary one of my sermons on the virtues of retail investing, but I just mention that statistic because it demonstrates how the consumer landscape is quickly shifting and, with it, the risk that consumers are increasingly exposed to.
It has never been more important for the UK— Government and regulators—to ensure that we are keeping up with developments in cryptoassets and delivering appropriate consumer protections, as my hon. Friend the Chair of the Treasury Committee explained earlier. But we must also do that without restraining the inevitable opportunities that digitising our financial markets offers us and risking letting Britain fall behind.
On digital assets themselves, the Government are making welcome strides forward, particularly in supporting Chris Woolard’s first report as the UK’s wholesale digital markets champion. The main challenge facing the UK is how we maintain momentum in the years ahead, given that other jurisdictions such as the United States, Hong Kong and Singapore are pursuing these agendas with great pace. I hope that the Government will use their regular engagement with the Bank of England to ensure that it moves with as much vigour on stablecoins as the Government are on digital gilt. With the geopolitical volatility that I mentioned earlier, Britain can offer something quite rare: a consistent, predictable environment for innovation in stablecoin and across asset classes, be they fixed income or equities.
Turning to clause 50, while the digital assets strategy, which has been proposed by the Opposition, is an interesting addition to the Bill, I am not instinctively sure whether legally mandating the Government to produce a strategy is necessarily appropriate. But I am sure that the Minister will explain the Government’s position in her wind-up speech.
I am very pleased to support this Bill. A competitive financial services sector provides so much more value than just itself and is a massive asset to all the companies and people in our constituencies.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
This is quite a wide-ranging Bill, as we can tell from the variety of speeches that we have heard. It focuses not only on financial markets and financial services, but on consumer protection. In some ways, those are opposite ends of the spectrum, and we can talk about anything within that spectrum.
I will talk about a few measures in the Bill, but first I want to raise a concern that I have raised before, which is that any piece of legislation that originates in the House of Lords does not take oral evidence. It is immensely frustrating that no oral evidence will be taken regarding this Bill, despite the fact that it is immensely technical and we would really benefit from that. I have been on many Bill Committees, so I know that oral evidence sessions are invaluable for providing information that we can take forward. I urge the Government to have a rethink about whether oral evidence can be taken on House of Lords Bills when they come to the Commons, because it is not fair that we miss out on that evidence.
Turning to specific measures in the Bill, part 1 on credit unions is really important, and I agree with widening the membership. I think that the “Fair Banking for All” movement is really positive, and I would be keen to support it, including with access to credit. A number of Members have said things like, “We all rely on banking services”, but some people do not, because they cannot access those banking services because they are so financially excluded. Ensuring that those people who have suffered from economic abuse, for example, have access to those services is really important.
I am glad that credit unions will have their common bond widened, but I do wonder about the timeline for the statutory instrument that is coming through to widen the limit of people from 3 million to 10 million. It would be really helpful if the Minister could let us know what is happening with that statutory instrument and when it will progress, because it is happening in parallel to this Bill rather than being included in it.
On complaints and consumer redress, I agree with the majority of what the Chair of the Treasury Committee said. I have concerns about the absolute limit of 10 years. I do not think that that is appropriate, and consumer organisations also believe that.
I also have concerns about the general principle that consumers should take responsibility for their decisions. As a general principle, that makes sense, but when it comes to specific issues it does not necessarily always work. Consumers can take responsibility in situations where they had the full information and the capacity to understand the information that they were given, but in some cases they will not have been given the full information or had the ability to understand it. They should be able to take responsibility for informed decisions but not have to take responsibility for those in which they were not properly informed. I would appreciate it if the Minister could clarify that before we come to Report stage—it relates to clause 7, which proposes amendments to section 228 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.
On payment systems regulation, I absolutely agree that changes that can be made. I feel strongly that it is really important to future-proof the regulation of cryptoassets particularly and the transfer of those cryptoassets in relation to payment systems regulation and fees that are regulated by the FCA. Charities have seen a massive increase from a significant number of banking institutions in the payments that they make. For example, charities that have only a small amount of money and might be taking out a float to run a small event will now be seeing massive fees that they were not seeing before because of changes to charitable banking systems. I am not sure whether that exactly falls within payment systems regulation, but I do not think it is fair that they have to do that. Those changes disproportionately harm smaller charities and those who deal with small amounts of cash.
I have a specific question on anti-money laundering supervision. I understand the move away from professional body supervisors so that we can have fewer than 25 organisations doing that supervision, but I am worried about specialisation. For example, if we put the work of the organisation that supervises lawyers and solicitors in Scotland into the FCA as a regulator that supervises lawyers, that may not be appropriate for the legal system in Scotland, and we may end up with only one person—the one who understands Scottish law—having the knowledge and doing that supervision. There, again, we would have a single point of failure, and that is really concerning in a place supervising people who are doing anti-money laundering. Will the Minister confirm that there will be appropriate specialism and understanding of all the different organisations currently supervised by professional bodies as that work is moved into one organisation? I am concerned about potential failure points.
In relation to Scottish-specific things, those looking to get a child trust fund unlocked for someone in Scotland who has become an adult and does not have the capacity to manage their own finances has to go to the Office of the Public Guardian. Will the Minister please ensure that any changes in regulation made here do not make the system worse in Scotland? I understand that it is currently better than the system in England—there is no requirement to go through a court process—so will she talk to the people who understand the system in Scotland to ensure that our people will not be disadvantaged? I would love the system in Scotland to be made better, but at the very least it should not be made worse as we move forward here.
I believe strongly that we need access to in-person banking services, as have been mentioned. A huge many banks have closed in my constituency—a city constituency—and some people are required to go on public transport for an hour to get to banking facilities.
When banks close, they regularly say, “It’s fine, because there’s a post office.” That is not fine, because post offices are run by postmasters and postmistresses, who may get ill and have to step down at short notice, and post offices do not have to consult before they close to ensure that provision will always be there. Therefore, in terms of access to in-person banking services, if a post office is to be relied on as a backstop, that service needs to be better and better regulated, and we need to ensure that that backstop service will continue to be there.
On data sharing for consumer credit and ensuring that people have credit agreements, I am concerned that if the data sharing system is to be more flexible than currently, it may be more at risk given the number of hacks we are seeing. I urge the Government to ensure that the National Crime Agency, for example, has looked into that so that people’s data is as safe as possible.
I have one very last thing. On Henry VIII powers and the creation of things here, banking services should never have been a delegated authority; that should have been in the Bill. We should also have done the consultation before the legislation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I call Gareth Thomas, after whom the speaking limit will drop down to six minutes.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Bill and commend both the Chancellor and, in particular, my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary for their commitment to modernising financial services. Like the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and other Government Members, I welcome in particular the proposed changes to credit union rules as well as recently announced measures to increase funding for community development finance institutions through the British Business Bank. But I want to focus my remarks specifically on what more the Bill could do to ensure that our financial system works for everyone, particularly by improving access to affordable credit for people and businesses in every region.
The Prime Minister has rightly said that ours must be a “cost of living Government” putting money back into people’s pockets and giving families breathing space. That must surely include tackling the extra costs that people face simply because they are on a low income. Research published this summer by Fair By Design found that 95% of low-income households pay a poverty premium, of an average of £380 a year extra, for essentials such as energy, insurance, food and, crucially, credit.
That research suggests that some 98% of households in poverty in my constituency pay a poverty premium that includes £178 a year on credit. That is not by any definition a small amount for a family already struggling to make ends meet. A household with savings can, for example, replace a broken fridge outright, but almost 40% of UK adults have less than £1,000 in savings and one in four people in financially vulnerable circumstances have no savings at all. A household without savings in that situation might have to borrow at eye-watering rates, paying far more for exactly the same appliance. The people with the least paying the highest price during a cost of living crisis is particularly unjust, and sometimes the consequences are far more serious than higher interest payments.
The Centre for Social Justice estimated earlier this year that close to 2 million people in England are borrowing from illegal money lenders. These loan sharks can trap people in escalating debts, using intimidation, threats and sometimes violence to extract repayments. The number of people using them has risen and sadly will continue to rise unless people have safe, affordable alternatives. Credit unions and community development finance institutions already provide those alternatives, but they need support to be able to scale up and meet demand. Public funding, while important and welcome, cannot do the job alone.
Some 850,000 SMEs already view access to finance as a major obstacle to growth, fewer than half of SME loan applications to traditional banks are successful, and in surveys, 40% of SMEs cite the high cost of the loans on offer as a problem for their business. Women business leaders, businesses led by disabled people, ethnic minority business leaders and businesses in the poorest areas of our country all face higher barriers to accessing the finance they need to unlock their expansion plans.
Concern has grown that a number of high-cost lenders are exploiting this situation, targeting small businesses with slick, online marketing offering very rapid access to cash. As with the payday lending scandal of a decade ago, these lenders do not have to display or explain the total cost of borrowing or accurate representative rates. The often quite aggressive use of personal guarantees, loan stacking and the behaviour of some brokers are also significant concerns. Court judgments, ombudsman complaints and wider efforts to refinance these loans all underline the need for tighter regulation of the rules on high-cost credit and for bolder measures to improve access to affordable credit.
Research for the Treasury and the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade published in January this year by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research underlined how much our increasingly centralised banking services had driven up the cost of lending for businesses, compared with other European countries with much larger regional and mutual banking sectors. The OECD’s most recent analysis of SMEs’ and entrepreneurs’ financing suggests that the UK had higher average SME interest rates in 2024 compared with the US, France and Germany.
I am therefore pleased that Ministers are backing with enthusiasm the CDFI taskforce that I initiated in government, and I welcome the progress on the Government’s financial inclusion strategy, but lasting change surely means looking beyond voluntary measures to ensure that people in the most vulnerable parts of the market are not excluded from essential financial services, including credit—a point members of the Treasury Committee made in their recent report. The Bill is the opportunity to bridge this gap and enact that change.
There is no consistent, transparent framework for assessing how well major banks serve the people and places excluded from affordable credit. There is no systematic way to compare their contribution or assess how they encourage partnerships with credit unions and CDFIs that can make a real difference. We should surely require the Financial Conduct Authority to assess and publish banks’ performance in meeting affordable credit needs, including their support for responsible community lenders. Assessments should be transparent, comparable and, of course, proportionate, with action expected where performance falls short. A similar thing is about to happen with pension schemes.
This is not about forcing banks to lend to people who cannot afford to repay. It is about ensuring that those who can repay are not excluded and that banks fulfil their part of the social contract. Banks have had huge success in the last decade—a decade when, according to Which?, almost 7,000 bank branches have closed, shutting down opportunities for basic advice, making access to financial services more difficult and leaving small businesses on our high streets facing yet another challenge.
Kirsty Blackman
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a lot of this data is collected already, and that it would not place a significant additional regulatory burden on banks to have to gather it? It is just not being published.
Gareth Thomas
Indeed, the FCA said something similar to me at a roundtable with some charities. What is clearly needed is the will to publish that data and to sort out the remaining gaps in the data.
The banks’ success has come through being particularly selective in who they lend and offer detailed financial advice to. Their contributions to helping build the capacity of those financial institutions that do lend to everybody have been much more limited—in some cases, non-existent. It is the responsibility of Government to lead on tackling market failures, but as in other countries, banks in the UK have a responsibility to help, and not enough of them are helping to build the capacity of community banks, credit unions and CDFIs to do so. Just as it was right to ask banks to pay a bit more tax to support people with their energy bills, so we should ask them to work with us to create a more diverse, resilient and, crucially, inclusive financial system that will serve every community in the decades ahead.
Everyone in this House surely supports easing the cost of living and delivering good growth in every postcode. Fair access to credit is critical to both those ambitions. I hope that Ministers can be persuaded to back further steps on affordable credit as the Bill progresses. A financial system that works for everyone is fundamental to tackling the cost of living crisis.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I am proud of our world-leading financial services sector and the many constituents I represent who work in it. I put on record my thanks to the Chancellor for announcing measures in the Budget that will continue to help Britain attract global talent to work in those services.
Our reputation for strong financial services that respect the rule of law depends on our ability to keep dirty money out of the City and out of our country. The Bill will make huge strides on that through clause 13, on which I will focus. No one should turn a blind eye to the source of funds for an investment, whether into a company, a property, art or even some of our national institutions. The former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), was right to say that this Government’s ambition should be to change our reputation from the dirty money capital of the world to
“the anti-corruption capital of the world”.
One of the historical weaknesses has been the regulation of legal, accountancy and company service providers, which are sometimes referred to as enablers or potential enablers of money laundering. It should not be a badge of honour that dirty money in our country has spawned an entire genre of excellent books: “Kleptopia”, “Treasure Islands”, “Butler to the World”, “London Falling”—hon. Members can read my review in “The House” magazine—and many more.
In my Kensington and Bayswater constituency, we similarly do not celebrate the fact that we are home to numerous sanctioned luxury properties and thousands more whose ownership is unknown or opaque. I invite the Minister to join my next “Kensington Against Dirty Money” walking tour, which will show her the impact of dirty money entering our country—often through the vehicles of anonymous trusts registered in the British Virgin Islands and other overseas territories and Crown dependencies. That distorts our property market, hollows out our local communities and, in the worst cases, leaves properties frozen in limbo. That is not sustainable investment. It does not promote economic growth or shine a good light on our professional services.
I am therefore delighted that the Bill will significantly strengthen anti-money laundering measures. The Financial Conduct Authority will take on an expanded supervising role, rather than the more than 20 different professional bodies that currently oversee lawyers’ and accountants’ compliance with money laundering rules. The capacity of those bodies simply does not align with the complexity of modern anti-money laundering efforts, and the incentive for private professional bodies to compete for membership does not align with the most rigorous oversight. For a long time, anti-corruption campaigners have called for this consolidation. I pay tribute to those organisations. As the Bill progresses, the transition will need to be managed. There is a clear risk that, as responsibilities shift to the FCA in cohorts, some firms will be left behind. It would be helpful for the Government to provide a reform road map that makes it clear that existing anti-money laundering duties will apply.
Funding is obviously key—other Members will speak to the benefits of an economic crime-fighting fund, which the Minister already knows my views on well—but enforcement also means ensuring that the FCA has the right powers to inspect legally privileged material when that is necessary for anti-money laundering supervision. The Minister will no doubt be aware of the action taken by Carter-Ruck against the Solicitors Regulation Authority to challenge its statutory power to compel disclosure, which the SRA has now appealed to the Supreme Court. There is a risk that the FCA will therefore inherit a legally flawed responsibility for anti-money laundering. It is crucial to get that right, and I hope this Bill is the place to do it.
On property investment, I know that the Government are committed to looking at the issue of abuse of trust, and the anti-corruption champion’s report into asset ownership in Britain will be published soon. In my constituency, over 40% of the foreign-owned properties are registered in trust. My concern with our registry of overseas entities and the exemption given to trusts is that we might create a perverse incentive to use more opaque corporate structures to shield the true ownership. Indeed, those opaque structures are likely to be the product of conversations with the very professional services to which the Bill aims to bring more consistent money laundering supervision. I hope that in the spirit of joined-up government, the Minister will work with colleagues across Government to look at this abuse of trust. That would be another significant step forward.
The measures in the Bill support our leadership on the global stage. We have the financial action taskforce review next year, which I am sure will welcome the steps in the Bill, as well as the G20 presidency and our flagship illicit finance summit, which I am glad the Government have committed to host next year. I hope the Minister will see the illicit finance summit as an opportunity to work with like-minded countries on consistent international anti-money laundering supervision of professional services.
Finally, it is well past time for action on the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. The uncomfortable truth is that while some of the most notorious and brazen enablers of illicit finance and money laundering operate as part of the UK family, we will not be able to claim the leadership role that the Bill has the potential to support. Despite years of commitments and communiqués, the overseas territories are still one of the main global destinations for dirty money, and it is high time for that to change. The harms are severe, from sanctions evasion to serious organised crime, and they damage our financial services here and support kleptocrats and criminals who take advantage of them. With the Joint Ministerial Council happening this month, I hope we can continue to take action on that front. I hope that the Bill can help end that reputation as the butler to the world and instead create the modern, secure financial services regulation that we need.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
I have spoken before about the issue of hidden credit liabilities and the role of the Financial Conduct Authority, and the Bill touches on some of the concerns I have raised.
My constituents James and Becky Glanville built a successful family-run nursing home business, but it was destroyed by undisclosed risks embedded in complex financial products sold by NatWest, part of RBS. They were never told that interest rate swaps carried significant liabilities that would be treated as secured debt, erode their borrowing capacity and trigger covenant breaches as interest rates fell.
Despite clear regulatory requirements for transparency and informed consent, those risks were never disclosed. The regulatory framework then let my constituents down, too. The FSA and FCA’s redress scheme excluded the hidden credit lines from its review, denying fair compensation to victims like the Glanvilles. The regulator effectively colluded with the banks to suppress this fraud and reduce compensation costs, and by 2019 the Glanvilles were owed £6.3 million, but to date they have received absolutely nothing.
The Glanvilles’ case is not isolated. It reflects a wider systemic failure and underscores the urgent need for a full independent investigation and a fair, comprehensive redress scheme. I would be interested to hear the Economic Secretary’s views on the issue and whether the Bill would have protected the Glanvilles had it been in place at the time.
After a decade and a half of austerity, an estimated 4.4 million people have taken out £13 billion-worth of credit to pay for essentials. According to the Centre for Responsible Credit, over a million households have potentially been lent to irresponsibly in the last two and a half years. We know that when the rules are vague, it is borrowers who ultimately pay the price. When the cost of living crisis has already pushed household budgets to breaking point, the Government must not undermine the vital safety net that underpins consumer trust in the entire financial system.
The FOS is a vital safety net for consumers when something goes wrong, but clause 7 introduces a vastly more complex system for how the FOS determines complaints. The shift from a level playing field with an impartial fairness test to one that initially presumes the firm was in the right means that consumers could now face a harder uphill battle to receive redress and could even be denied the redress they would have received under the old test.
The Bill’s stated aim is to introduce deregulation to stimulate growth, but there are serious questions to be asked. Who determines the rights of consumers? Who determines the obligations of firms? Who determines the balance between commercial freedom and public protection, and ultimately, who answers when that balance proves inadequate?
We know that the more authority Parliament delegates to the FCA, the more essential it becomes to preserve democratic accountability. That matters when the rights of ordinary citizens are at stake, and particularly when there is good reason to question the FCA’s judgment and priorities. We cannot simply place all the responsibility on to borrowers. I hope that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will be able to provide some much-needed reassurance on these genuine concerns.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
Having worked for more years than I like to remember in financial services, I recognise the importance of regulation, but I also recognise that at times, regulation can be restrictive to economic growth, and given the size and contribution of the financial and insurance services industry, it is rightly an area of focus for reforms. Consumer protection is vital, but I am pleased that the Bill looks to simplify regulation while maintaining high protections and regulatory standards.
I want to focus on two areas of particular interest to me. The first is the abolition of the Payment Systems Regulator and the transfer of responsibilities to the FCA. When I chaired the all-party parliamentary group on open finance and payments—the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) has now taken over—this was a matter of regular discussion and interest for many members. Currently, four bodies are responsible for regulating different parts of the payments system: the Bank of England, the Payment Systems Regulator, the FCA and the PRA. Absorbing the PSR’s responsibilities into the FCA is a sensible reform, and it sits alongside the Government’s plans set out in the “National Payments Vision” in 2024.
The payments sector has spent untold resources trying to satisfy two distinct bureaucratic masters on identical operational metrics, submitting duplicate data on financial crime and systemic resilience. By integrating those systems under a single FCA handbook framework, we can strip out this waste and allow our scaling payments and open banking firms to reinvest that capital back into technical development and national and international growth.
The core message from the industry is that the absorption of the Payment Systems Regulator must be strictly managed to protect the open banking and payments sector from transitional friction, accelerate open banking rails and ensure that a single regulatory structure does not slow down the competitive dynamism of the UK’s payments sector. The Payments Association has warned that without precise detail of the merger, it risks being a “reshuffle” rather than a reform, and we must avoid that.
Another area of particular interest to me is the plan to widen access to credit unions through the expansion of their common bond in clause 2. When I was chair of the all-party parliamentary group on fair banking, I was often lobbied by organisations such as Fair4All Finance, which made passionate calls for the expansion of credit unions and CDFIs. In 2025, there were around 1.53 million credit union members in Great Britain, but that is equivalent to only 2% of our population, compared with around 40% in Northern Ireland and 64% in the Republic of Ireland. Credit unions are much closer to their communities and their members, and therefore much better set up to take objective, local lending decisions, made by a human, based on the circumstances laid out in front of them, as opposed to a “computer says no” approach.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a really important argument about the financial inclusion reforms. Does he agree that equally important is the Minister’s commitment to finally tackle in this Bill the age-old problem that the parents of disabled children are unable to access their child trust funds by bringing forward reforms that will take away the bureaucratic Court of Protection process?
David Burton-Sampson
My hon. Friend must have been reading my speech, because I am about to talk about financial inclusion, and I agree with her. Having worked in banking when child trust funds came out, I know that they were a fantastic initiative by the former Labour Government, but we now need to close the gap to ensure that those adults—they are no longer children—can get access to the funds, whoever they are.
In the drive for greater financial inclusion, the credit union model can be incredibly effective, so increasing the common bond limit from 3 million members to 10 million members is a positive move forward. While that measure is not in the Bill, I am pleased to hear that it will be implemented via secondary legislation. Relaxing common bond rules on who can be a member—for example, to relatives of an existing member, people who live in the same household as a member, retirees from a firm in the local area, and students who study but do not live in the area—is an excellent feature of the Bill. Those moves are all welcomed by the Association of British Credit Unions Ltd, Fair4All Finance and the Building Societies Association.
Credit unions are invaluable assets in ensuring that people are not financially excluded when they need support the most. An unexpected expense does not disappear because someone cannot access mainstream credit. Expanding access to safe and affordable alternatives to high-cost and illegal lending should remain an important part of the Government’s wider financial inclusion agenda. We should also recognise the key role that credit unions play in encouraging members to save on a regular basis.
I want to see more credit unions opening and expanding across the country. For example, in my constituency, we have access to only one credit union, which is in north London. However, if I search by my childhood home in Liverpool, I see that I would have had access to five different credit unions. In fact, Fair4All Finance carried out research involving 1,000 members across those five credit unions and found that they offered increased access to essential affordable credit, supporting people’s financial resilience. Nearly half of the members’ most recent loans were below £1,000—a market that is not typically served by mainstream lenders, but vital for households managing small ups and downs. The credit unions encouraged the development of saving habits, with nine in 10 members reporting that they saved regularly, and half of the members making regular deposits of £20 or more—that is not much, but it is better than nothing—including those on low incomes. Around eight in 10 respondents reported a positive impact on their wellbeing, mental and physical health and family life as a result of their membership.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point, and he is right to identify credit unions as a brilliant opportunity. In America, some 145 million people use credit unions, compared with a very small amount of the British population. How can we catch up with our transatlantic cousins?
David Burton-Sampson
I agree with my hon. Friend; I was just about to conclude by saying that the continued growth of credit unions and the CDFI market is essential. I encourage the Minister and her team to continue to remain open to further options for expanding reach, including to SMEs, so that we can truly drive forward good growth in every postcode.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
As a former banking employee, let me be clear that a strong financial regulatory system and strong economic growth are not competing objectives. If Britain is to remain one of the world’s leading financial centres, we must ensure that it is not also one of the world’s preferred destinations for dirty money.
As the chair of the APPG on anti-corruption and responsible tax, I have consistently worked with colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), to strengthen the UK’s response to economic crime. After a number of meetings with the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and her predecessors, I am pleased to see that she has taken up the cudgel of anti-money laundering supervisory consolidation—that is a bit of a mouthful. That matters, because those who wish to subvert our financial and professional services sectors, launder their ill-gotten gains and drag down the UK’s reputation as a clean place to do business will always seek to exploit the weakest point in our regulatory and supervisory armour. To that end, I am proud to support the Bill, which will modernise the way in which the legal and accountancy sectors, and trust and company services providers, are supervised for money laundering risk, with those responsibilities consolidated within the Financial Conduct Authority.
Working in the industry, it always baffled me that anti-money laundering oversight is currently divided among 22 professional body supervisors, many of which are also membership organisations. That creates an inherent conflict of interest—it leads to inconsistent supervision, variable enforcement, fragmented intelligence sharing and uneven suspicious activity reporting. The Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision’s March 2026 progress report perfectly sums up the situation, stating that professional body supervisors
“still report common breaches…and no or inadequate firm-wide risk assessment by their supervised population.”
The FCA itself is not immune to this; it only took seven formal actions in the period 2024-25, down from a pre-pandemic high of 60 in 2018-19. The total number of on-site visits conducted by all 22 professional body supervisors has not yet returned to pre-pandemic levels.
Economic crime is not victimless—it fuels corruption, organised crime, fraud and kleptocracy. It distorts markets, undermines competition and damages Britain’s international reputation. That is why clause 13, which deals with supervisory consolidation, is so important. By ending the fragmented system of 22 separate professional body supervisors and moving towards a single supervisory model for those sectors under the remit of the FCA, this Government are taking a significant step forward. There are three important opportunities to further enhance the Bill that I would be grateful if the Economic Secretary to the Treasury would consider.
First, we need a sustainable solution to the chronic underfunding of economic crime enforcement. The anti-corruption APPG has long called for the creation of an economic crime fighting fund. The principle is straightforward: a proportion of receipts from economic crime enforcement, including confiscated assets, penalties and deferred prosecution agreement receipts, should be reinvested into the very agencies responsible for tackling those crimes. Rather than allowing enforcement proceeds simply to disappear into the consolidated fund, we should create a virtuous circle in which successful enforcement generates additional capability for future enforcement.
The Government’s 2025 anti-corruption strategy promised to explore the funding landscape for strengthening economic crime enforcement, and I think something could be done within the framework of this Bill. The FCA has secured more than £1 billion in regulatory and criminal fines over the past decade, yet enforcement receipts are largely either returned to the industry through rebates or transferred to the Treasury. I understand that the banks are paying their way via the economic crime levy, so I do not begrudge the principle of rebates, but as the Government are now legislating for the FCA to take on growing responsibilities in the face of increasingly sophisticated criminal threats, I encourage the Treasury to consider allowing the FCA to offset the costs of AML enforcement with the fines it imposes for breaches. The Competition and Markets Authority, Ofcom and the Information Commissioner’s Office already possess comparable powers. Giving the FCA similar flexibility would allow it to invest in specialist expertise, advanced technology and enforcement capability, thereby ensuring that it has the cutting-edge capabilities it needs to effectively police the regulated perimeter.
Secondly, the Government must ensure that the current supervisors do not take their eye off the ball during the transition period.
Finally, I urge the Government to ensure that legal sector regulation works effectively under the new regime. At present, there remains a significant problem concerning access to legally privileged material. When the Bill was in the Lords, Ministers confirmed that the FCA will not have powers to compel disclosure of privileged material, yet recent litigation involving the Solicitors Regulation Authority has exposed serious uncertainty regarding regulators’ ability to access such information when investigating misconduct. That litigation should prompt a rethink. If the FCA inherits the same limitations, there is a real risk that serious wrongdoing by solicitors involved in money laundering or abusive litigation practices will remain beyond effective scrutiny. The Bill should therefore clarify that the regulator can access legally privileged material where necessary for the purposes of anti-money laundering supervision, while continuing to protect clients’ rights and confidentiality.
I support the Government, and I trust that my right hon. and learned Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will reflect on my constructive proposals as the Bill progresses through this place.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill, and the opportunity to follow so many excellent contributions this evening, particularly those of the Chair of the Treasury Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), and other colleagues from the Treasury Committee.
One of the key items on our agenda in the Treasury Committee over the past year or so has been the Government’s financial inclusion strategy. We made an important recommendation for Ministers to consider whether the Bill should include further targeted powers to intervene if voluntary action fails to secure reasonable access to essential financial services. I am glad that the Government is doing that; the measures in the Bill will give them more powers to protect access to banking services. So many Members have said this tonight, but I suspect we all have constituents who have seen their access to banking services dramatically reduce in recent years. It is right that the Government are giving themselves powers to address that.
We want our financial services industry to contribute as much as it can to economic growth, and I endorse the changes to the operation of the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority, both of which are regular attenders at our Select Committee and play important roles in our economy. It seems eminently sensible that both should produce long-term strategies that balance their responsibilities as regulators with the Government’s growth objectives, and I know that many across the sector will welcome efforts to streamline their reporting requirements.
My children were of the generation who received child trust fund contributions under the last Labour Government. We promised to create that programme in our 2001 manifesto, and we set it up in 2002. It has assisted many young people with getting started in life. Many invested in ISAs to build up a fund to bring home ownership closer, or funded driving lessons or a first vehicle. It was a tremendous shame that the Government post 2010 scrapped that programme. Inclusion regarding how those child trust funds are managed is critical, and the Bill takes steps to facilitate access to those funds for parents and carers who manage them in situations where the young people concerned are unable to do so themselves. That is long overdue and I, like many others present, have received correspondence from constituents about the issue. I welcome the change.
Sarah Smith
It will come as no surprise that I also welcome what my hon. Friend is talking about. Does he share my relief that hundreds of his constituents will finally get access to their £2,600—as will mine in Hyndburn—just the same as those young adults who do not have that problem of lacking capacity?
Jim Dickson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The funds should be accessible to those young people, and hitherto they have not been. When the money is available, it can help that young person with a start in life and give them the financial means to better themselves at a crucial time. That is a critical measure in the Bill.
Credit unions are also critical to inclusion and to this Bill. The legislation contains some important reforms to help us modernise the sector. I was pleased to visit Wave Community Bank over the summer. Along with Greenwich and Bexley Credit Union, it plays a vital role in supporting residents in Dartford to access affordable credit in times of acute financial stress. Awareness of credit unions remains far too low, and these changes are welcome to ensure that more Dartford residents can join them. We know that 37,000 people across my constituency—almost half the adult population—are in financially vulnerable circumstances. Many people have limited savings and a life event, such as a job loss or a break-up, will leave them in a particularly dire situation. That is where credit unions, as we know, can play a vital role.
Earlier this year, the Government published the outcome of their call for evidence on reform of the common bond, which included proposals welcomed by the Association of British Credit Unions and Fair4All Finance to widen access to membership. Some of the measures announced in the Bill, including steps to allow students studying locally to join or those retired to maintain their access, are incredibly welcome. I understand that the measures to increase the potential membership cap of the common bond will come a bit later through secondary legislation, but I welcome indications from the Government that the cap is likely to be raised to cover a population of as much as 10 million, from the current 3 million. Taken alongside the very welcome credit union transformation fund, which is there to build operational resilience in the sector, I hope the measures will see a long-term, sizeable increase in membership of credit unions across the country and particularly in my constituency, and see the Government deliver an important part of their financial inclusion strategy.
Finally, I join others in expressing concern that the changes to the operation of the Financial Ombudsman Service in clause 6—and in particular the need to refer significant volumes of cases to the FCA—will “gum up the system”, in the words of senior figures in that organisation. This means that consumers may wait longer for less favourable outcomes, which is surely something that Members should not welcome. I am also concerned, alongside others, about the changes to, or indeed the weakening of, the fair and reasonable test in clause 7, as applied to future complaints. Again, this may well reduce the rights of consumers through the process. I hope that when the Minister responds, she will deal with the points made by myself and others about concerns that are clearly important to us all in an otherwise hugely welcome Bill.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on investment fraud and fairer financial services. It was admirably chaired by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for a number of years, and I took over 18 months ago. The all-party group grew organically: a number of Members were coming to Parliament with concerns about individual instances of fraud, and as a result, people came together and set up the all-party group. We work on the principle that we all support the idea that we need an effective and vibrant finance sector, but that the foundation of that sector is trust. “My word is my bond”—that is exactly what the whole element of trust is about.
There is a real concern at the moment that there is a lack of trust. If we look at the FCA’s polling, 36% of people said they did not feel that they had been treated fairly or honestly by a financial firm, and I can understand why. Let me run through just a few examples from my experience here: payment protection insurance; endowment mortgages; pension transfer mis-selling; London Capital, which I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dr Rushworth) mentioned; Connaught; Woodford; and hidden credit lines. I warn the House that the issue of micro-bonds is coming down the track as well, and that will be enormous.
We can see why people have lost confidence to a certain extent and why, as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) mentioned, we should listen to the 16 organisations that represent consumers, which have come to explain to us their concerns about the Bill. Concerns have also been set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson). On clause 7, the concern is the interference with the fair and reasonable test. Way back in the year 2000, when that Financial Services and Markets Bill was going through the House, there was a long discussion that came to a fair proposal to establish the fair and reasonable test in the legislation. If I remember rightly, it was agreed on a cross-party basis. To now introduce conditionality, in terms of compliance with FCA rules, does not necessarily result in a fair outcome; certainly, in many instances, we have found that compliance with FCA rules is just not good enough to secure justice for people.
To reassure us, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, “Don’t worry—the consumer duty will still apply.” It is not in the Bill, as far as I can see. I think that is a real issue. If we are to reassure people out there, we need to ensure that elements of that reassurance are in the legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford also said, on clause 6, the issue of having to refer ambiguities from the FOS to the FCA draws the FCA into an adjudication role. I have to say that a number of the cases that we have dealt with have concerned omissions and failures on the part of the FCA. Again, there is an element of conflict of interests there. I know that an element of discretion can be involved, but it is a question of the elements of discretion to which the FCA is subject. The Bill states that the ombudsman must take into account
significant implications in relation to the functioning of relevant markets”.
I think that the FCA will be under pressure to ignore some of those elements if they fly in the face of issues relating to market success.
Clauses 42 and 43 undermine the ringfence between investment and retail banking. I was here in 2008. Others claim it, but it was I who first raised the subject of Northern Rock in this Chamber. We are seeing the same cycle: there is a financial crisis, regulation is introduced, memories fade, there is pressure to reduce that regulation, and we go into another crisis. That is what was happening from the 1980s onwards. Curiously, there were two books that people reached for when the crisis happened in 2008. One was J. K. Galbraith’s analysis of the 1929 crash. The other, funnily enough, was Marx’s “Capital”, but that is another discussion. J. K. Galbraith said that the best protection against another crash was memory. What is happening now is exactly what Andrew Bailey, the Governor of the Bank of England, has described: memories are beginning to fade, which is why people become so susceptible to the pressure for deregulation.
I want to make a couple of points before I quieten down. A number of issues have not been addressed in the Bill, and I should like them to be addressed. The first is the FCA’s treatment of whistleblowers. One of our advisers, Simon Andriesz, recently committed suicide. He was a whistleblower, and it was, I believe, as a result of the lack of support from the FCA that he took his own life. We have referred it to the FCA, and what has it done? It has launched an investigation, but it is not an independent investigation; it is an investigation by an incoming member of the FCA’s own board. That is unacceptable. We need to ensure that we protect whistleblowers.
The other issue is the Hillsborough legislation that we are introducing. I would like to see that legislation applied to the FCA, because I think that a duty of candour for the FCA would give reassurance to consumers outside.
Finally, this is not a choice between regulation and growth; both are essential for a successful finance sector.
Dr Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The Bill contains many good things that other Members have spoken to. The Chancellor pitched it as a Bill that will unlock investment for growth. If we want people to invest, we need them to have confidence. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and I did not collaborate on our speeches, but, as he pointed out, 36% of people surveyed by the FCA believe that financial firms are not honest. When the Bank of England asked people to sum up the finance industry in a word, the word that the British people picked was “corrupt”. The Financial Services Ombudsman is receiving 216,000 complaints a year, and it is easy to see why: £1 billion is now being lost every year in investment scams. The most notable example is London Capital & Finance, but there are others, including Blackmore Bond, Basset & Gold, Astute Capital and Godwin Capital.
The Bill addresses complex issues in which I claim no expertise, but I take a strong interest in them because they are of interest to the people I represent. I want to share the experience of ordinary people who have lost their savings to unregulated investment products. I myself lost a few thousand pounds to a scam. I set up a Facebook group years ago, and the first person who contacted me was a man from Manchester. He had worked as a binman throughout his career, getting up early in the morning, working in all weathers and saving for his pension. He took the lump sum of his pension and invested it in Astute Capital. He lost all of it.
I want to talk about what that looks like as a process. It begins with an ordinary person searching to compare high-interest savings accounts with banks. They put their contact details on the internet, and then they get unsolicited calls from people with posh accents offering them investment advice and suggesting that they put their money in an ISA. They have probably heard of ISAs, and they know it is a Government-approved and tax-incentivised way to save. The person will admit to them that they are not FCA-regulated, but they probably have not heard of the FCA and may not know what that means. They may also be told that their capital is at risk, but then that nice person with a posh voice explains to them, “I have to tell you that—it’s the legal bit—but let me explain to you why you’re actually okay. Everything you’re investing is fully asset-backed up to several times its value, and we spread the risk across multiple portfolios.”
The individual trusts, they invest and they wait three years. They look forward to getting their money back with the interest they were promised, but when that time comes—this happened to customers of Astute Capital—they get told, “We’re sorry; we can’t pay you. But if you just stick with us for another six months, it’s better than causing someone to whom we’ve lent your money to default.” So they wait another six months. Six months later, their bonds are forcibly converted into shares and they are told, “Don’t worry; soon enough you’ll be able to sell those shares, and your shares are worth more than what you invested”—except they are not, and eventually the company goes into administration.
And then what happens? The person loses everything. When they investigate it, they find that a director of Astute Capital was simultaneously a director of the firm to which their money was lent. As a director of both firms, he took away the security on the debt. An ordinary person would expect that, in such a situation, there is some sort of recompense. They would think it is illegal, but it is not. People are told that they are at fault because they should have known that they were investing in an unregulated company. I had a man say to me on the phone, “I can’t look my wife in the eye. I’ve lost everything that we’ve saved over all these years.”
What happens to the directors? What happened to Timothy John Smith, who was the director of two companies? According to Companies House, he is now at Axecap Ltd, another unregulated offshore broker with many warnings against its name not to invest. For me, the most troubling part of this is that these unregulated investment schemes are entirely legal or, if there has been illegal activity, there has been no investigation and nobody has ever been held accountable. That is why the public are in disbelief, because they expect the Government and laws to protect them. They do not think this unregulated space should be allowed.
When I was elected, I raised this issue with the Financial Conduct Authority. It told me that it needs a bigger mandate to regulate this space, which it has not been given. In my last 30 seconds, I ask that the Bill be amended to give a mandate to the FCA to have oversight of unregulated activity, to make directors personally liable, to require directors of unregulated investment companies to demonstrate that they have acted responsibly, to automatically bring unregulated mini-bonds within FCA supervision, and to create a general compensation scheme for the victims of unregulated investments.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Noah Law to make the final Back-Bench contribution. Those who contributed earlier should make their way back to the Chamber.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Bill and its goal of creating a more transparent financial services sector that can continue to play a key role in creating growth and prosperity for the whole of the UK. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Having spent a decade in investment banking and financial advisory work, I have some understanding of both the potential of our financial services and the reforms that they need. The proposed reforms to credit unions are extremely positive. By virtue of being owned by their members, credit unions are uniquely incentivised to put surplus profits into providing better services, rates and returns for their members—something that, as a Co-operative Member, I am delighted to support. I am delighted to support the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) in this space too.
The Bill will make it easier for credit unions to accept new members. It removes unnecessary administrative blocks and provides greater support, allowing more people to join credit unions, which are rooted in their communities and committed to delivering for them. Expanding access to credit unions also means access to more affordable lending, which gives those in the most dire financial circumstances access to credit at reasonable rates, instead of leaving them at the mercy of predatory lenders. Credit unions encourage saving, responsible borrowing, and investment in our communities and local economies. The reforms in this Bill will make accessing them easier than ever. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) pointed out, we eagerly await the response to the review of fair access to banking and capital markets.
More widely, I am glad to see the industry support the aims of this Bill and the support for the better regulatory strategy, accountability, deadlines and the proposed improvements to the senior managers and certification regime. By requiring the FCA and the PRA to report annually on their efforts towards competitiveness and growth, we ensure that the Government, regulators and the industry pull together in one direction for the financial sustainability of our country.
Additionally, by improving the way in which regulators make decisions, we can improve the confidence of investors in our financial services. The reduction in the statutory period of authorisations and variations of permission from six to four months, and the period for incomplete applications being reduced from 12 to 10 months, ensures a smoother system for firms and leaves a lot less up in the air. Delays in regulatory decisions can be hugely costly for firms, and can even mean postponing fund launches and major investment decisions, and affect firms’ ability to grow, innovate and compete internationally. A simple regulatory system provides greater clarity for firms, better transparency for the public and the Treasury, and benefits us all. I welcome the Bill’s allowing the Treasury to introduce secondary legislation to amend specified determination periods, once again demonstrating the Government’s willingness to work closely with Britain’s most valuable and prosperous of industries.
I am very grateful to the Chancellor for his acknowledgment that we have asked the sector to do its bit to contribute to sound and prudent public finances— I would argue that that prudence, to quote the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), who is no longer in this place, “dwarfs” short-term fiscal interventions—and it directly contributes to sound and prudent finances in an otherwise globally turbulent macroeconomic environment, after the public did their bit to safeguard the sector through its most challenging of times. Consequently, we in this House must also give due care and attention to this incredibly valuable sector. I do believe that the Chancellor has shown that, even when those difficult decisions have to be made, this need not be a zero-sum game.
I would like to think this Bill can be just one of many stepping stones as part of an ongoing effort throughout this Parliament to ensure a healthy level of risk taking in this most expert of financial markets that we have in the UK. In that regard, I welcome the targeted reviews of ringfencing requirements alongside the Bank of England’s own review of capital requirements to promote thriving banking and capital markets—public, private and, of course, mutual.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to close this debate on behalf of the official Opposition, and to follow on from my very good friend, the shadow Economic Secretary—my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier)—who has done excellent work both in this Chamber and behind the scenes to engage extensively with the industry. Indeed, I am sure there is not a lunch table in the City of London that has not been graced by my hon. Friend—all, of course, in the service of his great country.
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, particularly my long career in asset management, my active involvement in the industry going back many years, and my current chairmanship of the APPG for blockchain, which is relevant to this Bill.
It has been a privilege to be joined by many Members from across the House who clearly have extensive industry experience. I firmly believe, as I have for a long time, that we need more people in Parliament who have worked specifically in this sector, and who understand its importance and its power to help and influence our economy and our communities.
I thank all Members from across the House for their contributions to the debate, but I will name a few in particular. The Chairman of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) who is not currently in her place, provided a typically detailed and very thoughtful contribution. She expressed concerns about whether the pendulum is swinging away from consumer protection, as well as outlining her concerns about the reforms to the FOS. I do not agree necessarily with everything she said, but the House is better for the scrutiny that she and her Committee provide.
Let me pay tribute to our country’s longest-serving Economic Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), who moved with grace from museums to MiFID back in the day. He spoke about his mixed views of the FOS. He acknowledged that it is—in his words—an unreliable path to resolution, and helpfully warned us that we need to consider the challenges posed by AI to the financial services sector.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) on his appointment as the Government’s co-operatives and mutuals champion. I have to say it is an appointment that passed me by, but I very much welcome it. One person who has always been a champion of co-operatives and mutuals is, of course, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), who spoke of the high cost and burden of credit, especially for those in poverty.
We on the Conservative side of the House want sensible deregulation. We want less bureaucracy in our system. We want lower burdens and more growth. Where the Bill does that, we will welcome it and we will help make it happen. The Chancellor was right in his opening remarks when he said that it is important to recognise the cross-party work that has gone on already with the Bill. He rightly echoed the views of those us on the Conservative Benches when it was said in the other place that the Bill moves us all in the right direction. Having said that—I am loath to depart from the happy and collegiate atmosphere of the debate so far—I am reminded of what Disraeli once said:
“No Government can be long secure without a formidable Opposition.”
So, if Members will forgive me, I have a job to do tonight. In certain areas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest set out, we believe the Bill does not go far enough. I would like to highlight two areas in particular.
First, on digital assets, the United States has legislated for stablecoin. South Korea and even the European Union have their own regimes. Our competitors globally are moving ahead. That matters because stablecoins could revolutionise the way we pay for goods and services. Blockchain technologies could transform the way we interact with companies and the state. The Bill was our chance to set out a more advanced vision and policy agenda in those areas, but the Government chose not to.
Secondly, ringfencing forces our largest banks to separate retail banking from the rest of their business. That was right after the financial crisis, but the world has now moved on and our resolution regime has moved on with it, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury pointed out. If we look at our competitors from New York, Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris, not one imposes ringfencing like ours—not one. We believe that we should not either. The Bill gives a little and takes a little, but there is a simpler option. If true deregulation is the aim, we believe the Government should adopt the Conservatives’ plan to scrap ringfencing altogether.
No matter how well intentioned the measures in the Bill are—and I believe they are very well intended— I am afraid that I must point out that they are being brought in alongside a barrage of anti-growth taxation and regulatory burdens imposed on our financial services sector and British business more widely. This afternoon, the Chancellor praised Britain’s financial services sector, and I welcome his words; 13 days ago, he spoke similar words but then doubled the bank surcharge—a £1.5 billion hit to the very companies and people he says he supports.
It is all about choice. The Chancellor could have chosen to cut welfare, which is spiralling above £400 billion, but he chose the easier route for a Labour Chancellor, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) said, and decided to tax one of our country’s most-important sectors. Be in no doubt that this will have an impact, and specifically, I fear it will lead to more bank branch closures on our high streets, which none of us in this House wants.
I have no doubt that the Economic Secretary will shortly reference banking hubs in her wind-up, speaking with pride about how the Government are rolling out more. She is right to welcome them—I welcome them too—but she should also be clear about who pays for them. Banking hubs are funded by the banks—every one of them. Cash Access UK is funded by the banks. The mobile libraries and the pop-ups in our communities are funded by the banks. We cannot celebrate banking hubs on a Tuesday and then the next day tax the companies that pay for them. I am in favour of banking hubs, but I would much rather the branches not be closed in the first place.
To her credit, the Economic Secretary understands the sector. She is respected in the City and she understands the importance of banks to our high streets, which makes it all the more disappointing for the sector that she did not act to prevent the latest tax raid. The high street bank tax is just one example, but we also have the hike to national insurance and higher taxes on carried interest. That all results in more jobs put at risk, more high street banks closing and investment and innovation heading elsewhere rather than contributing to growth here in Britain.
For the most part, the Conservatives of course welcome the Bill, and we have been clear about that. Sadly, however, it will do little to overcome the barriers and burdens that this Government have inflicted on the financial services sector over the past two years. Warm words cannot undo cold taxes. The world’s capital has a choice about where it goes, and the Government have not acted in our favour. The Chancellor has a choice: he can back the sector or tax it until it becomes uncompetitive, but he simply cannot do both.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
It is a pleasure to close this debate on the Financial Services and Markets Bill. I am grateful to hon. Members from across the House for their contributions, including those on the Conservative Benches who have joined us on a one-line Whip. I am grateful, as has been highlighted, for the spirit of collaboration in the other place, and for the constructive criticism—I think—that has been offered here. I know that Madam Deputy Speaker is being strict in the time limits applied to the wind-ups, so I will do my level best to cover as much as I can and spend most of my time addressing the reform of the regulatory landscape, which is where hon. Members have put most focus. To the extent that I cannot cover things, I will follow up in writing. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), I think the breadth of today’s debate reflects the importance of these reforms and, indeed, the importance of financial services to this country.
I will start by going back a step, if I might, because this party came into office with a really clear purpose: to bring stability back to the British economy, give working people greater security and get Britain back on the path to prosperity. At Budget, the Chancellor took the responsible decisions needed to protect the public finances and provide breathing space for firms and families across the country. However, stability and fiscal responsibility are the foundations, not the destination. If we want to see more good jobs, opportunities for our young people and people feeling more secure in their finances, we know that we need a thriving, dynamic economy that delivers for the British people.
Few sectors are more important to that task than financial services. From providing SMEs with finance to expand, innovate and hire to helping a family to buy their first home, getting capital to some of our most exciting start-ups and supporting people saving for retirement, financial services provide the ecosystem that underpins our economy and each of our daily lives. In Leeds, Bristol, Bournemouth, Manchester, London, Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff, financial services right across the United Kingdom provide the services we rely on every day, supporting more than a million good, highly skilled jobs and the ambitions and the aspirations of the country.
As hon. Members have pointed out, we are recognised as a world leader in financial services—something that all of us in this place should be very, very proud of, and something we must protect as a critical strategic asset. Members have also pointed out that global competition for capital is intensifying, and it is therefore vital that we strengthen the sector’s ability to deliver for the country, which is exactly what this Bill does.
Members have spoken to the key reforms in this Bill. Let me start with child trust funds, an issue raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith), for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) and for Dartford (Jim Dickson), where we are righting injustice that has existed for far too long. Child trust funds were a product of the previous Labour Government, and they were based on a simple promise: every single child in this country, no matter their background, would start adult life with a financial asset of their own.
However, for far too many families of children with disabilities, that reality has been very different. Parents have been forced to go to court in a lengthy and complex process to access their children’s funds on their behalf. That is why we announced last week that we will use this Bill to make it simpler, easier and fairer for parents and carers to access child trust funds on behalf of young people who lack mental capacity. That means that up to 126,000 young people will be able to more easily access funds currently worth an average of £2,600. This money was always theirs, and with this Bill, it will reach them.
Many hon. Members—far too many to mention—have rightly highlighted the vital role that mutuals, co-ops and credit unions play in our financial services ecosystem. Member-led and rooted in their communities, mutuals and co-ops are central to this Government’s commitment to seeing good growth in every corner of the country, which is why we are committed to ensuring that the mutuals economy can flourish.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) highlighted the importance of CDFIs, which, as he knows, we have backed in the Budget. I know that he wants us to go further, and I am more than happy to meet him to talk about exactly how we can do that. I can confirm that we intend to further extend the reforms to the common bond in Committee, bringing forward an amendment to enable credit union members who do not themselves directly meet the common bond to introduce family or household members on the same basis as other members. We have a lot more to do when it comes to the scale of our ambition on mutuals and co-ops, and I look forward to working with hon. Members across the House, and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) as the first ever co-operatives and mutuals champion in Government.
In addition to allowing our mutual and co-op sector to expand and best support growth, the Bill backs greater investment across our economy as a whole. It will give banks greater flexibility within the ringfencing regime to provide more capital to businesses, encouraging and supporting growth. The right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) has urged us to be thoughtful when considering these reforms, and I can reassure him that we will be.
The shadow Economic Secretary, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), spoke about capital requirements, as did the right hon. Member for Salisbury. The Chancellor and I acknowledge the importance of the Bank’s review of capital requirements. As the Chancellor said, that is made clear in his remit letter. I acknowledge the shadow Economic Secretary’s intention to table amendments in this regard, and I look forward to discussing those with him.
At the heart of the Bill is the protection of our global reputation for financial regulation. As has been said today, we have a reputation for sophisticated regulators, high standards and regulatory stability. We are very clear that we will protect each of those things. We are equally clear that where regulation can be made better, more up to date with the modern world, more effective in achieving its aims and more proportionate, we will do that.
The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) raised an important point about how regulation affects defence SMEs. We are very clear that no legitimate company should be denied access to financial services solely because they are involved in the defence sector. The forthcoming defence finance and investment strategy will review how we can ensure that barriers to investment of the kind that he described are removed.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) for his supportive comments on the regulatory aspects of the Bill. I know that he has tremendous experience in this area.
As I expected, plenty of hon. Members raised access to banking, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier). I am happy to confirm, as did the Chancellor, that we are going to insert back into the Bill our ability to act on the conclusion of Richard Lloyd’s access to banking review. We will publish the review and our response very soon.
The Chancellor noted earlier that the Consumer Credit Act was enacted more than 50 years ago. That was before the iPhone and the laptop, and probably before the shadow Economic Secretary was even born—[Interruption.] I know that it was. It was the same year that this nation was introduced both to Ceefax and, I found out, to Bagpuss. The Act needs to be updated to ensure that the regulator can develop new rules around the information that consumers will receive, including via digital means, based on rigorous consumer testing.
Let me come to the FOS. It is clearly critical that when things go wrong, redress is accessible, consistent and predictable. Some hon. Members have questioned the respective roles of the FCA and the FOS. Under the proposed reforms, it will be the FCA as the independent regulator that sets the standards that firms must meet, including in relation to the consumer duty, and it will be the financial ombudsman that applies them.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch for her input on this matter, including in today’s debate. She raises really important considerations about protections. Even if I cannot fully endorse her likening of risk warnings on retail investment to those on smoking, I can say that we will consider her input further in Committee. She raised concerns about the referral mechanism, as did other hon. Members. We have had constructive engagement with the FCA and interested groups on the referral mechanism and intend to bring forward a number of amendments at Committee stage to ensure that the mechanism functions well.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I fear that you are running out of patience with me, so I will do my best to conclude. I want to acknowledge the 10-year rule, as that was raised by hon. Members including my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra). It is entirely right that some products will not be suitable for the operation of the 10-year rule, and the FCA will set out exactly which products those are.
I will skip over my comments on anti-money laundering and fraud, although that is an important part of the Bill. I will skip over my comments on digital assets, save to say please do not doubt the ambition of the Government. We will carefully consider the Lords reforms in that regard.
Financial services, as hon. Members across the Chamber have said, touch every part of our lives, from the mortgage that turns a family into homeowners to the small loan that turns a good idea into a growing business, and indeed the savings that turn a lifetime of hard work into security. The Bill backs the sector and it backs our economy to succeed.
John McDonnell
May I put on record again my concern that, as we may be facing a significant global crisis as a result of AI debt problems, now is not the time to undermine the protections we brought forward after 2008 and, in particular, the separation between retail and investment banking?
Lucy Rigby
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. We are approaching our reforms of the ringfence very carefully. A detailed review has been conducted. We have to ensure that where regulation exists, it is fit for purpose and fit for the circumstances of the modern age. I am more than happy to meet him and talk about the new growth allowance, for example, which will ensure that we can get more capital into the real economy, more homeowners on the ladder and more investment to businesses.
The Bill will deliver a stronger economy to deliver opportunity, hope and prosperity in every corner of the country. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Financial Services and Markets Bill [Lords] (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Financial Services and Markets Bill [Lords]:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 15 December 2026.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Gregor Poynton.)
Question agreed to.
Financial Services and Markets Bill [Lords] (Money)
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Financial Services and Markets Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Treasury, and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Gregor Poynton.)
Question agreed to.
Financial Services and Markets Bill [Lords] (Ways and Means)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Financial Services and Markets Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the charging of fees and charges under or by virtue of the Act.—(Gregor Poynton.)
Question agreed to.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legisation
Stepping Hill Hospital
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
Stepping Hill hospital sits in my constituency. It is one of the busiest hospitals in the region, with over 91,000 patient admissions each year. It serves Stockport, parts of Greater Manchester and parts of Derbyshire. I have raised the issues faced by the staff and patients there many times in the House and been told repeatedly that the Government are working with Stockport NHS foundation trust and the integrated care board to solve them, but time and again we are let down by the lack of real action.
On Friday I visited the hospital with my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), and we met senior teams, clinicians, nurses and operational staff.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
On the point about nurses at Stepping Hill hospital, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) knows, my mother did her nurse training at Stepping Hill back in the 1970s. Since it is my mother’s birthday tomorrow, will the hon. Gentleman join me in wishing my mum a very happy birthday and acknowledging the hard work and commitment of the nurses at Stepping Hill hospital?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Mr Jogee, I am sure we would all like to wish your mother a happy birthday, but we are discussing the future of Stepping Hill hospital.
Mr Morrison
I absolutely respect that intervention, and I do wish the hon. Gentleman’s mother a happy birthday. If it were possible, we would all do a rendition of “Happy Birthday”, but we will leave that for another time.
This was not my first visit to the hospital—I have been there several times, both as an elected representative and as a patient—but it was the angriest and most emotional I have ever been while visiting it. On our visit, I saw staff and patients’ dignity taken away from them, I saw a building completely and utterly unfit for purpose, and I saw a health system that was left to rot, quite literally, over the years of Conservative neglect now being given only plasters by the current Government.
I am not exaggerating when I say that the visit was harrowing. To see staff and patients suffer in buildings that leaked, surrounded by walls that were rotting and floors that were sinking, was truly awful. It painted a stark and terrible picture of the way our health service is being treated by decision makers in Whitehall, with £120 million being spent each year just on mitigating the damage being caused by the hospital’s crumbling estate. This is an incredibly expensive sticking plaster that does not solve the underlying problems, but instead makes things worse. A comprehensive repair of Stepping Hill’s estate would cost just over £134 million, and the Government must commit to providing that amount to get the hospital back on its feet. It would save money in the long term and mitigate the huge risks the estate poses.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: what we saw on our visit was harrowing. He talks about value for money and how over £100 million is going on just maintaining the buildings as they currently stand. That is literally plugging holes in the wall. I am sure he agrees that a better use of the money would be to spend capital on building a new additional site in Stockport town centre. That would free up space on the site that is no longer fit for purpose and would be a much more sensible, value-for-money way to spend the money.
Mr Morrison
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that idea forward. Yes, absolutely; I will talk later about how a new site in Stockport could alleviate the stress on Stepping Hill and save the Government a lot of money.
Stockport NHS foundation trust is clear that the £134 million would be over and above any Government funding already allocated. The trust simply cannot make the efficiency savings being asked of it when it is firefighting each day. I want to tell the House what this looks like and how this firefighting impacts the day-to-day lives of the staff and the patients they look after.
On our visit, nurses told me of the huge issues they face regarding infection control. There are genuine concerns that the outdated and inefficient building makes infection control even harder. Beds are too close to each other and people are unable to move around within a safe distance of each other. Parts of the site predate the NHS and, as such, the corridors are so small that two wheelchairs or trolleys cannot go past each other. Shockingly, the hospital has only around 20% of the side rooms it needs to isolate infectious patients, and in the electrocardiography zone there are no handwashing facilities. The nurses told me that during covid, they had to create massive one-way systems through the wards, making care and movement even more complex. That was a logistical challenge at a time when the NHS was already being tested to breaking point.
The building itself is also dangerous. On the visit, I was shown the relentless water damage and leaks across the estate. When it rains, staff race around the hospital putting out buckets to catch the water dripping through the ceiling, sometimes on to vital equipment.
Ward and shower rooms have become completely unusable because of leaks, which have further reduced capacity. I have seen wards where sewage comes up through the drains, meaning that nurses have to clean up rather than look after the patients they should be tending to. The glass windows in the cardiology unit are at a huge risk of falling out, posing a serious safety risk.
Clay pipework from 1905 is still in use and leaking, meaning that escaping steam is rotting the floors beneath. Some floors are now physically sinking. As I entered the building, I saw that the hospital’s café was closed for that very reason—I could actually see where the floor was beginning to slope down. Scaffolding is literally holding up the glass ceiling in the main entrance— a worrying welcome for patients entering the building.
Mr Morrison
Many of the hospital’s wards are Nightingale wards, which cannot support contemporary care. As I have already mentioned, these wards do not have enough side rooms. That poses a massive risk in terms of infection control, but it also poses challenges when providing patients with the privacy and dignity they need. When patients are receiving end-of-life care, the hospital cannot always provide a separate room, and instead beds are curtained off to give families the privacy they need. To ensure that people are aware, staff place a candle on the ward entrance to tell others that someone is having their last moments with their friends and family. That was the hardest thing to see on our visit. It makes me so angry and ashamed that families in my constituency are saying goodbye to their loved ones in this way.
It is not just the physical infrastructure that needs addressing. Some staff talked me through how outdated computer software and internet connections mean that they have to use memory sticks to take images from one computer to another. Some of the images are for time-critical operations, in which every second counts, yet clinicians, doctors and nurses had no option but to walk memory sticks from one computer to another, wasting precious time.
Finally, let me talk about the conditions the staff work in. The ward designs in the older buildings make staffing a serious challenge. Staff-to-patient ratios mean that nurses must look after no more than eight patients, but some wards have 14 beds, meaning that two nurses are required, despite one of those nurses being underutilised. The staff rooms are also completely inadequate; I saw one room that could fit only two people comfortably, despite there being 12 people on that ward, while the staff room on the cardiology unit, which serves 30 people, has only one toilet.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, on securing this debate on an important issue for the three MPs who represent the local authority of Stockport. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding my trade union membership and being chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer.
All of us in this House would agree that our constituents deserve high-quality, first-class, reliable care in hospitals and from our GPs, and that the staff also deserve high-quality services. I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion for a new location for a new hospital—I think there should be a wider discussion, but I do not wish to take up too much time in dissecting the Stockport local plan. However, I do agree that Stepping Hill hospital is simply not adequate for patients or staff. Does he agree that in the past two years this Government have allocated £2.5 million for targeted safety works, £26 million for the construction of a new pathology building and £75 million for the Stockport NHS foundation trust over the next four years? That is a stark contrast with the previous 14 years—the coalition Government, of which his party was part, and the Conservative Government that followed.
Mr Morrison
I respect the hon. Gentleman a lot; we all work well together as Stockport MPs. Although we should never say no to money coming into the hospital, even the NHS trust is saying that this money does not touch the sides, as I have said. We need more investment, and the £134 million repair bill needs to be sorted. We can discuss the need for a different site another time; I am fully behind Stockport needing a new hospital site.
I was talking about the staff room for the cardiology unit, which serves 30 people but has only one toilet. That is not to mention the fact that the toilet windows are not frosted over, so there is a massive privacy issue for the staff. I was also told about one member of staff who works in reception in one unit and who uses an electric wheelchair. Horrifyingly, their work environment is completely inadequate, not only because the doors to the unit are not suitable for wheelchairs to go through, but because they cannot access an accessible toilet and so are forced to leave the building in which they work to go to another a few minutes away. Often they have to go out in the rain just to use a facility that they should have the right to use. That is simply a disgrace, and I cannot believe it is happening in 2026.
I asked why that person still felt the need to work there even with such basic accessibility requirements not being met. I was told that it was because they cared so much about the hospital, about Stepping Hill and about the job they do that they would not leave. That was a running theme through our visit. Despite all the issues and problems I have laid out, the staff across Stepping Hill maintain excellent standards in conditions that are working against them. They continue to provide an unbelievably caring and wonderful service. They are a credit to the NHS and to Stockport. They never complain or down tools because of the conditions; instead, they get on with the job.
My partner Lou and I sadly needed to spend time at Stepping Hill recently. Despite the awful reasons we were there, we felt protected, supported and cared for. I want to take this moment to say thank you to the staff for everything they did for us, for keeping us safe and for looking out for us. I promise here that I will always have their back and will never stop campaigning to get them the hospital they deserve.
So what is the solution? The Government announce bits of support every now and then, and they often announce the same pots of money time and again in the hope that it looks like support is there, but that does not help. We need a fully funded strategy for how Stepping Hill will be saved. There were plans for a new hospital in Stockport that were originally rejected by the previous Conservative Government. The plans would have enabled some relief for Stepping Hill and helped free up much-needed space on the estate. The plans also had backing from the trust and the council, which partnered to develop them, and the integrated care board. They pushed as much as they could. Sadly, it does not appear that the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) supported them, but we will talk about that another time.
Whatever the solution, the fact is that action is now desperately needed. We cannot go on with more debates, more questions to Ministers and the Prime Minister, more letters to the Department of Health and Social Care and more meetings with officials—the Government have to act now. For over a decade the Conservative Government left Stepping Hill hospital to rot. This Government cannot do the same, and the Minister should not allow that to happen.
I want to end with a number of questions for the Minister. First, it is clear what help is needed and required, so why have the Government failed to act so far? Secondly, is it appropriate for 30 NHS staff members to share one toilet and that an NHS worker who uses a wheelchair has to go out in the rain to access the nearest accessible toilet? Thirdly, is it fair that patients at the end of their life cannot share their final moments with friends and family in privacy and with dignity? Finally, will the Minister come to Stepping Hill hospital along with the Prime Minister, who often talks about Stockport and the work he did there, so that they can see at first hand what happens when those in Westminster and Whitehall take our hospitals for granted?
The Minister for Social Care and Mental Health (Alison McGovern)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) on securing this very important debate. Throughout it, he and other Members have paid tribute to the work that happens at Stepping Hill hospital, despite what are clearly often very difficult situations, and it is important that that is on the record.
Unfortunately, the Minister for Secondary Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), who is the Minister with responsibility for this, could not be here this evening. I am sorry to be a poor replacement for her, but let me reassure the hon. Member for Cheadle and the House that I will report this discussion to her directly. I know that she is aware of this debate, and I am sure that she will follow up in the appropriate way with the Members concerned.
As I said, Members have rightly paid tribute to all the staff at Stepping Hill hospital. The hospital is extremely important to the communities it serves, and its patients and staff deserve facilities that are safe, resilient and fit to deliver high-quality care. I am going to make a few remarks about the overall position with capital investment and how we have got to this point, but none of that is to say anything other than that all patients and staff deserve good-quality facilities.
For too long, capital investment in the NHS was insufficient and short term, and the challenges at Stepping Hill reflect a much wider problem across the NHS estate. Capital budgets were repeatedly raided to meet day-to-day pressures, and the result is an estate carrying the consequences of years of under-investment, as has been made clear. There are no quick fixes, but we can change the way the NHS invests in its buildings, moving away from short-term fixes towards sustained investment and proper long-term planning. That is why our 10-year capital plan for health and social care is based on three core principles: more investment; greater certainty, so that investment can be planned over the long term; and greater autonomy for local leaders to decide how capital is best used.
First, we are investing more. After years of under-investment, we are providing the largest capital budget in NHS history, with annual spending rising to £15 billion by the end of this spending review period. Within this, the estates safety fund will provide £6.75 billion over the next nine years to tackle the poorest-quality parts of the NHS estate and ensure safe environments for patients and staff. We have already confirmed £1.5 billion of investment in projects through the fund, including £1.3 billion for maintenance, safety and resilience projects across the NHS estate and more than £200 million for major hospital projects. This means that more than 950 schemes are being delivered across the country.
That sits alongside around £21 billion in operational capital over this spending review period, empowering local health organisations to invest in their priorities, including their estates. We are also investing around £5 billion over the spending review period to expand and modernise diagnostic, elective, mental health and emergency services, helping to increase capacity, cut waiting times and improve urgent and emergency care performance.
Secondly, we are providing greater certainty over that investment. We have provided NHS organisations with multi-year capital allocations to 2030 and a further five years of certainty beyond that for estates maintenance funding to 2035. This stability is designed to provide the confidence needed for long-term investment decisions and responds directly to one of the key NHS capital planning challenges cited by stakeholders. Instead of planning from one year to the next, local NHS leaders can now look ahead, prioritise the most serious risks, plan investment over the longer term and secure better value for the taxpayer. That is particularly important for ageing estates like Stepping Hill, where we need to move away from repeatedly patching up ageing buildings and towards properly planned strategic interventions.
The hon. Member for Cheadle asked me about what Stepping Hill needs to put it on a different path. Local NHS leaders are best placed to understand their estates’ investment requirements and prioritise capital accordingly. The estates safety fund is designed to give regions flexibility and target that funding in this way, rather than decisions being taken centrally. That decision-making capacity is enabled by the long-term funding certainty that the Government have given them. However, the hon. Member has put very clearly on the record what is happening at Stepping Hill hospital. I will report back to the Department what I have heard tonight, and I feel sure that local NHS leaders in his region—which is also my region—will take what he has said very seriously and be in touch with him directly.
We are devolving more control to the frontline and streamlining capital approvals, giving NHS organisations more freedom to invest accordingly and respond to local need, as I have said. That approach should help projects to move forward more quickly, and it is already supporting some investment at Stepping Hill. Some £763 million of funding over the next nine years has been allocated to the north-west region through the estates safety fund, and local leaders have the flexibility to prioritise it as they wish. Stepping Hill hospital will benefit from that funding.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) said, the hospital has been allocated £26 million for a new pathology building through the estates safety fund, protecting the vital testing services that doctors rely on. It is one of 10 major hospital schemes backed by more than £200 million nationally. Alongside that, Stockport NHS foundation trust will receive £17 million to support 11 critical repair projects at Stepping Hill, forming part of the £1.3 billion that we have committed to maintenance, safety and resilience projects over the NHS estate over the next four years.
Lisa Smart
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) said, any money coming to Stepping Hill hospital is to be welcomed, and the Government should be thanked when they get things right. The briefing we have had from NHS leaders in Stockport says that the total planned maintenance costs over five years are £134 million. That is only basic maintenance—it does not account for any new building projects and does not bring the buildings up to the current standard that we would expect of any new building. I am sure that the Minister agrees that all the money needs to be spent for good value for money. Will she and colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care agree to look specifically at the project we are talking about for Stockport: a new building? The revenue cost of maintaining that building would be so much lower than continually plugging the holes—literally—with capital spend.
Alison McGovern
I understand entirely the case that the hon. Lady makes. There will be further opportunities for the region to fund projects at Stepping Hill hospital through its estates safety fund allocation. As I mentioned in response to the hon. Member for Cheadle, I urge the trust to keep working closely and effectively with the ICB and the region, particularly as other funding streams are available. The trust has been allocated another £75 million in operational capital over the next four years.
Before I get too close to the end of my remarks, let me respond directly to the other questions asked by the hon. Member for Cheadle. He mentioned issues with toilets, which sound extremely worrying; from the Floor of the House, I urge local leaders to respond. I will make sure that he and Stockport Members receive a written response to those issues and to those related to end-of-life care. Members will understand the importance of end-of-life care and what a priority it is over the coming months and years for us all, so I will look into those issues.
Navendu Mishra
Although Stepping Hill hospital is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison), it serves people from Hazel Grove, Cheadle and Stockport. May I reiterate the invitation from the hon. Member—I would go as far as calling him my good friend, even though we are in different parties—to the Health Secretary and any Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care to visit Stockport and speak to volunteers, staff and patients there? Will the Minister pass on that message?
Alison McGovern
I will certainly pass that message on. As the hon. Member for Cheadle mentioned, the current Prime Minister is no stranger to Stockport, so I am sure that I do not even need to let him know what is happening there.
We are already seeing some capital investment translate into better facilities for patients at Stepping Hill. The new urgent treatment centre is now open, with five additional consulting rooms increasing capacity, improving patient flow and helping to reduce avoidable pressure on the emergency department. That builds on the hospital’s emergency and urgent care campus, which fully opened in May 2025; that is part of the £639 million of planned capital investment to support NHS performance in the north-west.
Given what we have heard this evening, I cannot pretend that what has been done resolves every infrastructure challenge at Stepping Hill—it clearly does not. The pressures facing the hospital have built up over many years and will take time to address, but we are putting the local NHS on a much stronger footing to tackle them. The reforms set out in our capital plan mean that local leaders can look beyond immediate pressures, plan investment over multiple years and target funding towards the areas of greatest need and importance, and that really matters for Stepping Hill.
Members from the borough of Stockport have raised very important issues this evening—they are absolutely right to advocate for patients and staff, and I ask them to pass on my thanks to those staff. We do not underestimate the scale of the challenge, but we are delivering vital investment to address the most pressing risks at Stepping Hill while giving local NHS organisations greater certainty and flexibility to plan properly for the hospital’s long-term future. Without doubt, there is much more to do, but this is how we move away from short-term fixes and towards a safer, more resilient Stepping Hill hospital that can continue to serve the people of Stockport for many years to come.
Question put and agreed to.
Deferred Divisions
That the draft Housing (Tenancy Deposit Schemes) Order 2026, which was laid before this House on 8 September, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 310 / Noes: 114 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the draft Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 9 September, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 316 / Noes: 149 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Financial Assistance to Industry
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
I beg to move,
That this House authorises the Secretary of State to undertake to pay, and to pay, by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, a grant or grants exceeding £30 million to UDX Development Company Ltd in support of capital expenditure on an entertainment resort complex and theme park in Kempston Hardwick, Bedfordshire, up to a total of £450 million.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. The motion relates to the truly historic inward investment into the UK in respect of the Universal United Kingdom resort in Bedfordshire. In June this year, the Government announced that we had reached an agreement with Comcast NBCUniversal and its subsidiary, UDX Development Company Ltd, to unlock over £6 billion in direct capital investment to construct and operate a world-class theme park and entertainment resort complex. The Committee is being asked to approve a grant of up to £450 million, under the Industrial Development Act 1982, to ensure that Universal can go ahead with its ambitious plans.
I was really pleased to visit the site in June on behalf of the Government, and to meet the 100 new staff Universal had already employed. Those 100 new employees, leading on a range of skills that include design, operations and construction management, are the first of an expected 8,500 employees who will work on site when it opens in 2031. Universal is committed to supporting opportunities for local residents and workers, and it intends to source 80% of its jobs from Bedford and the surrounding area.
Over the construction period, between now and the expected completion date of 2031, over 20,000 jobs in construction are expected to be created, with up to 5,000 on site at peak time. Again, this is a fantastic opportunity for people at all stages of their construction careers, and it is one of the single biggest investments in the visitor economy.
Universal is looking to engage people at all stages of their careers to work in the park. Empowering local authorities will also be key to making the most of this investment, by aligning local ambitions with Government priorities to unlock economic growth and to ensure that the benefits are felt locally through new jobs, skills and homes, as well as better transport.
I want to discuss the grant and where it sits in the agreement that the Government have signed with Universal. To make this highly mobile international investment come to the UK, the Government negotiated hard on a targeted support package that gave confidence to investors and the best possible value for taxpayers. There are three elements to the package: the grant of up to £450 million that we are discussing; the Department for Transport’s investment of £474 million in critical transport; and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport’s separate grant of £438 million under section 50 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 for community infrastructure and site-wide resilience.
Members may query why we are asking for approval to spend £450 million, when the Government announced in June that the grant would be for £400 million. The difference is a result of how we have structured the agreement to benefit the taxpayer. To protect the taxpayer, the grant will be paid in arrears, no earlier than 1 April 2031, and only after the formal grand opening. To account for inflation until then, we have applied indexation of 2% a year to the £400 million, which was informed by independent forecasts, in line with standard Government practice. The calculation results in the limit of £450 million that the Committee is being invited to consider this evening. In this way, public funds will be released only once the economic benefits during the construction period have been realised.
The Government have secured robust legal protections, including a parent company guarantee from NBCUniversal, primary legal charges over the site, and a list of binding policy commitments, with clawback terms lasting 15 years. Those conditions will ensure that Universal does what it has said it will do within the park, and that it delivers benefits for the wider area. They cover matters such as providing jobs, skills and training; prioritising recruitment in the local area and from priority groups such as care leavers and veterans; working with partners such as VisitBritain on the wider tourism strategy; and participating in projects to support the creative industries.
If the Committee agrees to the motion, the Secretary of State will be able to make a decision on whether to make the grant under the section 8 powers of the 1982 Act, delivered through the exceptional regional growth fund. The grant will be a subsidy, and Members have raised questions about whether the Government consider that appropriate. To answer the question of why a subsidy is necessary, if we had not given it, Universal would not have proceeded with its investment. This Government believe in unlocking growth and delivering for the British taxpayer.
Secondly, why do we need to make the subsidy now and how does it provide value for money? As I have outlined, no money is leaving the public purse now, and spending will be made only by 2031 at the earliest, when the park is being constructed. We are confident that the benefits will have been realised before then. As for value for money, up to £450 million in subsidy unlocks over £6 billion in investment.
Thirdly, we have considered in depth the subsidy control principles in the Subsidy Control Act 2022, and the Government’s assessment has been reviewed and revised in response to feedback from the Competition and Markets Authority’s Subsidy Advice Unit. We have responded in our assessment to the areas where the SAU suggests more information could be required.
I have taken the decision today to delay approval of the motion to allow fellow Members an opportunity to review a summary of the subsidy control assessment on which the Subsidy Advice Unit has based its recommendations. Securing parliamentary approval for this motion is a vital step in confirming the UK’s commitment to this transformative project, unlocking growth and confirming that the UK remains open to investment. I commend the motion to the Committee.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Minister has set out the purpose of the motion: to approve the payment of up to £450 million to UDX Development Company to support the NBCUniversal theme park and resort in Bedford. This project would be a major investment for what could become the biggest visitor attraction in the country. The initial discussions and agreement took place under the last Conservative Government, including assisting with land acquisition. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) has been a strong advocate for the project, as has my hon. Friend the Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller).
As the Minister said, Universal has committed to spending £6 billion on this project, delivering an estimated economic benefit of £50 billion, with thousands of jobs. These are clearly substantial benefits, but then so is the proposed funding that the motion seeks to provide through the exceptional regional growth fund, which comes on top of the £438 million for investment in public infrastructure and the £474 million to upgrade the road and rail network. In total, the Government are looking to spend £1.3 billion on this project.
Given the amount of taxpayer money involved in this project and the proposed motion, it is essential that we properly scrutinise the rationale, impact and conditions related to it. I will deal first with the amount. The motion seeks authorisation to pay up to £450 million on the opening of the park, not before 2031. As the amount is over £30 million, the approval of this House is required and the Government referred this to the Subsidy Advice Unit, which is part of the CMA, to consider DCMS’s assessment of compliance.
It is important to be clear what the subsidy report is and what it is not. It is advisory, and it does not directly assess compliance with the subsidy control requirements. Significantly, the subsidy report identified several shortcomings in DCMS’s analysis around proportionality, competition impacts and the interaction between the direct subsidy and the other forms of Government support. However, the Department’s assessment, which is the basis of the subsidy report, has not been made available to the Committee. I asked DCMS to provide it ahead of this sitting, and I was told that it could not be provided because it is commercially sensitive. All we have been provided with up to this point is just over two pages of an explanatory memorandum and a briefing with officials earlier today.
Clearly, it is completely unsatisfactory for the Committee to be in the position of considering this motion without that information. I welcome that the Minister has acknowledged the disappointing approach through her commitment to provide a summary and other information, but we have not seen that today. I and other Committee members will therefore expect the Minister to respond fully to the points that we make—as she normally would—notwithstanding her commitment to delay notification of the motion until we have seen that information.
This would be Universal’s first park in Europe, and clearly there is significant competition for internationally mobile capital. The subsidy report refers to DCMS’s position, reiterated by the Minister, that without taxpayer support, private funding would not be forthcoming. Universal has said the same to me. The question is: how hard have the Government tested that in the interests of taxpayers? The report states that DCMS should explain more clearly, in line with the statutory guidance, how “uncertainty constitutes imperfect information” that may hinder investment rather than “normal commercial risk” for a project of this scale. The Government have not responded to that request for further information in a way that this Committee has seen. Will the Minister confirm that that will be covered in the summary she will make available to us?
That brings us to the overall amount and the requirement to keep the subsidy as low as possible. One of the largest recent grants from taxpayers was the £75 million to BMW for production of the electric Mini. The report sets out that the £450 million in this case was agreed through negotiation, and it refers to “materially different starting points.” Could the Minister indicate to the Committee how much Universal was seeking at the beginning of the negotiations? The amount is also predicated on projections and the rate of return that Universal would expect to achieve in funding a project, as well as on subsidies provided to theme parks by Governments in other countries. It is of course possible that if this becomes the largest visitor attraction in the UK, those projections could be exceeded. Again, the DCMS assessment, which we have not seen, apparently referred to Universal’s projections as “systematically conservative”.
The Committee is being asked to approve the motion without visibility of the relationship agreement between the Government and Universal—even a redacted one. It is therefore incumbent on the Government, as the subsidy report highlights, to be clearer about how alternative subsidy amounts could affect viability and any overcompensation. Can the Minister explain more about how the clawback mechanism would work? At what level would a clawback of funds be triggered if the project overperforms financially? Would that be 5% or 10% over the expected return? I think the Committee deserves an indication of that, because it is important to minimise any taxpayer contribution. How will funds be recovered if the agreed outcomes the Minister referred to are not met?
To continue that theme, there is also a lack of detailed information on the grant, what it will be used for and what eligible spending is. The subsidy report refers to
“expenditure associated with the construction, infrastructure, systems and other development works”.
That is all rather broad brush. Can the Minister give some tangible examples of the type of spending that might qualify? Does it cover funfair rides, for example?
The purpose of the subsidy regime is to consider the impact on competition, and DCMS’s assessment identifies Merlin Entertainments as the competitor in the UK most likely to be affected, as well as Disneyland Paris internationally. It is worth noting that any company that considers this an unfair subsidy can challenge it at the Competition Appeal Tribunal. Does the Minister accept the analysis in the subsidy report that there should be further consideration of displacement effects and the impact on investment and competition? If so, will she make sure that that is made available to the Committee?
Finally, the funding is due to be paid no earlier than April 2031. Can the Minister confirm whether the funding has been allocated to the capital budget of the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade, and whether there is a funding line in its budget to pay for this? If not, will it be secured at the spending review, or is this essentially an IOU for a future Government to pay?
The opportunities that investment in a world-class visitor destination could bring are considerable. Equally, this is an exceptional funding proposal, and it is right that there is proper scrutiny of its basis, which has been the focus of my questions and contribution. The Minister needs to respond to these detailed points today and provide much greater transparency around the terms of the subsidy in order to protect taxpayers’ interests. I call on her to agree to share with hon. Members, in suitably redacted form, the relationship agreement and the assessment of compliance. I look forward to her responses.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The investment by Universal is to be welcomed and it is fantastic to see that there could be employment for 8,000 people. This will create jobs and be a lively part of the local visitor economy, but it will have a huge impact on the local area—not just in Bedfordshire, but in my county of Hertfordshire.
The motion relates to one of the three grants that the Government have been looking at. I have a number of questions relating to the other grants, not least because this is one of the only opportunities we have had to put questions to the Minister about this. If she does not have the answers to some of these questions, because they do relate to some other Departments, will she write to me after today’s debate?
First, the Government are, in a separate grant, investing in transport. That is welcome and needed, but they confirmed in June 2026 that none of the money that is allocated for transport will be for improvements on the Bedford to Brighton Thameslink line, which serves my St Albans constituency. We know that the Bedford to Brighton line will exceed capacity in five years. The key bottleneck is the Croydon area to the south.
It is quite short-sighted that the Government have not sought to use any of this funding to sort out that problem. With millions of visitors expected to this destination—it will have 8.5 million visitors in the first year and up to 12.5 million in a few years, and 6 million will be domestic—the Thameslink line between Bedford and Brighton will be used by millions more people. This is short-sighted, so I ask the Minister to explain either today or in writing why none of the funding has been allocated to that.
Secondly, Bedford borough council has welcomed this investment, but as I understand it—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—negotiations for an investment zone to be created have stalled. This Universal theme park, when it gets off the ground, will generate a huge amount in business rates, and Bedford borough council is keen to ensure that it can receive its fair share of them. When does the Minister expect the discussions to reopen and restart? Can she confirm that they will be concluded by 2031 so that the local borough can benefit before Universal opens?
On this specific SI and subsidy, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk referred to the Subsidy Advice Unit, which identified Merlin Entertainments as the domestic
“competitor most likely to be affected by the Project”.
The SAU would go as far as saying only that the negative consequence
“may be partly offset by additional domestic and international visitors attracted by the Project.”
The SAU also asked the Government to
“consider the potential longer-term effects of the Subsidy on competition and investment”,
not just for Merlin Entertainments, but, more broadly, for the current set of competitors and any future potential competitor, and particularly how it might impact investment. Can the Minister update us on whether any additional work has been done to look at the longer-term effects and impacts of this arrangement?
We know from a briefing earlier today that, effectively, this amount of money can be used for any kind of capital expenditure. It is not remotely clear to me whether it will be used for toilets, car parks or rollercoasters. Given that the Government have put in place a number of conditions and clawbacks linked to employment, it strikes me as rather odd that no conditions have been put in place relating to what the capex can be spent on. Can the Minister explain why that is the case?
The Minister said the approval of this motion would be delayed so that Opposition parties could have sight of further details. I highlight to her that it is not clear why this amount of £400 million has been deemed proportionate. We have not seen the assessment of what would be disproportionate. Would disproportionate be twice that? Would it be £50 million more? That is not remotely clear, so it is very difficult for Opposition parties to scrutinise this.
Finally, to repeat an earlier point, given my conversations with Universal—I have had a number of conversations relating to London Luton airport and transport infrastructure in the region—I found it quite surprising that the Minister indicated that Universal predicated its investment on this subsidy. It was never raised with me. That does not mean that it has not been raised with Ministers, but in my conversations, there seemed to be only one condition: the approval of London Luton airport expansion. I wonder whether the Minister can share any more with us about when that argument was put forward. Was it always the case that the subsidy was required, or was the argument introduced in the latter stages of the negotiation?
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Mrs Barker—I am sure you will keep us under control if we stray from the chosen path.
Let me first make a broad argument. This an important Committee. We are making a decision that begins to change the direction in which the country has been governed for so long, over my lifetime—a direction characterised as basically market-led. In 1950, when I was born, there were 8 million people in manufacturing, but now there are 2.5 million; there were 700,000 coalminers, but now there are none left; and there were 600,000 people in agriculture. We are seeing the most dramatic changes in the way our labour market works, and, unless the state and the Government take an active, interventionist role in creating and restructuring our economy, I fear for our future. That is not simply nostalgia, or an old man looking back to the happy times in the past—although they were happy—but somebody saying, “This is the nature of our society now.”
I represent 23 coalmining villages, and I know that the Minister’s constituency shares many attributes with mine. This is an important investment, and, in Bedfordshire, where it will take place, there is significant deprivation in pockets, but it is not everywhere. I am not going to quote the figures, but I looked at central Bedfordshire and compared it to Wakefield, where my seat is. Poverty and deprivation are much more deeply entrenched and wages are lower in the Yorkshire coalfield than in Bedfordshire. Why is a major investment taking place in Bedfordshire rather than anywhere else? I was struck by the penultimate paragraph in the explanatory note, which says:
“The territorial extent of this programme is the United Kingdom, and the territorial application of this motion is the United Kingdom.”
My area is less than 200 miles from Bedfordshire, but it takes people who live there four and a half hours to get there by public transport. There are over 20,000 households without a car in my constituency. People in my area will not go to Bedfordshire.
This investment is important; it is a signal that the Government intend to change the direction in which this country has been governed for too long, and that is welcome. I am sure that I do not need to press the Minister very hard, because she represents a coalmining seat in Yorkshire, but when we consider trying to attract investment, let us think about the regional impact, not only in Wales and Scotland, but in the Yorkshire coalfield, which I speak for. I welcome the report we have in front of us today, because without that, it would be difficult for me to go back to the coalfield and say, “Well, I voted for half a billion pounds to be spent in Bedfordshire while representing an area of deep chronic poverty.” I make that point quite strongly.
I also received lobbying from a company that is a competitor. The hon. Members for North West Norfolk and the hon. Member for St Albans mentioned competitors, and I think the Minister will reflect on what has been said, so I do not need to add to that. I want to come to the question of state aid rules and whether this whole investment complies with the various regimes of state aid. First, we are part of the World Trade Organisation, and we are bound not to take action on state aid that is illegal under WTO rules. I assume the Minister’s advisers have looked at that, and I raised it with her yesterday to be sure. There are then the UK’s home-grown regulations in the Subsidy Control Act 2022, which also controls the way in which the Government can intervene in the economy when considering reconstructing. That is a very important part of this proposal. It looks to me as though competitors may feel that they have a legal case to challenge this decision under the existing state aid rules. Can the Minister confirm that that has been carefully considered by the civil service and her advisers?
Let me say this to the people talking about rejoining the European Union: if that were to take place before 2031 and the money had not yet gone—by the sound of it, it will not go until 2031 or 2033—would we be in breach of the much more stringent state aid rules that apply within the European Union? Let me be clear: I do not think we should join the European Union. I am against it, and always have been, partly on the grounds of state aid, which controls the capacity of a Government to begin to rebuild their economy in the way I have just described.
I just want to know this: supposing some foolish person was to say, “Let’s rejoin the European Union”, and succeed, if the money had not been released, would we be in conflict with the state aid rules in Europe when we give this money to the Bedfordshire development? I gave the Minister advance warning of this and I am sure she will have thought about it; perhaps she will write to us all if she has not.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
The Committee is discussing and deciding on a significant and unique grant of taxpayers’ money today. In my opinion, it is inappropriate for a decision of this size to be taken in a Delegated Legislation Committee with such scant information as this. This matter should be given real, proper and timely consideration.
We all want to see the Universal project happen in this country and it is right that it has had cross-party and Government support, but let us be clear about what the Committee is being asked to approve today. There are three funding pots through which the Government have proposed to support the project. There is the DCMS grant for community infrastructure and the DFT funding pot, both of which I can understand. It is right and proper that the Government are supporting the project with wider enabling infrastructure that will support the community and enable significant direct foreign investment. But the third funding pot, which we are talking about today, is £400 million through the exceptional regional growth fund direct to Comcast NBCUniversal.
Often in life, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck, so let us call this what it is: a phenomenal bung from taxpayers to a massive, profitable US corporation. When operated for inflation, this is around £450 million—almost half a billion pounds—in taxpayer subsidy. It is highly inappropriate and, I believe, unprecedented to make that kind of award in a quiet room like this without proper scrutiny.
I must declare an interest—not only as a taxpayer, but as the Member of Parliament for Windsor, where we are proud to have Legoland Windsor resort. I back that fantastic resort. Like the Universal United Kingdom resort will, I hope, one day become, it is a hugely successful theme park that attracts visitors from across the country and beyond and brings in investment, not to mention wider benefits for the local economy, in hotels, restaurants and other local businesses. Consider this from Legoland’s point of view. In a fiercely competitive market, it will now have to contend with £450 million handed to a competitor just up the road in Bedfordshire. Fair enough if Universal comes in on its own merits and wins custom from Legoland—it is for Legoland’s team to respond and innovate to attract new visitors—but this is putting much more than a finger on the scales in aid of Universal.
If, like me, one has free market convictions, which are perhaps broadly shared on the Opposition Benches, one could see this as a distorting bung in a competitive marketplace. However, one does not have to be a free market ideologue to see that this is unfair and distortionary and amounts to picking a winner. It is simply not fair. I appeal to more progressive ears in the room today. Is this how they think working people’s hard-earned money should be spent—on Comcast NBCUniversal? What could they spend half a billion pounds on in their constituencies? This is essentially a huge payout to one of the most successful entertainment conglomerates in the world.
We should ask ourselves what the purpose of the grant is. This growth fund is reserved for
“strategically important internationally mobile investment or to address significant economic shocks.”
Perhaps we are undergoing a significant economic shock on account of the Labour Government’s fiscal approach, but are we really classifying a theme park as some sort of national interest project? No doubt it would be hugely beneficial to the economy, and I want to see Universal bring its billions here, but under fair auspices.
I asked at the House of Commons Library to look at every such motion since 2010. Every time this House has been asked to approve more than £30 million under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act, there is a clear pattern: support for energy-intensive industries and steel, which face high energy costs; emergency support for airports during covid; investment in electrical vehicle manufacturing and the life sciences; strategic industries; or support at a time of national crisis. Half a billion pounds of taxpayers’ money in the interests of a theme park, however, is a completely novel example.
I welcome the Minister stating that this was “international mobile investment”. She is right about that, but she did not include the preamble “strategically important”. We should ask the question: does Universal really need the deal to be sweetened in that way? When the then Housing Secretary granted planning permission for the scheme, he concluded that Universal did not need to demonstrate need, describing it as:
“a commercial judgement by the Promoter in the context of its analysis of the existing competition in the UK and the potential future market.”
Universal made a commercial judgment. As any good company should, it is investing because it believes that it will make a return on that investment. A Universal resort within a train ride of London—I have every reason to believe that it will be a success, and good for Universal, but for the Government to sign over £450 million of taxpayers’ money to sweeten the deal is wrong.
There is also an evidence issue here. I would not expect many members of this Committee to have looked at the Subsidy Advice Unit’s advice and the decision making behind it. That is part of why such a significant decision as this should not be taken in a Delegated Legislation Committee. The explanatory note we were provided with states that the grant has been reviewed by the unit, part of the Competition and Markets Authority,
“to ensure compliance with the Subsidy Control Act 2022.”
Members could be forgiven for reading that and concluding that the matter has been signed off. That is not what it means. The Subsidy Advice Unit does not rule on whether a subsidy is lawful; its job is to review the Department’s own assessment and to give advice on it. In this case, its advice found real shortcomings. It expressed concerns about proportionality, which is whether the £450 million is more than is needed; about the impact on competition, which is exactly the issue for businesses such as Legoland; and about how this grant interacts with the rest of the £1.3 billion package of public support for the same project.
Those are not minor points, and yet, as far as I know, the Department has not published its original assessment and it has not set out how it responded to any of the unit’s recommendations. This Committee is being asked to authorise up to £450 million without seeing the Department’s case or its answer to the independent advice that it received. We are being asked to approve first and see the evidence later. I do not think any of us should accept that for this scale of taxpayers’ money.
The Minister has committed to publishing the Department’s assessment and the response of the Subsidy Advice Unit—if I understand her remarks at the beginning correctly—before the money is paid. I thank her for that, but this Committee should not approve this motion until it has seen those. I must stress my concerns about this motion: it is not the right way to approve half a billion pounds in public spending, let alone spending that is so obviously anti-competitive and a boon to a global conglomerate. Frankly, even the Government’s own evidence base, on which the decision rests, is shaky. I hope that Members will reject this motion, so that it at least receives some further scrutiny in the House.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
I absolutely welcome the international investment in the UK and I recognise the immense potential that a Universal resort would bring to Bedfordshire, but we must not let our enthusiasm and excitement blind us to the economic realities. We are being asked to approve a massive direct cash transfer to a multinational corporation, at a time when the global theme park industry is navigating a deeply uneven patch. In Comcast’s latest financial reporting, its theme park division, Universal Destinations & Experiences, posted a 4.4% drop in revenue and a 17.1% drop in adjusted EBITDA, earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation. Across the wider sector, per capita spending remains high, but overall visitor attendance is softening, due to the cost of living and the reduction in travel post pandemic.
The public deserve to know that the Department has stress-tested Comcast’s ambitious projections against those market realities, and that we are acting as rigorous custodians of the public purse, not simply rubber-stamping a deal based on best-case scenarios. I must therefore pose some questions to the Minister, and I look forward to her responses on the record.
What verified independent evidence can the Department provide to prove that Comcast, a company with a market cap exceeding $150 billion, would not have invested in the UK without this £400 million—now £450 million—taxpayer bonus? Does the project delivery hinge on this money, or is it simply boosting corporate profit margins? How has the Department adjusted its long-term economic models to account for the current downturn in global theme park attendance and Universal’s own tightening profit margins? If those economic conditions persist closer to the 2031 opening date, what happens to the viability of this deal?
The Department has cited a cumulative £50 billion economic boost, but what precise percentage of that figure represents brand-new growth for the UK versus displacement? In a tight economy, a British family spending hundreds of pounds to visit Universal in Bedford is a family not spending money at Alton Towers, Blackpool pleasure beach, Legoland in Windsor or our wonderful theatres in London. Have the Government independently calculated the net negative impact that this project will have on our existing domestic tourism assets?
The Minister mentioned the Subsidy Advice Unit, but can she confirm that it has fully cleared this specific allocation under the Subsidy Control Act? If a legal challenge is brought against this non-competitive grant, who would carry the financial and legal liability—the Government or Universal? Although I note that the money will be transferred only after the park opens, what specific long-term protections do we have? What are the clawback clauses tied to the sustained delivery of the promised 8,000 jobs, or is the payout simply triggered by the opening of the gates, regardless of subsequent economic underperformance or redundancies?
At a time when public services and local authorities across our regions are facing unprecedented budgetary crises, how does the Minister justify allocating nearly half a billion pounds in a single non-competitive grant to a private entertainment empire? We must ensure that this deal delivers genuine value for money, absolute legal compliance and a net benefit to the entire UK economy.
Stephanie Peacock
I am incredibly grateful for Members’ interest and for their questions. I will first respond to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Albans, and I will then pick up some of the broader points.
A number of Members asked specifically about the SAU assessment and how we have responded. We have better evidenced how the indirect benefits of the project, such as visitor spend and the skills benefiting the wider economy, would not be achieved by private operators without Government intervention. We have added an explanation of how this is a unique investment, the likes of which the UK has not seen before, and so Universal bears a risk that goes beyond the normal commercial risk, meaning that HMG must provide support for the investment to be made.
We have strengthened our evidence showing why, without the subsidy or alternative subsidy amounts, UDX’s parent company would be unlikely to approve the investment. We have detailed how we will ensure that the subsidy can be clawed back by the Government, if Universal’s profits exceed a specified rate of return. We have also better explained how the subsidy has been designed to prevent market distortion, and we have included an additional assessment of the longer-term effects on the market and its competitors.
Officials met with Merlin and wrote to me last night, and I have replied to them. There is precedent for the Government making a series of subsidies in this way, with similar explanatory notes. However, as I have committed to the Committee—and to the shadow Minister when I spoke to him about an hour ago—we will delay the Committee’s decision until there is a redacted version or summary. A lot of it is commercially sensitive, which is why we cannot publish it. Any Government would take that approach, as I am sure the Committee will understand. I will make that available to members of the Committee, and the House will have an opportunity to object, if it so wishes.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson raised a number of very valid points about transport. She will appreciate that I cannot speak to them myself, but I will reflect them to my opposite number. I have visited Bedford three times in the last six months, and I have corresponded with the borough on her specific point about tourism. Of course, as Tourism Minister, I will continue that conversation. She also made a point about this being capital spend—of course, it is a multibillion pound investment—but there are 43 criteria that Universal needs to meet. Over a 15-year period after 2031, those criteria will allow for money to be clawed back, if we see fit.
I really appreciate the points made by my neighbouring MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth. I am a coalfield MP myself, so I totally appreciate his point about investment and the importance of it benefiting the whole United Kingdom. This development absolutely is a one-off opportunity for this particular area. I convened a meeting of local Members of Parliament, local mayors and local authorities in August to talk about how those areas will really benefit from the skills, jobs and investment. It is such a tangible, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
As a Yorkshire MP—indeed, we have Members present from across the country—I know how important this is for the United Kingdom. For example, in September I welcomed 400 businesses to kick off an event in Bedford that Universal organised, where it talked through its plans for procurement and its commitment to work with British business. This will extend the length and breadth of the country. Universal held a second event in Manchester later that week, and almost 9,000 businesses from across the UK have registered interests in becoming part of Universal’s supply chain.
We really believe that this development will be a powerful catalyst for growth across the UK’s creative industries, creating hundreds of skilled, creative jobs. It will attract further investment and it will showcase British creativity and intellectual property. It will stimulate long-term growth across the UK’s creative sector, and it will bring an estimated 8.5 million visitors to the area, including 1 million visitors to the UK who would not have otherwise come. We believe that this will be the most-visited tourism attraction in the UK, and Universal’s first theme park resort in continental Europe. That is absolutely massive. This Government are on the side of growth and investment, and I commend the motion to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House authorises the Secretary of State to undertake to pay, and to pay, by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, a grant or grants exceeding £30 million to UDX Development Company Ltd in support of capital expenditure on an entertainment resort complex and theme park in Kempston Hardwick, Bedfordshire, up to a total of £450 million.
Petitions
Proposed Leicester City Council Boundary Expansion
Petitions
Transport
Stoke-on-Trent to Manchester Airport train service
Train service between Stoke-on-Trent Railway Station and Manchester Airport
Westminster Hall
(1 day, 12 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
Antisocial Behaviour
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of anti-social behaviour.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank colleagues from across the House who have helped to make this debate possible, especially the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on antisocial behaviour. I thank colleagues at Resolve, who work with victims, housing providers, councils and the police to help to address this issue. I also thank the French students from OMNES who have attended this debate to see how democracy works.
I was driven to secure this debate primarily by the people I represent—the residents of Birmingham Perry Barr—who are all proud to call our area home. However, for all its charms, the area also suffers from issues that successive Governments have failed to address. Among the worst of those issues is antisocial behaviour such as street drinking, begging, threatening behaviour, fly-tipping, criminal damage, noise nuisance and vandalism. For many, those are part of everyday life. Only a small minority of people commit such acts, but everyone feels their effects.
The facts back that up. Resolve estimates that more than 5 million incidents of antisocial behaviour occur in this country every year. Even worse, that figure is only an estimate, as the overwhelming majority of people who experience an incident do not even report it. According to Home Office statistics, up to 93% of incidents go unreported.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
The hon. Member is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that the reason incidents go unreported is that the public do not have faith that they will be dealt with?
Ayoub Khan
I will come on to the hon. Member’s point, but that is part and parcel of exactly why the problem occurs. People feel desensitised towards reporting matters, because little is ever done.
The problem is only getting worse. In a survey conducted by Resolve this year, 63% of respondents who had encountered antisocial behaviour in the previous three years had never reported it to anybody. Last year, that figure stood at 56%. Even worse, of those who experienced the behaviour at first hand, 28% said that it made them feel unsafe locally, 15% had considered moving because of it and 6% actually had moved.
Antisocial behaviour is happening in broad daylight, and too many people have so little confidence in the system that they no longer see the point in asking for help. Some would rather move out and start afresh than rely on local authorities and agencies helping them out. That is where we are failing. Victims are being asked to place their faith in a broken system where agencies dodge responsibility, access to justice is slow and the quality of support for victims is, unfortunately, a postcode lottery.
I welcome the introduction of stronger powers to tackle persistent offending. The Crime and Policing Act 2026 introduced respect orders, tougher penalties for breaches of certain notices and wider powers to tackle reoccurring disorder. However, new powers on paper do not make our streets safer; local agencies need the resources to enforce them and to give victims confidence that reporting will lead to action. Luckily, solutions exist, and frontline professionals across the country are already delivering results in challenging circumstances—for example, Resolve, which comprises many such expert voices, has made six recommendations, which this Government must take seriously.
We must start by putting victims at the heart of our response. They deserve consistent support and reassurance that somebody is taking responsibility for their case. Too often, police forces, councils and housing providers hold different pieces of information about the same individual or incident, but struggle to co-ordinate their responses. A single national agreement would enable those agencies to work together more effectively, identify patterns of behaviour and intervene earlier. We must also address the unacceptable delays in our civil justice system. The victims of persistent nuisance and intimidation are often left waiting months, sometimes years, for civil proceedings to conclude. The creation of a dedicated housing court would streamline such cases, reduce delays and ensure that justice is delivered before further harm is done.
However, none of those measures will succeed unless we make it easier for people to report what they see on their streets. That means creating a simple, standardised reporting system, and allowing victims to report anonymously and access help with cases. Also, we cannot afford to simply wait for disruptive behaviour to emerge before taking action. That is why we need greater investment in early-intervention measures aimed at supporting vulnerable individuals, engaging young people and addressing the underlying causes of antisocial behaviour. We need to direct sustained funding to community safety partnerships. Those organisations understand the challenges facing their neighbourhoods, and bring together the agencies best placed to resolve them, but they cannot deliver long-term solutions without proper support.
Those practical reforms would make an enormous difference, but alongside them we must look at the bigger picture and put an end to the austerity that causes people to lose pride in the places that they call home. Youth clubs, sports facilities, community spaces and mental health services must be protected and seen as the essential services that they are, rather than as optional extras.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that, as well as shrinkage in youth facilities and clubs, the absence of police officers on the beat in our communities means that antisocial behaviour has increased, particularly with vehicles—loud music, speeding—including the e-scooters and bikes being ridden around our towns, on our pavements and perhaps even up one-way streets? That has never been addressed because there have been no officers on the streets.
Ayoub Khan
We certainly need extra policing in the west midlands region and the city of Birmingham—I will come to that. In my constituency, ever since Labour brought our city into bankruptcy, the absence of those services has been felt every day. We must work to restore what has been lost.
As I said, our police forces have also been deprived of the resources to tackle the issue. For that, the Government must take their share of the blame. West Midlands police have 540 fewer police officers and 500 fewer police community support officers than in 2010. Accounting for population growth, however, we are 1,200 police officers short of the number projected 20 years ago. Unfortunately, at a time when the need for safer streets is only rising, Labour has left our police force £43 million short every year.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman has proposed a lot of positive solutions, and he rightly raises the issue of police funding. Dorset police is one of the worst funded police forces in the UK, and certainly the worst funded for PCSOs. Dorset police are trying to police 1,000 square miles. Does he agree that, until we address the central Government funding formula and give local forces the funds they need to provide the services that local communities require, we will never have an effective deterrent against antisocial behaviour?
Ayoub Khan
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member. By way of example, 70% of the police forces up and down this country are operating with numbers equivalent to what they were in 2010. Some areas, such as the west midlands and his constituency, are not getting their fair share. We need to bring those numbers up enough to make a tangible impact. Labour has left the West Midlands police force short by £43 million every year, meaning that we could now lose another 80 officers unless we reverse that trend. Our police forces will be forced to prioritise more serious crime, leaving antisocial behaviour as an afterthought.
Causes of antisocial behaviour that are unique to each area also need rooting out. In Birmingham, one such cause is obvious: supported exempt accommodation. Birmingham houses 33,000 vulnerable people from across the country, with a fifth of the city’s units situated in my constituency. Although we must not stigmatise those who need care—we must offer them a place to rebuild their lives—residents in my constituency have repeatedly raised concerns about antisocial behaviour associated with poorly managed exempt accommodation, including even violence and property damage. When providers fail to properly support and supervise their residents, the problems play out in surrounding streets and leave neighbourhoods to suffer the consequences. The character of our streets is being actively degraded by poorly run exempt accommodation, yet the Government have done nothing to tackle the root cause. Labour councillors can blame the city council all they like, but they did nothing when they were in charge six months ago, because they know it is on the Government to end the crisis. The Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 promised us the powers to finally control the numbers of exempt properties in our city, but for over two years this Labour Government have done nothing but delay them, and now they are saying that we will not even get the powers until autumn next year.
We also need the resources to crack down on rogue providers and to support tenants. That is why we had the SEA pilot scheme, a unit that recovered millions in overpaid housing benefit and completed thousands of antisocial behaviour investigations. The scheme made a real, tangible difference, and yet the Government cut off its funding six months ago. Without urgent assistance, supported exempt accommodation will continue to drive antisocial behaviour in our streets. The Government know that, yet they continue to turn a blind eye—it is absurd. Instead of supporting the SEA pilot scheme, I understand that the Government are seeking a public inquiry into supported accommodation, which is likely to cost millions of pounds. It is absurd because everyone knows what the problem is. We do not need a public inquiry to understand the issue; we need the Government to implement the legislation that has already been passed. However, we all know what will happen: they will to use the inquiry as an excuse to delay when they already know what the solution is.
With colleagues, I will launch today a petition for the residents of Birmingham demanding that this Government implement the legislation rather than leaving it on a shelf to gather dust. I hope the Minister might be able to tell us today that that petition will not be necessary.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
It is indeed an absurdity that we know what is happening in towns in my constituency, such as Holbeach, Long Sutton and Sutton Bridge, but the police are often tied down by bureaucracy in dealing with it. They need to be able to act quickly and decisively. Thugs and yobs are terrorising the community and what is seen as low-level crime can cause unbelievable distress to law-abiding people, so let us inject some common sense into the system, act quickly and decisively, and punish the guilty.
Ayoub Khan
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. He is eloquent and persuasive, as always, and I wholeheartedly agree with him. The police are forced to prioritise more serious crime because of the lack of resources. Ultimately, if we do not resource the agencies properly with a proper strategic plan, matters will get worse.
I hope the Minister can tell us today that the petition will not be necessary, that the legislation that has already been passed will be enacted, and that city councils up and down this country will be given the powers they need, but I fear that that is unlikely.
To conclude, perhaps most of all we need to change the way we treat antisocial behaviour, and appreciate that it is not low-level crime. It is destructive not in the same way as a violent or serious crime, but in the way it makes people and places feel unsafe. In many cases, it does not count as a criminal offence, but let there be no doubt: these are crimes against the community that drain the morale of our residents. I sincerely ask the Minister to commit to delivering Resolve’s six recommendations, and perhaps to meeting Resolve and me so that we can discuss how to properly address the scourge of antisocial behaviour once and for all and ensure that victims’ voices can be heard. People deserve the right to feel safe in the places they call home. It is the Government’s responsibility to make that happen.
Dawn Butler (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dawn Butler (in the Chair)
Given the number of Members who wish to speak, I will impose a two-minute time limit. I call Brian Leishman.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for securing this debate. Across Alloa and Grangemouth, there is an understandable frustration with antisocial behaviour that negatively impacts communal spaces, neighbourhood communities and public transport. Many of my constituents rightly feel a sense of injustice about the fact that the perpetrators have been allowed to act in the manner they have with few to no consequences.
My constituents have been let down, but let me be clear: the fault does not lie with our overstretched police officers. Police Scotland has been savagely cut following years of sustained SNP Government underfunding, which naturally leads to increases in issues like antisocial behaviour. Giving evidence to Holyrood’s Criminal Justice Committee, the Scottish Police Authority admitted that policing is “under severe strain” and that public trust and confidence in the service is “decreasing”. The authority said it would continue to make the case to the SNP Government for “strategic investment” and to aim to show the
“devastating consequences of flat cash.”
Let us be under no illusion: if the force’s settlement remains unchanged in cash terms, jobs will be lost.
Even though the SNP promised that officer figures would remain above 17,234, the quarterly figures show that there were 16,322 full-time equivalent officers on 30 June 2026. Officer numbers in Scotland are at their lowest level since June 2024. These SNP cuts are hollowing out Police Scotland, drastically reducing community policing across the country. Visible local police are essential in stopping crime, reducing antisocial behaviour and improving overall community safety. In two decades in government, the SNP has relentlessly cut vital public services, whether it be healthcare, education, local councils, our fire service or Police Scotland, leaving our communities far, far from safety.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to serve with you and under you, Ms Butler; I welcome you to your role. As we have only two minutes, I will make one point: antisocial behaviour is arguably the most serious crime the public see. Most of the time, they do not see all the details of murders and things like that because those are not on their streets. The thing that is on their streets is the behaviour of others that wrecks their quality of life.
Shoplifting, for example, has to be taken far more seriously by police because it disrupts and destroys the lives of pretty much all those who want to go on to the streets. It destroys the likelihood of us keeping high streets and being able to give a proper service to the public. We had a problem with shoplifting in Chingford and Woodford Green, but there are things that can be done. We all blame the police for not being there, the troubles they have and the bigger policies, but I want to centre on what happens locally. In my constituency, we focused on the main high street, Station Road, which has been torn apart by shoplifters. These individuals are not turning up ad hoc because they are short of a bit of cash; many of these incidents are gang related—they are organised crime. Boots, for example, gets raided endlessly because shoplifters can get thousands of pounds-worth of goods off the shelves and walk out with nobody interrupting them.
We called together all the bigger stores that bring people on to the high street and discovered that they were not reporting the crime to the police, who said they did not know it was going on, so we forced the stores to do just that. We then said that the deal was that the police must be on the street and arrest people immediately they commit this crime. Crime began to fall on the high street because we played a part by getting cameras up and doing facial recognition. I say to all Members here today that there is more we can do to put pressure on the police, the shops and others to do more about antisocial behaviour. It is a terrible crime that destroys lives and people’s hopes. We must put pressure on Government to rectify that.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for securing this debate. Since being elected to represent Ealing Southall, I have spent much of my time campaigning for two things: more police on our streets and more powers for those police to take action against antisocial behaviour. I am delighted that the Government are investing in neighbourhood policing, with an additional £262 million for London.
There is no point, however, in having more police on the streets if they do not have the powers they need to act. In Ealing Southall, we have seen officers arrest people who are then out again the next day. All too often, the police are just moving people from west Ealing to Southall. That is why I have long championed Labour’s new respect orders, which give the police the power to take action against persistent offenders, with those who breach an order facing up to two years in prison or unlimited fines. It is a significant change; instead of moving persistent offenders from one end of the town centre to the other, the police can take action against them. I was delighted to welcome the Minister to Southall just a few weeks ago to launch those new powers, and I will be checking with the police over the next few weeks who they have put on a respect order.
However, there is more to do. I am campaigning for a dedicated town centre policing team for Southall; other town centres have one, but we do not because of an anomaly in how crime and antisocial behaviour data are dealt with, so I have asked the Met police to look at that issue again. I am also campaigning to get the shutters pulled up on Southall police station; they have been pulled down for 10 years, which does not send the right message locally. Finally, we need to look again at how we support recovering drug users. We put them on the methadone programme, but that means they have to come in and out of town centres almost every day to collect prescriptions, do urine tests and go to pharmacies. There is a new drug called Buvidal, and although it costs more money, we should look at its impact on town centres, as people will not need to go in and out as often.
Tackling antisocial behaviour is not just about moving people from one end of the town centre to the other. We need to bring in the new respect orders that the Government have championed. That is what people in Ealing Southall deserve, and that is what I will continue campaigning for.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. In his closing remarks, the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) said that antisocial behaviour is not low-level crime, as it makes people feel unsafe and drains confidence from the community. That is certainly true in Mid Sussex, where we have our issues with car cruising and with e-bikes and e-scooters right across the constituency.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
On car cruising, which is being fuelled by TikTok and other social media platforms, we have cars running fast up and down main roads in my constituency, creating noise nuisance and huge danger for residents. The police are on to this issue, but they say they need preventive measures. I have asked Kent county council whether it will introduce speed cameras, but it has said no. Does the hon. Lady agree that councils need to step up?
Dawn Butler (in the Chair)
Order. Interventions need to be short and snappy.
Alison Bennett
I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
I want to focus my remarks on town centres, and the need to have civic pride and facilities that people want to visit and enjoy being in. The story of the Martlets shopping centre redevelopment in Burgess Hill is too long to cover in the next minute and a half. However, despite the best endeavours of successive councils over many years, there are derelict buildings there. On Saturday afternoon, when I walked across the town centre with one of my children, she pointed out that there were smashed windows. Then, when we walked back, she told me that one of the smashed windows was open. We looked up and could see masked youths in the shuttered building, which used to contain a little supermarket. That level of neglect for facilities is bad for communities, and it is bad for the people of Burgess Hill.
Burgess Hill has done everything it can to try to get its town centre redeveloped. However, the levelling-up bids failed under the last Government, and the town is not eligible for Pride in Place funding, as far as we can tell, so that money has not been forthcoming. We are hopeful that a joint venture bringing together public and private sector money may actually get the town centre redevelopment off the ground but, as it stands, the morale of people who live in Burgess Hill is low.
The town council has done what it can by bringing the Park Centre back into use, providing youth facilities. The Burgess Hill Creative Community has taken up an empty unit in the Martlets shopping centre, where people can come together and do a variety of good, creative projects. People want the town centre to be one that works. Obviously, the policing presence is really important, but if we do not get the skeleton right—the civic pride and buildings that work and that people love and want to go to—we will attract the wrong kind of people: a handful of people who want to make life a misery for the vast majority of law-abiding citizens, who are there for their town and to support their community.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for bringing forward this important debate.
I begin by commending the work of Action on ASB!, a community campaign set up in Brixton to push for action on crime and antisocial behaviour, and made up of residents who simply want their neighbourhood to feel safer. As with other Members, antisocial behaviour—on high streets and tubes and at train stations right across our neighbourhood—keeps coming up in my casework and correspondence. Residents on Nursery Road describe public urination, defecation and aggression. On Bernay’s Grove, people have found human waste on their doorsteps. On Electric Avenue, constituents tell me about drug use and soliciting at the Brixon high street end. On St Rule Street, residents report parties, drug taking and intimidating behaviour. On the Roupell Park estate, people tell me about bullying and disrespect towards older residents.
Antisocial behaviour is also a huge hindrance to businesses and those who work really hard to keep them going. My constituents raise these issues year after year, but they have given up on reporting, because the process is too long and feels like it does not yield results.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
Just this morning, one of my Horsham constituents contacted me about the risk of a “Why bother?” attitude—why bother to report anything if nothing ever gets done? But in Kilnwood Vale, residents and local councillors Hannah Butler and Sam Raby refused to accept that reckless street racing is just something to put up with, and we now have a CCTV camera. Does the hon. Member agree that we have to prove to local residents that we are listening and that it is worth bothering?
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
Why have you got an intervention written down?
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. He is absolutely right: we do have to show them that these interventions are working, not least because it adds to the data on how much policing is needed in the area. If people do not report these things, and do not feel like there are results, nothing can really move forward.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to neighbourhood policing. The Government say they met their first target in January this year, but my constituents are not seeing or feeling that police presence on their streets in a meaningful way. For example, when the corner shop next door to my constituency office was robbed at knifepoint, our officers were probably being deployed to arrest pensioners holding up signs in central London. I would like my constituents to feel the effect of the proper community policing pledged by this Government, with the delivery of real neighbourhood policing officers sped up in places like Brixton, where the problems are long standing and well documented.
I would also like to see my local council, Lambeth, properly funded to tackle the addiction and homelessness crisis we face. We must get the root of the matter. We need to see a holistic approach to antisocial behaviour, because we simply cannot police our way out of this problem. I also truly believe that a difference can be made with a standing multi-agency group that brings together the police, the council, health services, housing and outreach teams, so that people are talking to each other and not working in silos—an issue I see time and again, with different bodies trying to tackle this problem, but no one talking to each other. That is not working, and is only exacerbating my constituents’ concerns about not being properly listened to and being made to feel that they are going round the same roundabouts.
Clapham and Brixton Hill should be a place where everyone feels safe. My constituents are asking to be listened to and to see change and, as someone who has called the area my home for my entire life, so am I.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
My inbox is flooded with correspondence from concerned constituents about a string of issues related to antisocial behaviour across Keighley and Ilkley: masked people in balaclavas riding e-bikes on pavements; quad bikes doing doughnuts in public spaces; deliberately loud cars racing through the centre of Keighley and along the bypass; a group of teenagers that has made Keighley bus station somewhere people now want to avoid; laughing gas cannisters, nitrous oxide, being used illegally by those driving under its influence and then thrown out of the window. People are seeing this every single day, and it is having a negative consequence on our area. It should not continue.
In areas like Dalton Mills, justice is not prevailing. In 2022, 100 firefighters attended an arson attack. Some £50 million of damage was caused, with £130,000 of impact to local businesses and lives put at risk, yet the perpetrator got a suspended prison sentence—a slap on the wrist. That only gives the green light for further attacks to take place; there is no deterrent at all. One of my constituents said to me:
“I rarely, if ever, see any…form of authority addressing these issues.”
That brings me to the Government’s narrative of increasing neighbourhood police numbers to 13,000. Police officers have put to me that new recruits are not coming into their force; there is simply a reshuffling of the deckchairs, where officers who are already doing a good job elsewhere within their local force are reallocated to neighbourhood police work.
Can the Minister tell me how many additional new recruits have joined our neighbourhood police teams, and specifically how many have been added in West Yorkshire? Where police officers have been reallocated from their teams, what analysis are the Government doing of whether there has been a negative impact elsewhere?
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. Antisocial behaviour is a recurring concern for residents in my constituency. I raised this issue in June last year and since then, I have continued to hear from constituents about the effect it is having in our town centres and public places.
A crime that is not reported, investigated or followed up can quickly become a crime that is repeated. The response to antisocial behaviour should be measured not just by the number incidents recorded, but by whether people feel confident in reporting it and whether they see action.
Two young men from Hednesford spoke to me about groups gathering in town centres and parks and how intimidating that can feel. When I welcomed pupils from Kingsmead school to Parliament, they raised concerns about phone thefts involving e-scooters. Cannock Chase district council has used public spaces protection orders to address persistent problems, including the rising antisocial use of vehicles and e-scooters, as well as street drinking.
The Linkway retail park in Cannock offers a positive example. Staffordshire police identified it as a hotspot for car meets, racing and excessive noise. Officers issued warning letters to drivers identified through CCTV and held targeted patrols at peak times. Police community support officers also removed stickers that were advertising the meets. That led to a significant reduction in complaints. However, there had to be a nuanced response because for years before those issues arose, there had been respectful and well-managed car meets—a reminder that, as we target antisocial behaviour, appropriate use of public spaces should be supported.
Partnership working does not remove the need for visible neighbourhood policing. I welcome Staffordshire police’s announcement of 53 additional officers, but the force also change PCSO shift patterns in June so half of them now finish at 7 pm and half of them at 9 pm. That has led to concerns among my constituents over whether PCSOs will be available when antisocial behaviour is happening. The neighbourhood policing guarantee should be judged not only by the number of officers recruited, but by whether communities see a consistent and effective police presence.
I hope the Minister can speak about whether the Home Office will look at the impact of changing shift patterns on neighbourhood policing, particularly how we can ensure that the guarantee delivers visible, accessible policing in town centres and residential areas during the hours when antisocial behaviour is most likely to occur.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
It is indeed a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for securing this debate, and I thank his students for coming to witness it. I suspect that if they come back in 10 years’ time, we will still be debating antisocial behaviour because nothing ever gets done in this place.
Antisocial behaviour destroys families, communities and, ultimately, the country. About four years ago, I went to Singapore with the Home Affairs Committee—I am sure the Minister was on a similar flight. I noticed that there was no graffiti, antisocial behaviour or crime. I also did not see a police car or officer all week. Does anybody know why? It is because the consequences of antisocial behaviour in Singapore are a little bit more severe than in this country.
My town centre, Sutton-in-Ashfield, is full of yobs, drunkards and people on drugs. The police do turn up, but they do absolutely nothing because they think it is a waste of time. They move the people on, and then they come back the following day. One of my solutions for the Minister is this: if those yobs who keep returning are living on state benefits, we should stop the benefits. It is the same with social housing. People in some of my council estates are creating all sorts of problems for their neighbours. If they are living in social housing and living a life on benefits, and causing problems in my community, why do we not just kick them out of their social housing, stop the benefits and create some real repercussions? A lot of my residents think it is a waste of time to report antisocial behaviour to the police and the council, especially when my Ashfield district council—people have probably seen it in the news recently—is being run by criminals like Councillor Tom Hollis, who has a string of convictions, including lots of antisocial behaviour, under his belt.
The solutions are simple. Stop the benefits for these people who are causing problems in our town centre. If they live in social housing, kick them out of the houses. Minister, this is really simple stuff—simple.
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for securing this important debate.
One difficulty we face when discussing antisocial behaviour is that too often we underestimate how serious it is. A group of young people gathering outside a shop, shouting in the street late at night or repeatedly causing disturbances in a neighbourhood might seem like a minor incident and perhaps be dismissed as young people simply being young people. But in my constituency we have seen how serious these situations can become. The former Moreton Hall prep school in Bury St Edmunds, which has stood empty since 2020, is the site of vandalism and fires. Last July, an arson attack on that building resulted in about 100 people being evacuated from neighbouring houses. What might begin as young people gathering around an abandoned building can become something far more dangerous, for those involved and for the wider community. For residents living nearby, that is not a minor matter.
Persistent antisocial behaviour erodes the very sense of security that makes a community feel like home. I serve on the Home Affairs Committee and have seen just how important the renewed focus on neighbourhood policing is. This is a real opportunity to change how we approach antisocial behaviour. Neighbourhood policing is about rebuilding relationships between the police and the communities that they serve. It is about having officers who know their neighbourhoods, recognise the warning signs and intervene before relatively minor incidents become something far more serious. That gives residents confidence that when they report antisocial behaviour, somebody listens.
Let us move away from the idea that antisocial behaviour is somehow inevitable. It is not inevitable and certainly is not something that communities should simply have to put up with. I am sure that, with effective neighbourhood policing and a willingness to take this concern seriously, we can make a real difference.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. A big thank you to the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for coming forward with this debate.
The police record more than 1 million incidents of antisocial behaviour every year across the United Kingdom. Antisocial behaviour plagues many of our communities. The consequences are not just financial, although costly damage is caused to both public and private property. This behaviour is also causing people to feel intimidated and unable to enjoy their own neighbourhoods.
To be fair to the Minister and the Labour Government, they are doing some good things. They have renewed their commitment to tackling antisocial behaviour by introducing tougher restrictions and dedicated operations to target town centres, for example.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Ind)
People in my constituency are concerned about town-centre antisocial behaviour and rightly expect action. To give credit where it is due, Devon and Cornwall police saw a 10% reduction in antisocial behaviour in the year to May, helped by targeted Home Office-funded hotspot patrols. Does the hon. Member agree that although there is more to do, that represents welcome progress?
Jim Shannon
I certainly do. Street drinking and e-scooter misuse are also being addressed. The newly introduced respect orders provide further powers for both police and local councils to take action against persistent offenders. I encourage and welcome that.
Enforcement is essential, but we must also work to understand what causes antisocial behaviour, because that is the real issue. For adults involved in antisocial behaviour, mental health problems and drug misuse are cited as the key drivers. In relation to children and young people, who tend to be the main source of antisocial behaviour, it has been found that unstable home environments, lack of education and peer pressure are significant contributors. Uniquely, in Northern Ireland we must recognise that there remains a continuing threat posed by paramilitary groups, which can exploit vulnerable young people and accelerate antisocial behaviours. We must do more to support parents in their responsibilities, ensuring that they know where their children are, particularly during the evenings, and are able to encourage their children to take responsibility for their actions.
I commend the churches in Strangford for what they do. They have youth groups and clubs and encourage young people to come in. They try to keep them off the streets if at all possible. May I also make a plea on behalf of street pastors? They are very active right through my constituency. They do great work to reach out and help young people, and no one can ignore their impact.
Newtownards in my constituency experienced antisocial behaviour over the summer. These incidents have a lasting impact on the wider community. Residents report feeling less confident about going out, fearing intimidation or harassment. Parents with young children are increasingly reluctant to use local parks, while others avoid walking in the evening because they do not feel safe.
The public should not have to live in fear because of the behaviour of a minority. When it comes to increasing enforcement powers, given the success of some of the powers in England in Wales, I ask the Minister—who is always responsive, and I thank her for that—to engage with the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Minister for Policing and Justice and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. We can defeat antisocial behaviour if we do it together.
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. Antisocial behaviour is not a minor nuisance; left unchecked, it frays the fabric of our communities and leaves people feeling unsafe in the places that they live. In my constituency it covers a lot of ground, but for the purpose of today’s debate, I want to focus on e-scooters and e-bikes being used in a harmful way. The bikes I am talking about are not the legal e-bikes most people might picture; many have been modified well beyond that. Some are capable of doing more than 70 mph, and they are being ridden along pavements and in and out of people who are doing their shopping.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
At a recent roundtable I held with police, they talked about how illegal e-scooters and e-bikes were facilitating crime and antisocial behaviour. When I was canvassing in my constituency, the issue of young people in balaclavas zooming around on e-scooters and intimidating families and children also came up. Does the hon. Member agree that the Department for Transport’s current consultation on the hired e-bike scheme should be extended to include all illegal e-scooters and e-bikes, to address their role in antisocial behaviour?
Naushabah Khan
I do agree. The law is fairly clear: a private e-scooter or an overpowered e-bike cannot be ridden on a public road. The difficulty is how easily they can be bought. Couple that with the reality of an individual riding at speed, a police officer on foot and the risk to the rider themselves in a high-speed pursuit, the challenge in tackling this issue becomes glaringly obvious.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is touching on the issue of illegal e-bikes. Members will be aware that I presented a ten-minute rule Bill earlier this year that would have brought in a ban on their sale. Does she agree that the single biggest thing we could do to help our police is to ensure that these bikes never touch our streets in the first place, by restricting their sale?
Naushabah Khan
I agree that we need to look at the sale of these bikes much more closely. Conversion kits that can turn an ordinary peddle bike into something more powerful can be ordered online for less than £300. Complete machines are sold on the basis that they are for use on private land, when everyone knows where they actually end up. Young people are able to buy them with little standing in their way.
I welcome the steps that the Government have already taken to strengthen legislation in this area; however, I ask the Minister to consider two things. The former Department for Business and Trade committed to responding to its product safety consultation within 12 weeks of it closing in June. That deadline has now passed by some two months. Will the Minister press colleagues to publish the response without further delay and make the case from the Home Office that restricting the sale of conversion kits would ease the burden on our police?
The second thing is enforcement. At the moment, there is no consistent national approach, and results vary a great deal from one force to the next. Where an approach has worked, it has been well planned and properly resourced. In London, the Met has targeted hotspots using intelligence, tested bikes at the roadside with rolling roads and put officers on e-bikes of their own. It has seized more than 2,500 illegal bikes this year, and phone theft in the west end has nearly halved. I would be grateful if the Minister could say whether the Government will look at a national framework for enforcement, based on best practice evidence, and push for it to be properly funded, so that my Gillingham and Rainham constituents can see the same results on their high streets.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler.
Tackling antisocial behaviour is vital to restoring pride in our communities, but for too many people in Scarborough, pride in where they live has been replaced by anxiety, frustration and fear. Increasingly, antisocial behaviour is concentrated around a small number of premises in the town centre that provide emergency temporary accommodation.
The impact on nearby residents and businesses has been profound. One constituent, Brian Witty, told me,
“It’s making my life a complete misery—my cameras are going off all night with people mooching about drinking, taking drugs, alcohol and fighting…I can’t have my grandchildren over because of the foul language and cannabis use.”
Another constituent, Rachel, said:
“Incidents are taking place every single day on the streets surrounding these properties, not just sporadically. We can’t use our garden anymore. We can’t even leave our windows open on hot days because of the noise and the smell.”
Guests of another accommodation provider requested refunds after experiencing sustained disruption during their stay.
Since raising those concerns with site operators, including a company called Homemore, I am pleased to say that meaningful improvements, such as 24-hour on-site security, have been made. Although the challenges remain, those measures have begun to make a positive difference.
To be clear, I do not oppose emergency accommodation being located in Scarborough, but we are seeing an over-concentration in one town out of a large county: 103 people were recently placed in emergency accommodation across North Yorkshire, and 58 were in Scarborough. We do not mind taking our share, but does the Minister agree that, although vulnerable people deserve safe accommodation, the communities that host them deserve fairness too?
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
For years, the story of bonfire night in Niddrie and Craigmillar has been one of disorder. In 2023, 62 officers were injured when fireworks were fired at the police. Heartbreakingly, fireworks also caused the death from stress of a baby red panda at Edinburgh zoo.
After that, local people and the police decided that families should not have to be afraid on 5 November, and they launched an incredible operation. Thankfully, last Thursday, Niddrie was quiet. First and foremost, I thank the police—local PS Graeme Carolan and the local team, and the police officers who came up from England to help on patrol. That shows the value of cross-UK solidarity for our communities. I also want to thank Jeannie Robertson-Frazier and Donna Ruth from Sandy’s community centre, Kirsty Haigh from Edinburgh Food Social, and Cheryl Neill and Suzanne Douglas from Places for People’s Hays community hub.
The good news in Niddrie is remarkable, because it is unusual. Policing in Musselburgh is a disgrace. I get almost daily emails from constituents reporting intimidation, harassment, supermarket theft and smashed-up restaurants. I have launched petitions, hosted coffee mornings, worked with the police and written countless letters to Scottish Ministers, yet precious little has been done. Our police do amazing work, but they are let down by the SNP. Although Edinburgh is Scotland’s capital, the E division that covers it has only 20 officers per 10,000 people—a third below the Scottish average.
The SNP loves to make comparisons to England and Wales when it suits it, but the English average is 24 officers per 10,000 people; in Musselburgh it is only 16. It is inexplicable to me that the Scottish Government have had an extra £18 billion from this Labour Government, yet none of it has made its way to frontline policing. My constituents are paying the price. Solving antisocial behaviour is not rocket science: we just need more police.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Butler.
There were 3,707 reported cases of antisocial behaviour in York over the last year, out of 14,500 reported offences—shoplifting comes in at about 1,700. It is a serious issue in my constituency, as my community organising over the summer has shown. It includes young people using e-bikes, shoplifting, and groups of young people just gathering with nothing to do.
We need to talk about not just addressing the issue but preventing it. That is where I want to focus Ministers’ attention. Our youth services were decimated in 2011, and we are paying a heavy price for that. Cash-strapped local authorities struggle to meet their statutory responsibilities, let alone provide those essential services on top.
If we invest early, we can see incredible results. York youth partnership is working in a multi-agency way to address the issues that young people face. We are getting youth hubs from the Department for Work and Pensions, and the Government are putting money into bringing people into a different space after offending, but I want prevention to be at the heart of our approach. When I talk to the police, they say it is a job for the local authority; when I talk to people in the local authority, they say it is somebody else’s work. We need to put the investment in. I want to see our local authority working with the police on reformulating all these services.
Whether they are covered by the DWP, falling out of education or causing antisocial behaviour on our streets, these young people are the same young people. We need a formulation that will bring all of them into a productive space, giving them opportunities for the future.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for securing this debate.
Antisocial behaviour is one of the most significant issues in my inbox. One of the areas impacted in my constituency is Spon End, Sherbourne. That is truly heartbreaking, because there is so much to look forward to in Sherbourne. The area is going through significant regeneration: the City Centre South development, which has regenerated 250 affordable homes; Naul’s Mill underpark; and the opening up of the River Sherbourne, which showcases the heritage and beauty of the area. It is also home to Langar Aid, a charity that, last year, provided more than 1 million meals to the most vulnerable people across our country.
Sadly, all that is overshadowed by antisocial behaviour. Recently, I held a coffee afternoon with residents in the area, and I visited one of the local schools. What I heard was truly shocking: drug dealers targeting vulnerable people near schools, people passing out and defecating on the streets, and e-scooters and e-bikes being driven recklessly. There was one incident where a man under the influence walked into a local primary school during pick-up time, and all the kids could see it. Following that incident, I held a roundtable with Langar Aid, Change Grow Live, Coventry city council, West Midlands police and Coventry and Warwickshire integrated care board to address it. I understand that two arrests have been made by the police, but there is so much left for us to do.
I want to ask the Minister three clear questions. First, what support is being provided to schools to ensure that they have an allocated police contact for incidents like this? Secondly, is the Minister considering expanding respect orders outside of high streets and city centres to more hidden areas such as Spon End in my constituency? Finally, when will my constituents start to feel the impact of investment in local policing on their streets?
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
When I was elected, it was on the back of three pledges, one of which was to work to revitalise our towns. A key aspect of that is tackling antisocial behaviour in St Austell. Although Cornwall has a lower crime rate than the national average, around 405 incidents of ASB have been recorded in St Austell in the last year, which makes it the second most common category of recorded crime, underlying why tackling it remains such a priority for residents. St Austell ranks fifth among the nine towns in the area for recorded crime, but the town centre faces a challenge of the perception, as well as the reality, of those ASB incidents, which so often relate to drugs and alcohol.
I commend the work of Safer Cornwall, Cornwall council’s ASB and rough sleeping teams, and St Austell police. The summer blitz that took place last year delivered 1,500 hours of police foot patrols across the focus areas, including St Austell, with 590 arrests for retail crime and 79 for street crime. In August, police and partners also served full closure orders on two addresses in the area. But there is much more to do: throughout my community conversations in the last few months, it was clear that we need to tackle the upstream causes of antisocial behaviour.
On youth services, enforcement alone cannot give young people something to do and somewhere to go. The Government have published the first national youth strategy in more than a decade, backed by more than £500 million of investment. Cornwall has secured £1.5 million for two Young Futures hubs. Ramping up funding to tackle drug and alcohol abuse is vital; it was slashed under previous Governments by more than half in real terms.
I want to be candid: although we need to take a humanitarian approach, we must also take a firm approach. That is why we must be sensible and strategic about the provision of supported accommodation, and have tough conversations with Cornwall council. I was pleased that it has been reviewing its approach in recent years. Will the Minister come back to St Austell in her current role, bringing to bear the full might of Government behind my pledge for St Austell?
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I hear regularly about antisocial behaviour from my residents across Portsmouth North. For many, it seriously affects their quality of life and their ability to feel safe in their own home. I will give one example.
Residents on one road contacted me after enduring months and months of appalling behaviour: motorbikes racing up and down, car wing mirrors being smashed, doorbells being rung late at night, properties being damaged, shouting in the street and, unbelievably, human faeces being dumped on the road—just imagine being woken in the middle of night, wondering what damage you might find in the morning and feeling anxious about simply opening your door. Those residents simply wanted to live peacefully in their own homes. They were angry and exhausted, and above all, they felt that no one was listening. No one should have to live like that.
What made matters worse was that, initially, no one seemed to take responsibility. Residents were passed from one service to another, including by our elected councillors—it was someone else’s problem. They and I found that incredibly frustrating. People should not have to navigate a maze of agencies just to feel safe.
Lee Anderson
Does the hon. Member agree that one reason we have seen an increase in antisocial behaviour in our country is the amount of illegal migrants who are being dumped in hotels and HMOs?
Amanda Martin
No.
I brought the residents, the council, the police and other services together in a meeting at my office. We agreed a plan of action. The perpetrators were dealt with and, importantly, the problem has not returned—but why did it take so much effort? Why should residents have to reach the end of their tether before agencies sit down together and sort things out?
This is not an isolated problem. Across Portsmouth, concerns are growing about the antisocial use of electric bikes and e-scooters, as others have noted. Residents are worried about vehicles being ridden, the speeds they are ridden at and their use in criminality, putting pedestrians and other road users at risk. I warmly welcome the Government’s action on named neighbourhood police officers and on strengthening powers to seize and crush, without a warning first, such vehicles being used antisocially. We need those powers to be used consistently, however, and we need a public campaign on the legal and illegal use of e-bikes and scooters, and to stop their purchase in the first place.
That brings me to respect orders. I welcome their introduction. They give the police, councils and social landlords additional tools to tackle persistent local offenders, including restricting access to particular areas and being able to require individuals to change their behaviour, but such powers are useful only if they are used. The Minister previously told the House that police in Hemel Hempstead had identified 30 potential cases ready for the introduction of respect orders, and we have now seen the first orders granted in Gloucestershire. That is action—but can the Minister tell me how many applications have been made by the Hampshire and Isle of Wight constabulary, and how many of those have been granted? What practical support is being given to ensure that our local police and councils make full use of their powers?
Ultimately, this is about people being able to sleep peacefully, feel safe when walking down the street and have confidence that when they report antisocial behaviour, someone will do something about it. It should not be the case that our residents have to shout louder than the perpetrators before someone listens. New powers must mean action—and safer streets and communities—not simply strong words.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for securing this debate.
Recently, I held one of my regular coffee mornings in Silkmore in Stafford, and residents raised a wide range of issues, but a common theme emerged from the discussion: people want to see more visible policing in their communities. They want to know that their concerns will be taken seriously, and that officers understand the area that they serve.
The same theme came out during the independent business roundtable in Stafford town centre. Business owners spoke passionately about the contribution they make to the high street, but they also talked about the negative effect that antisocial behaviour is having in our town centre. Favourites such as Webb, Lucas & Stubbs optometrists now have an automatic lock fitted on the door to ensure that staff are safe, and Salter Street Toys and Models is reconsidering how to run its business, telling me that the thing that often makes the most difference is a visible police presence, with PCSOs around regularly.
Neighbourhood policing has faced considerable cuts over many years. Communities have felt the loss of that local presence, and that is why I welcome the renewed focus on neighbourhood policing under this Labour Government. One thing that struck me from my conversation with residents, however, is that they are not simply asking for more police or tougher enforcement; they want us to address the underlying causes of the problems.
This summer in Stafford, we sadly had an issue of antisocial behaviour involving young people in the town centre. I am a former youth worker, so I am aware that people often reach for young people when it is ASB, and I do not like the two always being conflated—but with this issue, that was true. In Stafford, we had the third worst cuts to youth services in the country. Those were decisions made by Conservative Administrations prior to our involvement. My residents know that to turn things around in the long term we must consider how we create opportunities and strengthen the communities that young people are growing up in. That is why I am campaigning for a youth centre in Stafford like the one that my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) has coming to his constituency.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler.
I will start by reflecting on the comments of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), who suggested that we should make more people homeless in order to tackle antisocial behaviour. I suggest to him that homeless people may be more likely to engage in antisocial behaviour and annoy his constituents.
Max Wilkinson
I will. The hon. Member also expressed his admiration for Singapore, where smoking in public is regarded as antisocial behaviour—I wonder whether his party leader might have views on that. Given the hon. Member’s own past conduct in Parliament—the behaviour that he engaged in with House of Commons staff—he might reflect that he might be out of pocket to the tune of several thousands of pounds if Singapore-style laws were introduced in the UK. I will now give way.
Lee Anderson
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I am not worried about losing my job here; I have a GB News job that pays very handsomely. On his point about me trying to make people homeless, if there is a feral family living next door to me, my friends, my relatives or my constituents, I have absolutely no problem at all with kicking them out and letting other residents have a peaceful life.
Max Wilkinson
It is instructive that the hon. Member is boasting about his second job in this debate.
As Sir Mark Rowley told us last week, we have fewer police officers per head than France, Germany, Italy or Spain—in fact, fewer than most of Europe. In that context it is little wonder that people the length and breadth of the country repeatedly tell us their concerns about antisocial behaviour. Higher police visibility, facilitated by higher numbers, will clearly help us to fight antisocial behaviour.
The Office for National Statistics tells us that an estimated 41% of people experienced or witnessed antisocial behaviour in the year ending June 2026, up from 36% the previous year. All too often antisocial behaviour sucks the life out of our towns and city centres. In residential areas, too, it makes going about daily life a misery.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
In Torbay the town centres tend to be a focus for antisocial behaviour, often involving the drugs and alcohol challenges of street-attached people. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to take a strong enforcement approach and, equally, to ensure that there is wraparound support for those who want to exit that world?
Max Wilkinson
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The answer is, of course, more community policing. After years of Conservative-led cuts to police numbers, people want visible, trusted local police officers who know their area and have the time and presence to prevent crime, not just to respond to it. For that to be effective, the police must be visible in the communities they serve.
Thanks to the decimation of proper community policing, we have seen a drastic decline in frontline police counters. In Bedfordshire the number of counters has reduced by 78%, in Surrey by 60%, in the west midlands by 58%, in West Yorkshire by 53% and in Greater London by 52%. That decline must be reversed by the installation of a police counter in every community across the country, as the Liberal Democrats have called for. They could be in community hubs such as libraries, shopping centres and town halls—convenient, accessible locations. That is how we will start to rebuild trust and improve police visibility in response to crime.
Monica Harding
I absolutely concur with my hon. Friend that we need more community policing and more visible policing. I have already made the point in the House that we need warranted officers on streets rather than at their desks or in call centres. Does he agree that the more the public report incidents of antisocial behaviour that they do not report at the moment, the more action we will get on it? Perhaps the Minister might think about how we can encourage the public to report the incidents they see.
Max Wilkinson
I commend my hon. Friend’s comments to the Minister.
Confusing legal frameworks make many instances of antisocial behaviour difficult to police. E-bikes, which have already been mentioned, are a common complaint in towns and city centres up and down the country, including in my constituency. Public concern is growing over the dangerous misuse of illegally modified high-speed e-bikes on pavements and in pedestrianised areas such as the High Street and the Promenade in Cheltenham. This is a particular concern to older people and parents with young children, but it can certainly alarm anyone—I speak from personal experience. It is antisocial behaviour in itself, but the suspicion is that these e-bikes are regularly used by drugs gangs and in county lines.
The legal framework for e-bikes is confusing, outdated and rarely enforced. As the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan) mentioned, high-power conversion kits and illegal bikes are readily available online with almost no regulatory oversight. That would be a good starting point for Ministers wanting to introduce measures to tackle antisocial behaviour. We must tackle illegal e-bikes, including by giving police forces updated training to spot, intercept and confiscate them. Will Ministers look at how these proposals might tackle antisocial behaviour?
We must also recognise that a huge quantity of serious crime has moved online, as Sir Mark warned last week. The latest strategic assessment from the National Crime Agency warned that rapid technological change is the primary driver in serious organised crime, with the threat set to increase. That change is diverting resources away from frontline policing, producing poorer outcomes for victims of other crimes, including antisocial behaviour. A dedicated online crime agency would ensure that online crime was treated with the seriousness that it merits and would free up officers’ time to focus on neighbourhood crime, including antisocial behaviour.
That online crime agency would be funded by a new online crime levy on the big tech and artificial intelligence companies whose platforms enable the most serious crimes that Sir Mark warned about last week: child sexual abuse, fraud and money laundering. It would stop neighbourhood police being dragged off their streets to deal with those forms of online crime, which in many cases they are not trained to deal with. Just last week, Sir Mark warned that the police risk heading for failure if reforms do not empower officers to keep up with modern criminals operating online. Will Ministers consider that proposal, which the Lib Dems have set out before, to establish an online crime agency in order to improve community response on our streets?
The Government have made positive steps on some of these issues through their neighbourhood policing guarantee, but the proof will be in its delivery, especially given the upcoming police reform legislation. They must get those reforms right, with a proper focus on community policing, or they risk placing communities at greater risk and harming public confidence in the system. If the merging of forces means that officers become more distant from the communities they serve and less able to respond to local crimes, the Government will be making a serious mistake. Worryingly, the agenda being set by the Home Office seems to run counter to the devolution direction being set by the Prime Minister, particularly in respect of the number of boundaries that will be set and accountability to regional mayors. When will we find out how police reform fits in with the Prime Minister’s flagship agenda?
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) on securing this important debate, and I thank all 17 right hon. and hon. Members from all parts of the United Kingdom who have taken part in it.
We all recognise the descriptions and anecdotes we have heard today. Antisocial behaviour is a widespread issue that we all face: the noise from fireworks, the glance over the shoulder on the walk home, the quiet bus journey spent trying not to attract attention—for victims and witnesses alike, it inspires nothing but stress and fear. It stops pensioners walking to the shops, bus drivers feeling safe in their cabs and families feeling secure in their own homes. As the dark nights creep in, it erodes people’s confidence in their communities and in this Government’s ability to protect them.
The latest crime survey for England and Wales estimates that 41.4% of people experienced or witnessed antisocial behaviour last year, up from 36.7% the year before. Behind those figures are real people who need to see real change, not simply another promise. I am sure that the Government will point to the Crime and Policing Act, much of which we supported, and to the respect orders introduced last month—a number of Members have mentioned those—but legislation is only the starting point. The test is whether people will notice any reduction in the chaos on their streets. I am not confident that that change will be felt.
We all want reassurances that the Government have this problem in hand, but reported cases of antisocial behaviour continue to rise, and with police officer numbers falling, people rightly question how the Government will use the Act’s new antisocial behaviour data powers to help forces target their already stretched resources more effectively. How will the Government effect change without the officers to enforce it?
Police numbers have been in decline since the Government took office. At the same time, the Government have facilitated the early release of prisoners. The Conservative party has committed to providing 10,000 more police officers and 200,000 additional hotspot patrols, because we recognise that respect orders alone can mean something only if there are officers trained and ready to use them.
Sir John Hayes
My hon. Friend is making a strong point about police resources and how they are allocated to trouble spots. There is also the issue of police morale. When the police are burdened by bureaucracy and cannot act decisively and quickly, they feel inhibited in taking the action the public expect them to. Does he agree that we need to look at a new protocol for this kind of policing, driven by Government and implemented locally, that would mean that criminals are caught and punished and that the public feel safer?
John Lamont
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I think the police do an amazing job—certainly in my constituency, they work as hard as they possibly can to keep communities and residents as safe as they possibly can—but, as he highlights, morale is a big concern. The police are far too stretched. They are dealing with very stressful situations and worry about doing the best they can. In rural communities like mine and his, they cover a huge area, which compounds the stress. We need universality of standards and support to ensure that police officers are able to do the job we expect. We need new officers, because without them, antisocial behaviour will continue to escalate.
One form of antisocial behaviour that we have not heard much about today but concerns many people is cannabis smoking. In England and Wales, drug use and dealing are among the most commonly experienced or witnessed forms of antisocial behaviour. It is often shrugged off as harmless, yet a King’s College London review of 63 studies involving more than 265,000 people found that cannabis users were more likely both to commit violence and to fall victim to it. Users were around twice as likely to have committed a violent act. That is why the Conservative party has called for police intervention—a formal caution or immediate justice intervention for a first offence, and prosecution before a magistrate for a second offence—when someone is seen smoking cannabis in public. Public drug use cannot be tolerated.
Jim Shannon
Some of the figures in the press in the last week or 10 days indicate that there has been a massive rise in the number of over-50s taking cannabis and cocaine; it is not always young people. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that those in that age group are participating more than ever and that there has to be a focus on them, too?
John Lamont
The hon. Member makes an excellent point: it is much more prevalent. I am certainly much more aware of it when I walk down the street, and I am getting more and more complaints from constituents who are experiencing it in the home setting because they are smelling it from neighbouring flats or houses. I will come to that.
We have heard from a number of fellow Scots about the problems that we are facing in Scotland, but it is disappointing that there are no SNP MPs in the Chamber to talk about the antisocial behaviour that I am sure many of their constituents are experiencing. Policing and prosecution are devolved, but my constituents in the Scottish Borders feel the problem of antisocial behaviour, too.
A 2024 World Health Organisation study of 44 countries found that the rate of cannabis use among 15-year-old boys was highest in Scotland. That should shame us all. Since 2016, police in Scotland have been able to issue a recorded police warning for cannabis possession instead of reporting it to the procurator fiscal. In 2021, that was extended to all drugs, including those in class A.
The Crown insists that that is not decriminalisation, but that is not how it smells to any of my constituents sitting in their living rooms or playing with their children in their gardens. Hardly a week goes by without residents—families with young children, older people, those recovering from illness at home—contacting me about their neighbours’ cannabis smoke filling their homes. They report to it the police and the housing association, but they have come to expect that nothing will be done, because they know that the Crown Office is unlikely to prosecute. Whatever the legal technicalities, for those residents, that feels like effective decriminalisation. A law not enforced is not a law at all. People are losing faith that anyone will stand up for them.
With a new Lord Advocate in post since June, now is the time to review that approach so that police and housing associations have the backing they need to act. Yet as we heard from the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), under the SNP, Police Scotland now has fewer officers than when it was created in 2013. In a rural area such as mine, officers are often expected to travel miles to deal with incidents. Will the Minister join me and the other Scottish Members who have spoken in pressing the Scottish Government to take a stronger approach to drug use in residential areas and ensure that rural communities have the police officers they need?
Antisocial behaviour in train and bus stations was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). This week, Borders Buses wrote to me about antisocial behaviour in the Galashiels transport interchange, which is the gateway to the Borders railway. It gives a very useful worked example of what is happening in many bus and train stations across the country. Border Buses operates across all of Scotland, including in Glasgow, yet some of the worst antisocial behaviour it faces is in the Scottish Borders. Timetable leaflets have been set on fire, the customer service hub has had to be closed, and the customer service adviser had to be moved to another floor of the building for their own safety.
As the nights draw in, Border Buses is asking for a visible security presence and warns that, if things do not improve, they may have to consider withdrawing from the transport interchange altogether. For the many people in the Borders who do not drive, that would be a devastating loss. That is the true cost of antisocial behaviour: it robs communities of the services that people depend on. Border Buses staff at the interchange are crucial to local transport links, yet the Scottish Government’s new measures to tackle antisocial behaviour on buses do not include incidents at the train station itself.
It is also important to recognise that many of the incidents of antisocial behaviour involve older people with mental health difficulties who have fallen through the gaps in social care, rather than young people, which is a point that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made. Will the Minister join me in thanking Border Buses’ drivers and staff for their dedication and support, as well as in asking for stronger support and protection for those working in bus and train stations, such as those working in the Galashiels transport interchange?
There is no simple solution to antisocial behaviour, but without enforcement, we risk it simply becoming accepted. Our constituents are not asking for much. They want to feel safe in their homes and on their streets. They want to know that when they report an incident, something will happen. The Government are not delivering that yet and it is our job to make sure that they do.
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for securing this debate. The number of Members who are here reflects how important this issue is to all of our constituents.
In an ever more dangerous world, with many things for our constituents to worry about, antisocial behaviour sits at the core of what makes them feel unsafe; it therefore has to be at the core of any Government’s response. I was the shadow Policing Minister when we were in opposition. I embarked on an antisocial behaviour tour to understand why the then Government called it low-level when its effects were so pernicious across so many of our neighbourhoods.
We committed to act in opposition, and we have done so in government. I am proud of the changes that we have introduced. Like everyone else here, I have constituents who will say that we have not gone far enough—that we have not seen the results and need to go further, faster and do more. I wholeheartedly agree, but we have introduced some good changes that are starting to bear fruit.
First, we have the deliberate policy to shift police from behind desks into neighbourhoods. We think that more police should be on our streets, so as well as providing funding for new officers to fill neighbourhood roles, we are encouraging the 12,000 officers who currently sit behind desks to think about whether they can be deployed in more front-facing roles. We believe it is right to do that, and we have changed the funding structures so that police chiefs can make those decisions. It will take time, but that policy is starting to bear fruit, with nearly 4,000 more police in our neighbourhoods. In 2010, when the previous Labour Government left office—before the coalition Government came in, introduced austerity and made policing cuts—the public were more satisfied with policing than they had ever been. In large part, that was due to people seeing neighbourhood policing.
Sarah Jones
I will give way to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
Jim Shannon
The Minister is giving comprehensive answers on the Labour Government’s plans. I suggested that we recognise, as I know the Minister will, the good work done by street pastors and churches, through the youth clubs and groups that they organise, across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Could the Government do more to engage with the street pastors, churches and faith groups that have a plan to help our young people?
Sarah Jones
I will come on to talk about prevention, in which our faith leaders absolutely have a powerful role.
Many Members talked about respect orders. Those came into force on 26 October, and I am delighted that some are already in place—that is good to hear. Although I do not have all the numbers for all the forces, the first respect orders have been issued. For Members who are not aware, respect orders can be put on anybody, anywhere, not just in our town centres. They apply to persistent antisocial behaviour offenders. A previous conviction is not required for someone to be a persistent offender. Housing associations, councils, transport companies and the police can apply for an order.
The order can put on an individual whatever conditions are considered appropriate, such as requiring that they do not come on to a certain street. They may require a person to have treatment for drug or alcohol addiction, as well as other more positive interventions. If those conditions are breached, that is a criminal offence.
Sir John Hayes
As the Minister has heard from Members across the Chamber, social media often plays a part in this problem. I mentioned Holbeach in my constituency, which has suffered from antisocial behaviour. Sometimes, the offenders are very young people indeed, who are communicating on the internet and boasting about what they are doing. Can she apply what she just described to that social media activity, so that the authorities can take action early, before the community suffers the consequences of what is being boasted about?
Sarah Jones
The online space is a work in progress. Criminality online goes across all kinds of different crimes. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that some young people talk about what they are going to do before putting it into practice, and of course, we have to change our processes to make sure that the police can see that and intervene.
Respect orders are beginning to be used. Other changes were also introduced under the Crime and Policing Act 2026; for example, in areas subject to a public spaces protection order, fines can now be £500 instead of £100. Those changes may appear small, but they are significant and will make a difference. Every area has to have an antisocial behaviour lead. On the need for agencies to work together, which was talked about, every area also has to have an antisocial behaviour strategy that has been made in collaboration with the different agencies. We have extended the dispersal period for which someone can be directed to leave an area from 48 hours to 72 hours.
Amanda Martin
Of the changes that the Minister has listed, one that has worked brilliantly in my city is the removal of face coverings at protests. Would she encourage other forces to do the same? Everyone should have a fair right to protest, but they should not come with a balaclava and bring thuggish behaviour to other people’s cities.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend will know that Lord Ken Macdonald has done a review for the Home Secretary on protests more widely. The issue of intimidation at protests is very pertinent to that review, and we will soon publish our response. It is also the case that some police forces have PSPOs that ban face coverings and balaclavas in an area. That is another approach that some areas are taking, and it is one that I welcome.
I will not list them all, but we have introduced a raft of other changes through the 2026 Act that are explicitly designed to target antisocial behaviour. We will also gather more data, because one of the issues with antisocial behaviour is that we do not quite understand the data. Some of it is reported to local authorities and some to the police, so we do not quite understand the nature of the problems. We are gathering that data together.
Lots of Members talked about the trouble we are having across so many communities with e-bikes and e-scooters, which is a debate that we have had numerous times. We have changed the law so that the police can seize them without having to give notice, which is important, but we are looking at what else we can do with this problem—and I recognise that it is a problem. I am going to have a series of roundtables, and I am talking to MPs about both the challenges and the solutions. Some solutions will sit within other Departments—whether that is what was formerly called the Department for Business and Trade, or the Department for Transport—and some will sit within the Home Office, so we are looking at how we can have a collective approach to that challenge.
Some Members talked about persistent shoplifting offenders. It is the case that about 8% of the offenders are responsible for about 50% of the crime, and we will soon be able to announce some work on those prolific offenders in particular. Many Members talked about the underlying problems associated with some of this antisocial behaviour. When we look at prolific offenders, we often find drug addiction, homelessness and other challenges that we need to face collectively. We are considering how we target and support that cohort in a similar way to our rough sleeping cohort that the Prime Minister is so keen to champion. We need to think not just about housing but about the other support that those people need, and we are also trying to take that approach here.
Prevention was mentioned by many people, and I think it is really important. It plays a part in our respect orders and in our prolific offenders work, as well as the wider Government action on youth work and other support, including mental health support. All of these are core things. A lot of antisocial behaviour comes from people who are not getting the support that they might have received 10 or 15 years ago, so it is incredibly important that we look at that side of things.
Sarah Jones
I do not think I should, because I need to give the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr the opportunity to respond.
I will conclude by saying that antisocial behaviour is not a low-level problem. It is awful. I see it in my community, and we are absolutely committed to tackling it. We have introduced a raft of measures, but we need to go further and I will carry on this conversation to see what else we can do. All Members present today know that it is a top priority for our constituents, and we should act appropriately.
Ayoub Khan
I thank every right hon. and hon. Member who contributed to this important debate. The theme seems to be that antisocial behaviour is not a low-level crime, and that it comes in many different forms—from e-scooters to intoxication, abandoned buildings on the high street and the like. It is also obvious that police presence is an important factor, and people recognise the importance of deterrence. Having the right police numbers will certainly assist with deterrence, so the Government need to look at how they can improve our police numbers. That work must also go with the early intervention programme. We have to take a holistic approach, as these silo-type approaches do not really offer benefit. I hope the Minister will meet me to discuss and resolve some of these matters.
I finish with the comment made by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) when he addressed the students here. I promise them that they will see a difference in 10 years, because the vast majority of Members believe in hope over division. I am confident that, working together, we will be able to resolve many of the challenges that we face.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
National Highways: M5 Traffic Management
(1 day, 12 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
Dawn Butler (in the Chair)
I will call Sir Ashley Fox to move the motion; I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered National Highways’ traffic management policies on the M5 in Somerset.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue that sits at the heart of daily life for my constituents in Bridgwater and communities across Somerset.
The M5 is Somerset’s principal north-south highway. It connects communities, supports local businesses, facilitates tourism and enables the flow of goods throughout the south-west. It is indispensable. Although the M5 operates smoothly most of the time, it is suffering increased disruption. It is now closed more frequently, and those closures are for greater lengths of time. In the two and a half years in which I have represented Bridgwater, the repeated closures of the M5 have become one of the most common issues that constituents raise with me.
Somerset has a unique geography that presents challenges not found in many other places. The Somerset levels contain a network of rivers and watercourses that constrain opportunities for new strategic road infrastructure. Unlike other motorway corridors, the M5 has few realistic alternatives when it becomes blocked. A closure that might be manageable somewhere else can have profound consequences. That is particularly evident between junctions 22 and 24, where, if the M5 is closed, north-south traffic is diverted to the A38, which goes from Highbridge in the north through Bridgwater to North Petherton in the south of my constituency. The A38 was never designed to accommodate motorway volumes of traffic. What begins as an instance affecting one stretch of motorway rapidly escalates into a problem affecting entire towns and villages. Traffic backs up every minor road, causing gridlock. Residents of Highbridge, Bridgwater, North Petherton and the surrounding villages know only too well what that looks like.
Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that this is a recurring and worsening problem. Analysis of motorway performance shows that the northbound section of the M5 between junctions 23 and 24 recorded at least one hour of traffic moving at below 30 mph on 42 days in 2023. That rose to 45 days in 2024 and 47 days in 2025. That means that, by 2025, serious congestion was occurring on one day in every eight.
Equally concerning is the frequency of the closures. Data from January 2025 to August 2026 records 24 full closures of the M5 between junctions 20 and 25. In June this year alone, there were four such closures. A road of such strategic importance simply cannot sustain repeated disruption on that scale without significant economic and social consequences.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward the debate. He is right to refer to the strategic importance of the M5 in Somerset. My Strangford constituents and I have similar issues with the Ballynahinch bypass. Does he feel that it is time for the Minister and the Government to look at these strategic issues by constituency? That would enable him to take forward his project and solve the problems that he clearly has in his constituency.
Sir Ashley Fox
I am grateful to the hon. Member for making that point. Later in my speech, I will come on to the point about taking a more nuanced approach across the network.
Delays and diversions affect workers attempting to reach their employment, parents collecting children, businesses dependent on deliveries, patients travelling to urgent medical appointments and emergency services attempting to move across the county. I want to share a letter from my constituent Ms Halliday, who has given me permission to share her personal and distressing experience of these delays. She writes:
“The last time the motorway was shut, I was stuck for 3 hours in the car. This may sound trivial but I am disabled & have health issues, including having to be close by toilets. I also have a disabled son, who is non-verbal autistic & who cannot comprehend why we are stuck in the car for long periods, and a few times he has wet himself. My daughter has also had countless late days at college over the last year or so, which is very stressful. Altogether, this has had a major effect on my stress levels & mental health over the last 2 years.
As I write this email, once again the M5 is shut, causing horrendous traffic through town. My son rides the special education bus from school, and the driver has just phoned to say she has no idea when she will make it to school to collect my son. He is now stuck in school for the time being, as it would be pointless to go and collect him as I would be stuck in the same traffic & wouldn’t make it any sooner.
Update, my son returned home over 2 hours late tonight.”
It is because of emails such as these that I asked for this debate. Is the Minister confident that National Highways is doing everything possible to minimise disruption on the M5? Are scheduled closures being planned in the best way? Are policies in place to minimise the number of accidents? Have the Government considered variable speed limits, such as those on the M5 around Bristol? Many of my constituents have commented on the poor driving skills of some motorway users. Has the Minister any plans to monitor and improve the situation?
When an accident does occur, we need to consider the harm caused to the communities affected by motorway closures. Over recent years, central reservations on many motorways have been replaced with continuous concrete safety barriers. The barriers have important safety benefits, and I am not advocating reversing that decision. However, those barriers have reduced the flexibility available to operators responding to major incidents. Traditional contraflow arrangements are often more difficult to implement than they once were. Will the Minister consider whether a more locally tailored approach is required for Somerset?
One option that my constituents have asked be considered is the installation of strategically located crossover points within central reservations, with gates that can be opened by the emergency services as routine maintenance and upgrade programmes are undertaken. These crossing points would allow controlled contraflow operations during major incidents, enabling traffic to bypass closures and remain on the strategic road network rather than being diverted on to local roads. I am not pretending that such a proposal would eliminate the effects of serious incidents, nor would it remove the need to prioritise personal safety, but it would provide the highway authorities and emergency services with an additional operating tool, helping to maintain traffic flow while reducing the pressure on communities such as those in Bridgwater and North Petherton.
More broadly, I urge the Government to examine whether the current traffic management policies adequately reflect local circumstances. I underline that neither I nor my constituents underestimate the challenges facing the emergency services, National Highways or those responsible for managing serious incidents. Public safety must always come first. Where collisions occur, where lives are at risk or where vulnerable individuals require assistance, every appropriate resource should be deployed. Those who work to ensure the safety of all who use our infrastructure should be commended for their work, but recognising those realities does not prevent us from asking whether the current system is striking the right balance between safety and the interests of communities that depend on the motorway.
When the effects of motorway closure are so keenly felt by the community at large, there needs to be a more proportionate approach to managing people in crisis. Emergency services should balance their duties to those in crisis and to those who suffer when the motorway is closed, and their primary duty should be to reopen the motorway as soon as possible. To facilitate that, a wider review of guidance and protocol as to how the emergency services conduct intervention is necessary.
My constituents are suffering gridlock caused by the increasing number of closures of the M5. I ask the Minister, on behalf of my constituents, to look carefully at the problems that we face in Somerset. Will he work with National Highways and the emergency services to minimise motorway closures and the harm that they cause to our community?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Butler.
I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) on securing this debate on a topic that, as he clearly explained, is a matter of particular interest to his constituents. Of course, motorway closures are a concern across the country, because we all hate it when our journeys on the motorway network are disrupted for whatever reason it might be. For most motorway users, there is nothing worse than an unexpected closure or long delays resulting from roadworks. In my constituency, I can tell within 30 seconds of leaving the house whether the motorway has been closed, or whether there has been an accident, just by the volume of traffic on our local network.
Whether they are caused by an accident or roadworks, delays cause frustration and inconvenience. Whether it is speed restrictions that need to be in place for safety reasons or road closures that mean lengthy diversions, any unplanned incident can cause major delays and disruption on the network. I therefore have every sympathy with regular users of the M5 in Somerset, and indeed with those in the surrounding area, who have also been inconvenienced by a series of planned roadworks and the serious incidents to which the hon. Member referred. The experience of his constituent, Ms Halliday, brings out the human consequences of these delays. I have sympathy with her and everyone who has been affected.
However, as the hon. Member said, there is a trade-off here. As our motorway network starts to show signs of age—as we all do—more work is required to make sure it remains in a good and, importantly, safe condition. That is why the road investment strategy, published in March, included an unprecedented £8.4 billion of investment in renewing many of the assets on our motorways and trunk roads over the next five years. Those assets include many bridges and tunnels, some of which are approaching the end of their design life, and features such as drainage systems and safety barriers, which play an important role in keeping the network as safe as possible.
Our investment also sees a huge amount of resurfacing for smoother and safer journeys on the network, including by replacing large stretches of concrete road surfaces. That work needs to be done to ensure that we have a network fit for the future. The challenge, of course, as the hon. Member articulated, is to do it in a way that causes the least disruption for road users. He asked whether we are doing everything we can to ensure that disruption to his constituents, and indeed to all road users, is minimised. He will be interested to know that we have set targets for National Highways in the road investment strategy to reduce delays on the network, including from roadworks, and to produce an action plan setting out the steps it will take to deliver improvements.
The key target we have set is for National Highways to demonstrate that it has done all it reasonably can to reduce delays on the strategic road network, as we would all hope it is doing. We would also hope that average delay performance is no worse at the end of the five-year period than it is at the start. Although that might not seem particularly ambitious, it is quite a stretching target in the context of the resurfacing and renewal projects being delivered over the next five years.
We have also set a target to ensure that 97.5% of the network is free from traffic restrictions owing to roadworks, and that at least 88% of motorway incidents are cleared within one hour. We have also instructed National Highways to publish a customer and delay action plan and to deliver the actions it sets out, and to report on progress annually. We expect that to be published before the end of March next year. The Office of Rail and Road, the regulator, will hold National Highways to account for its performance in meeting those targets.
In the hon. Member’s constituency, a programme of work has been under way for some time to upgrade the drainage systems and replace the safety barriers in the central reservations between junctions 22 and 24 of the M5. He mentioned the question of more flexibility on the barriers, on which I will write to him, if that is okay. I understand the point he makes, but there are other safety considerations that we have to take into account. However, I will endeavour to get him a proper response.
National Highways has attempted to reduce the disruption caused by this particular programme of work by using overnight closures and lane restrictions, for example, rather than full-day motorway closures, which, as the hon. Member explained, would cause huge disruption to his constituents. There is a need for proper engagement with local stakeholders when roadworks will lead to delays and diversions. My ministerial colleagues and I have regularly raised this topic with National Highways in recent months.
National Highways has learned lessons from its handling of the major Lune Gorge renewal scheme in Cumbria, where some local stakeholders feel that not enough was done to involve them in discussions about the likely impacts on them and the options to mitigate those impacts. I am determined to ensure that when National Highways undertakes major renewal programmes in future, it works with local stakeholders and agrees a plan of action. It must do all it can to ensure that the most affected have a clear understanding of when closures or restrictions will be in place. We cannot remove disruption and delay entirely, but we all want to be clear and confident that National Highways has done absolutely everything it can to minimise that.
In respect of the M5, I understand that National Highways has regular dialogue with those likely to be affected by the planned roadworks. I know the hon. Member has met National Highways, which has discussed with Somerset council how best to ensure that diversions, including on the A38, are carefully planned and well signposted.
There will also be works in the not-too-distant future on junction 22A, where a new gigafactory will be put in place. The hon. Member will be acutely aware that introducing a new junction to the road network at junction 22A will be quite a disruption. Work has not yet started on the new access road, but I will ask National Highways to ensure that any further disruption to users of the M5 is minimised. I am sure the hon. Member will welcome that investment in his constituency and the long-term benefits that will arise from the new junction.
Decisions on when to close and safely reopen a motorway following an incident—such as attempts to take one’s own life, which I understand have been among the incidents affecting the M5—are for the emergency services to determine. That is usually the police, although it can occasionally be the fire and rescue service. The hon. Member asked whether anything can be done in terms of the protocol for those decisions. Clearly, that is outside my Department’s remit, but I commit to writing to ask the Home Office to talk to the relevant services about whether there is anything different they can do. It is important to say that when someone has been killed or seriously injured, or when responding to someone in crisis, it is really important that the police take the lead on making decisions about reopening the network.
As the hon. Member would expect, when such incidents arise, National Highways works closely with the police, identifies any damage to assets and ensures that trained personnel, equipment and materials are available to undertake repairs as soon as the scene is released. National Highways regularly meets the senior roads policing officers from Avon and Somerset police to review incidents and adjust its operational approach. I understand that more meetings are planned between the police and National Highways to look at whether more can be done to reduce the impact of closures.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this debate. I agree that roadworks and other activities and incidents on our motorways and trunk roads need to be managed in a way that causes as little disruption as possible to road users. I encourage the hon. Member to continue to engage with National Highways on the local impacts of the closure of the M5 in Somerset. Officials from National Highways will have heard his comments today. I will reflect on what he has said this afternoon and endeavour to come back to him on some of the points he raised.
Question put and agreed to.
Fishing and Seafood Sector Strategy
(1 day, 12 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
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Before I call Daniel Zeichner to move the motion, it may be convenient for everybody to know that we appear to have, in addition to the mover, seven Back-Bench contributors and a couple of Members who I know wish to intervene. I am not going to impose a time limit at this stage. It rather depends on how long Mr Zeichner chooses to speak for, but I think we are probably looking at around a maximum of seven minutes per person. On that basis, we ought to be able to get everybody in. If that changes, I will let Members know.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of a fishing and seafood sector strategy.
It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. It is also a pleasure to lead a debate on this important question.
Before I begin, I should declare that I served as the independent chair of the process that produced “An Action Plan for a Thriving and Sustainable UK Fishing Industry”, a weighty tome recently published by the all-party parliamentary group on fisheries, which is the stimulus for this debate. I pay tribute to the group’s co-chairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), for their leadership on that piece of work. I also thank the many fishermen and women and other stakeholders from across the UK who gave evidence to the all-party group’s process. I also pay particular tribute to Mike Cohen and the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations for having pursued me on this policy idea for many years, and to Lia ní Aodha and her team, who did so much of the basic research, organising and drafting.
I note that it is almost exactly five years ago to the day—somewhat to my overnight surprise—that I found myself in this very Chamber as the shadow Fisheries Minister speaking for the Opposition, a job I hugely enjoyed both in opposition and as a Minister, not least because I met and got to know so many very special people and enjoyed many debates with many familiar friends who are in this Chamber today. I am delighted to see the very wide range of geographical and political representation in the Chamber today.
As an island nation, no part of the United Kingdom is more than 70 miles from the sea, yet we sometimes display a rather curious lack of awareness of the sea and, at times, a tendency to undervalue the waters around us and the people and communities who depend upon them. Fishing and seafood are a case in point. They are a comparatively modest line in the national accounts, it is true, but it is a sector whose value is woven into the identity of places such as Brixham, Grimsby, Kilkeel, Milford Haven, Peterhead and Shetland, and whose true value must be measured in the good jobs and vibrant communities it sustains around our coasts and islands, the regional economies that it supports, the nutritious, low-carbon food it puts on plates at home and around the world, and its contribution to national resilience—something we have heard much about in recent times.
Since leaving the common fisheries policy, the UK has built an impressive domestic management framework centred on the Fisheries Act 2020, the joint fisheries statement and a suite of fisheries management plans. As an independent coastal state, we have regulatory autonomy and the resources for a thriving industry, including fishing knowledge, productive waters off our coast and a still vibrant and diverse fishing sector. However, during my time as Minister, I was struck by the fact that we do not have a strategy that brings those together and connects fisheries management with the wider decisions on energy, marine space, skills, trade and food that will shape the sector’s future. That gap is felt by those who fish every day as they face rising operating and fuel costs, stocks shifting under climate change, growing competition for space at sea from offshore energy development, the expansion of marine protected areas, and difficulties in recruiting and retaining skilled crews. Many of those pressures are also felt downstream by processes around our coasts.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Following the closure of the Grangemouth refinery in Scotland, most fishing vessels on the east coast— right the length of Scotland—are having to go to Immingham, which is much further south. I believe that will have a knock-on effect on the costs to fisheries and indeed on those communities. I do not ask for an instant solution to that, but does the hon. Member agree that it could be a problem and that we should probably look at it?
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, not least because it raises the question of fuel, which is a serious issue for the industry at the moment, although today’s debate is about longer-term issues. He also makes an important point about the knock-on effects of something that is possibly the responsibility of other Government Departments. It will be part of my case that we need to see those issues as a whole.
During the all-party group’s inquiry, we heard all the pressures I have just described reflected back to us by industries in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Some call it death by a thousand cuts. The consequence of a fragmented policy landscape and the absence of a strategic view for the sector—those challenges will be familiar to anyone who has spoken to people on the ground in coastal and island communities. I am convinced that, as the all-party group concluded, addressing those challenges requires a coherent, joined-up response from the Government. That is why the action plan centres on a foundational recommendation that asks the Government to set out a long-term strategy for UK fishing and the wider seafood sector within the next 12 months, as part of the sustainable ocean plan that they have committed to delivering next year.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
As co-author of the report, the fact that I agree with the hon. Member might possibly qualify as the least surprising news of today—the need for that strategy is becoming more urgent. However, there are other things that could be done much more quickly though. One is to include food and drink in the industrial strategy, which of course is not the Minister’s responsibility—it relates to another Department. If food and drink had been in that industrial strategy, the energy spike that is currently hitting processors would be dealt with by assistance from the Government. Does he agree that a lot of the answers lie with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but not all of them?
Daniel Zeichner
As ever, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and always asks insightful questions. I can assure him there was quite a debate about whether to include food in the industrial strategy. Of course, there are wider consequences and costs to including it. I am no longer in a position to comment on the Government’s perspective, but I am sure the Minister has heard the right hon. Gentleman’s point.
To shape the strategy, the report proposes four pillars: sustainable management and access to space and quota; fleet modernisation, infrastructure and technology; workforce and labour; and supply chains and domestic consumption, underpinned by measures relating to governance, science, funding and the sector’s social licence. The strategy is set out across 38 separate recommendations. You will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to go through them, Sir Roger, but I will make some brief observations on the merits of that strategy through the lens of food.
As we are all repeating these days, food security is national security, and on an island that surely must be as true at sea as it is on land. After all, fishing is fundamentally about food production. I will take three aspects of this in turn: food security, health and climate. First, on food security, I do not represent a fishing constituency, but like all constituents, mine eat fish—although probably not as much as they should. What struck me throughout the process, and during my time as Minister and shadow Minister, was how disconnected the fish on our plates has become from the boats that catch it. According to the most recent figures, 461,000 tonnes of fish and shellfish were landed into UK ports in 2025. At the same time, we imported more than 1.1 million tonnes of seafood, while UK consumers purchased more than 411,000 tonnes of seafood in retail outlets.
It is true that we export much of what we catch and import much of what we eat. There is nothing inherently wrong with that; it is part of the reality of a rather remarkable food system. We heard in our inquiry that both are key to the UK’s diverse seafood economy, and in normal times that serves us well. From the pandemic to the war in Ukraine and instability in the middle east, we have recently learned just how fragile supply chains can be. We also know that supply chains will be strained further by climate change and biodiversity loss.
In those moments, a diverse domestic fleet and onshore processing capacity are strategic assets—a source of food that can be redirected to our own tables when supply chains are under pressure. However, in the UK, fishing and seafood all too often remain on the periphery of how we think about food security and resilience. Too often, they are absent from the discussion. We have no headline measure of how self-sufficient we are in seafood, and we continue to fail to connect the role of sustainable fisheries to our resilience planning. It is so frustrating to see an indigenous food-producing industry remain on the edges of those conversations.
That is why the action plan recommends that seafood should be fully represented in food security assessments, so that we understand how domestic fisheries can help the food system absorb shocks now and in the future. Alongside that, it recommends measurable targets for seafood supply, consumption and the sector’s contribution to food security. I am very grateful to Dr Sarah Coulthard from Newcastle University for her work on small-scale fisheries, the inshore fleet and their contribution to our food security.
Secondly, on health—for food is also about health—sustainable seafood has a lot to offer towards a healthier nation. The NHS recommends at least two portions of fish a week, one of them oily. However, the average person in the UK eats around half that. The gap is widest among children and lower-income households—the very people who stand to benefit most from seafood nutrition. A strategy for fishing and seafood should set out practical steps to address that, including a sustained two-a-week campaign run with the NHS, better food environments and public procurement—a lever that the Government control directly. After all, a healthier population is ultimately a lower burden on the health service.
Thirdly, on climate, well-managed, wild-caught seafood offers a relatively low-carbon form of animal protein. It needs no feed, no fertiliser and no land. Emissions from fuel use across the entire UK fishing fleet account for around 0.12% of the UK’s territorial emissions, and about 1.1% of those from agriculture. If fishing is to play its full part in climate action, however, we have to be honest about the current state of play.
Parts of the fleet are ageing; some boats are around 60 years old. Many want to modernise, but few can afford to. Vessel construction and operating costs have risen sharply, and smaller operators struggle to access affordable finance. There are no off-the-shelf net zero solutions for fishing vessels. That is why the action plan calls for a programme of demonstrator vessels and research into alternative fuels to build evidence and de-risk investment, and for a national assessment of harbour and shoreside infrastructure needs, including readiness for decarbonisation.
The industry is working hard to meet its sustainability obligations, but if we expect it to succeed, including on decarbonisation, we must help it to meet the costs of getting there. Investment via the fishing and coastal growth fund is welcome, and the strategy could help to guide where that money goes so that it can effectively support the industry and the wider sector.
As I have already suggested, none of this sits neatly in one Department. Food security sits with DEFRA; health with the Department of Health and Social Care; energy and net zero with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero; procurement right across Government; crew visas with the Home Office; trade with the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade; and fisheries management itself spans three devolved Governments, and so on.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentioned the devolved Governments. Does he recognise the potential role that the single foundation strategic authority of Cornwall can play, together with our local Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation, in deploying that funding in a much more targeted and localised way?
Daniel Zeichner
The work of the CFPO is truly inspirational for much of the sector. My hon. Friend’s point about the possibilities of devolving decision making feeds into the wider discussion around devolution at the moment. I think we may need to revisit regional levels of intervention, because that might be the right level at which to do it.
To go back to the Government Departments—I wish the Minister luck with this—each decision made across those spaces may be sensible on its own terms, but when they fail to join up, the sector feels the consequences cumulatively, however unintentional they may be. That is precisely why the sector needs a strategy.
There is more to be said, but I suspect that many hon. Members will raise the issues facing their own constituencies. I hope that the Minister will take from my contribution a sense of the value of fishing and seafood to the nation, and of the need for a strategic view to secure the sector’s national benefit. I was very grateful that he attended the launch of the action plan a few weeks ago and engaged and responded with such grace. I know full well the constraints that he faces, but I will ask him for some assurances.
First, will the Government commit to publishing a long-term strategy for fishing in the wider seafood sector when resources and time allow? Secondly, will that strategy form part of the sustainable ocean plan that the Government have committed to developing next year? Thirdly, how will the Government work with the devolved Administrations to ensure that the strategy is backed across all four nations and delivered on the ground? Fourthly, will the Minister provide a written response to the APPG’s 38 recommendations and meet the APPG to discuss them in depth?
In conclusion, I thank everyone involved in the production of the report, and am grateful for the good will shown by people across the industry and beyond. On a personal note, I thank the brilliant officials I had the good fortune of working with at DEFRA, particularly the highly knowledgeable Anne Freeman. I also thank my friend Terri Portmann from Plymouth, who has helped me throughout these five fascinating years. This industry inspires great passion and commitment, and rightly so. It deserves the strategy that it seeks.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. Before we proceed, I should say that Mr Shannon has courteously informed me that, owing to a change in business in the House, he is required in a Committee elsewhere and is double-booked, as is so often the case. I am going to call Mr Shannon and then allow him to leave, on the strict understanding that he returns as swiftly as possible and, in any event, is back for the winding-up speeches.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
You are most kind, Sir Roger—thank you very much. It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship. I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for raising this vital issue.
The Northern Ireland fisheries industry, which is critical to the wellbeing of our coastal communities, contributed to the groundbreaking road map that the hon. Member for Cambridge referred to, and it welcomed the opportunity to do so. The hon. Gentleman had the good fortune to come to my Strangford constituency and visit Portavogie, where he was well received. How good was his visit? Well, the people of the fishing sector in Portavogie still say what a pleasure it was to have him there. They often reminisce and tell me how good it was to see him. I am sure that when the Minister comes over, he will be more than welcome, and maybe he will get the same accolades after his visit.
I have said on several occasions that the Northern Ireland fishing sector has been facing a perfect storm of crewing issues, fuel prices, spatial squeeze and restrictions on access to Isle of Man waters, to name a few of the major and existential challenges they face. It is a real pleasure to see the Minister in his place, and I wish him well in his role. I have also highlighted, on behalf of the sector, the fragmented governance and a legislative framework that—I say this with great respect—is increasingly out of step with the operational reality of fishing businesses, creating further challenges.
The action plan recognises the issues and refers to fleet modernisation, to infrastructure and technology, to workforce and labour, and to supply chains and domestic consumption, as the hon. Gentleman clearly laid out. It has been a huge task to set out a road map that addresses the complexity of UK fisheries while navigating the realities of a devolved fisheries landscape. It is crucial for the survival of the industry that the action plan is turned into meaningful delivery.
Of particular interest to the Northern Irish industry are a number of recommendations that speak to the multiple threats it currently faces. The hon. Gentleman referred recommendation 12 of the report, on sustainable management and access to space, which goes to the heart of the issues in respect of marine spatial squeeze. The report calls for the value of food production from fishing to be weighed equally against other uses of marine space, with cumulative displacement effects assessed properly and a formal statutory route established for the industry.
I often say—and I stand by this—that fishermen are the original stakeholders in our seas. They feel increasingly that their rights are being ignored and eroded, so we are here to speak up for our fishing sector. As well as Portavogie in my constituency, I speak for Ardglass and for Kilkeel—the hon. Member for that constituency does not come here to speak for them, so I am happy to speak up for them in his absence.
On fleet modernisation, recommendation 16 calls for a
“more enabling, outcome-focused approach to gear trials”.
Where have we been in Northern Ireland? Northern Ireland industry has been leading the way on gear trials over many years, and needs support to turn innovation into reality. The Minister will find a sector in Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel in Northern Ireland very willing to work alongside him to do so.
Recommendation 17 calls for a
“dedicated, purpose-built immigration route”.
This is my big ask, and I know it is an ask of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) as well. The recommendation demands that a “short-term bridging solution” be implemented before the current skilled worker visa eligibility for fishing roles disappears at the end of 2026. Time is of the essence; we put that on the record, ask for the Minister’s intervention and hope for his support. The immigration salary list, the mechanism that currently keeps fishing crew roles accessible under the skilled worker route, is due to be abolished. As the report says, the deadline is not abstract: the fishing industry is facing an imminent recruitment cliff edge. That is my biggest ask of all the recommendations.
Mr Carmichael
We all know that the use of migrant labour should be a short to medium-term measure until we are able to grow the workforce in our own ports. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that truth reinforces the importance of the strategy that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) has spoken about, because in order to grow that workforce, signals have to be sent to the industry that the Government have a clear vision of what is expected of them? Unless and until we do that, we will not persuade the next generation to go to sea.
Jim Shannon
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the knowledge he brings to the debate. The Minister is listening intently, and hopefully he will respond to that in a positive way.
The Minister should be aware, if he is not already, that we are looking for visas for seasonal workers for nine months. In other words, the people who get them go back home again—they are not staying here. The Department has in place a system, through the seasonal worker programme, for other sectors; that is an issue we could probably look into.
The funding and investment section of the road map calls on the Government to treat the current acute cost pressures facing the sector as a matter of immediate urgency. It calls on them to allow the industry to access the same energy cost support that is already available to other sectors of the economy. Northern Ireland fishing boats are being forced to tie up due to the ongoing high costs of fuel, which have persisted since March 2026. What annoys us is that Republic of Ireland and EU companies are already getting fuel support from their countries, creating an unfair competitive advantage over those in other jurisdictions.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) hinted that fuel is not really something that matters in the longer term, as though it is a short-term problem that will be fixed, but if it is not fixed in the short term, the fishing industry has no long term. Boats are tied up right now. They are losing money now. In my area, Dumfries and Galloway, fishing is largely off-quota or non-quota fishing, and the No. 1 problem right now is the astronomical cost of fuel.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Member; I am conscious of the time, so I will bring my comments to a conclusion.
The fishing sector has long called for a national fishing strategy and is ready to work with the Government to achieve this, as it has demonstrated through the development of the action plan, which is a good blueprint for the way forward. Nothing in the plan requires new powers or legislation, but it needs support from across Westminster—a range of Government Departments have a stake in fishing, including the Home Office in respect of crewing, which we are very interested in, and the Department for Transport in respect of safety—and the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as industry across the UK.
If we work together, the action plan could create the opportunity that secures the future of UK fishing. I will be backing our fishing industry in Northern Ireland and throughout the UK by supporting the plan and calling for the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland fishing and seafood strategy to be a key part of that.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your guidance, Sir Roger.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for securing the debate. As a former Fisheries Minister and independent chair of the APPG, he knows that a fishing and seafood strategy is much needed given the critical state of the UK’s fish stock. If fish stocks deplete further, the implications for small, sustainable UK fisheries, and for our supply chains, will be significant. These are concerns that the APPG for the ocean, which I chair, has heard for years.
I want to highlight two themes. First—this might seem like an obvious point, but it is often missing from the discussion—we cannot have a thriving fishing industry without abundant fish stocks. There have been many debates in this place that frame the UK’s food security as a purely terrestrial issue, but in an uncertain global context marked by supply chain disruption, rising food prices and geopolitical instability, strengthening our domestic food security will be essential to the UK’s long-term resilience. As an island nation, that needs to include fisheries.
We face fish shortages that are a huge threat to the security of our fishing industry. A recent Blue Marine Foundation report found that 62% of the 55 fish stocks assessed declined between 2016 and 2025, with 38% falling below the minimum level required by law. Some declines have been extraordinary: Celtic sea cod declined by 98%, while Irish sea plaice declined by 88%.
The Government have repeatedly missed deadlines to achieve good environmental status in our seas. Only two of 15 key indicators of healthy seas have been met in UK waters, and over half of assessed fish stocks are not meeting their current recovery targets. Oceana UK found that 25% of UK commercial fishing populations are being over-exploited. Fewer fish will ultimately mean fewer opportunities for our fishers, less resilient coastal economies and a less secure domestic food supply.
I welcome the Government’s announcement yesterday that remote electronic monitoring will be legally required on all large pelagic fishing vessels, as the APPG for the ocean called for. That will give us a better idea of what fishing activity is happening, but it will not prevent fishing from exceeding the advice provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Its scientific recommendations should be treated as a ceiling, not a target, with additional safeguards for depleted stocks.
Fish stock recovery must be at the heart of our approach to food security and fisheries policy. If we want the fishing sector to endure for future generations, we must ensure that there are fish left to catch and follow the science to make that happen. The Government are currently negotiating with the EU, Norway and other coastal states to determine jointly managed fish stocks for 2027. Yet in 2026, 58% of assessed UK catch limits were set above scientific advice. The UK must enter negotiations with a clear commitment to science-based limits. Alongside 44 other parliamentarians, I have written to the Minister to express that position, and I look forward to receiving his response.
Secondly, a fisheries and seafood sector strategy is just one piece of the puzzle in the more joined-up approach that we need to see for ocean governance. The restoration of fish stocks cannot be achieved through fisheries policy alone; it requires a systematic approach to how we manage our seas. The most recent report of the APPG for the ocean called for a cross-departmental ocean strategy to address the fragmentation of ocean governance. Currently, the responsibility for our seas sits among multiple Ministers and Departments, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge highlighted. We have heard the Government say that the UK is back in the oceans business. I sincerely welcome that, but it needs to be backed up by a clear ocean strategy that incorporates expertise from coastal communities, academia, the environmental sector and, of course, the fishing and seafood sectors.
I will conclude with an observation. It sometimes feels as though fisheries and ocean conservation are pitted against each other, as if we might choose between protecting our marine environment and supporting the UK’s sustainable fisheries industry. That is not true, and we must move beyond that false dichotomy.
Earlier this year, the APPG for the ocean heard from Clive Mills, a local Sussex fisherman, and his daughter, who came to Westminster to warn that there may be less than 10 years left in the profession because there are simply not enough fish. His warnings are for all the families who have fished in those waters for generations, and who may no longer be able to pass on their livelihoods to the next generation.
I urge the Minister to go and see the truly inspirational work being done. Fish populations can recover if the Government support the conditions that give them the opportunity. In the North sea, haddock, whiting and plaice stocks are now more than twice the minimum level required to support sustainable fisheries, demonstrating that when well-managed stocks have the chance, they will rebound.
There are clear steps that the Government can take now to support a fair transition towards sustainable and low-impact fishing, including the transparent allocation of fishing opportunities that rewards vessels that deliver environmental, social and local economic benefits, and the tackling of destructive practices such as bottom trawling. It has been over a year since the closure of the consultation on banning bottom trawling in marine protected areas, so I am keen to hear from the Minister when we will get the Government’s response.
Our oceans and all who depend on them are running out of time. We cannot afford to be delaying the important decisions if we want healthy seas and to leave a sustainable fishing industry for the next generation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. Mr Carmichael, I understand the pressures on time, but you are the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. If you wish to speak briefly and then leave, I am quite willing to accommodate you.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Thank you for the unexpected pleasure and opportunity, Sir Roger. I will say just a few words on the subject, because there are a number of matters that concern me.
I want to pick up on a few of the points made by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). She spoke about the quality of scientific advice, and ICES is the absolute benchmark in these matters. However, she may wish to consider the fact that, last year, the mackerel stock recommendation was for a total closure—in fact, from memory, I think we agreed a 40% cut. This year, on the basis of new advice, it is apparent that the mackerel stock is back at a safe biological level, so there are these occasions when it becomes apparent that the fisheries advice from ICES has to be put into its proper context.
On the many occasions when I am told that it is necessary to have a total allowable catch of zero, it is often in answer to the question: what will it take to restore the stock to a safe level within 12 months? The only answer to that question can be a zero TAC, but that then begs another question that nobody ever asks: if we have a zero TAC, will it restore the stock to that safe level? The answer is no, because it will take several years before stocks of white fish, such as cod—we all know the pressures on North sea cod at the moment—can recover.
The hon. Member for Rotherham also referenced the healthy level of haddock stock at the moment. For those who are responsible for fisheries management, that highlights the difficulty and complexity of this issue. To put it in its crudest form, haddock swim with cod. If we set a zero or very low TAC for cod, as has been suggested for the northern shelf this year—notwithstanding the fact that we think that there are at least three subspecies of cod in the North sea—there is a danger that it will serve only to present cod as a choke species. That then prevents the white fish industry from targeting the haddock that, as we know, is in a healthy state.
I say to the House, and to all those who follow our proceedings, that in this industry there is an infinitely complex scenario, and it really is necessary for everybody to approach this issue with a measure of humility. We must understand that for those communities where fishing matters—the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) referred to them in his speech—it matters a great deal. I am concerned when I see the plethora of environmental non-governmental organisations that now enter this debate with a very simplistic analysis. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would deny commercial fishing opportunities to those communities that rely on them most. That is why the hon. Member’s work and that of the APPG, of which I have been a member for 25 years, to bring people together to achieve an in-depth understanding of what is involved for the different stocks and the different communities, is absolutely critical.
It feels like there is always some species under pressure in some part of our waters, and I fear that that will always be the case. A few years ago, the different pelagic species were under serious pressure. We understand that pelagic species, such as mackerel and herring, will migrate through British waters into Faroese waters and up into Icelandic waters. That is why the idea that somehow or another one country can take responsibility for fisheries management is simply for the birds—biology defies that sort of simplistic approach.
At the end of the day, the people who have the biggest stake in ensuring that there are healthy fish stocks are the people who work in the industry and who will want some day to pass the businesses that they have built up over several generations on to the next generation. These are the people and these are the communities who suffer most when we get it wrong here.
Sarah Champion
I am listening intently to everything that the right hon. Gentleman is saying, and I completely agree that it is UK communities that are suffering the most at the expense of the internationals. Does he agree that we need to listen to those people and include them at the heart of any fishing decisions we make? At the moment, they do not have a seat at the table on every occasion.
Mr Carmichael
I have preached that sermon in this House for the last 25 years. We should also remember that the ICES advice we spoke about earlier is two years out of date—the data is two years from the acquisition to the implementation. Hearing from fishermen and understanding the expertise they employ when they take their nets out to sea must be at the heart of this debate. Respect for people who have, for generations, made a living from this industry—from the seas—must be the starting point. Stick to that and everything else will surely fall into place.
I am very grateful to you, Sir Roger, for allowing me the opportunity to speak.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for securing this debate and bringing this action plan to our attention. I only regret that we are not having these exchanges in the main Chamber, which would give fishing and fishing communities their proper place in our national life.
I cannot begin my remarks today without expressing the continuing sorrow in my Na h-Eileanan an Iar constituency over the loss of the Kilda fishing boat and all three souls aboard it off the coast of Lewis on 13 October. Only one body has been recovered, which is that of Douglas Craigie. The other men—Norman Murray, or Tam as he was known, and Murdo Morrison, the 23-year-old mate—remain unaccounted for. It is a testament to the power of the ocean that a life raft from the Kilda was found on Shetland’s shorelines last week, although coastal searches there have been in vain. We all know, of course, that the bounty and the sorrow of the sea are intertwined with my constituency and with all other coastal communities across Britain, and our condolences go to the families affected.
The fishing industry in the Western Isles has shrunken considerably since its 19th-century heyday as one of the biggest herring ports in Europe. However, it still makes a major contribution to the local economy, despite attempts by the previous SNP-Green Government in Scotland effectively to shut down the Western Isles fishing fleet with the imposition of the hated highly protected marine areas. Stark opposition from island fishing communities and other communities around the coast have won that battle for now.
As the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) has pointed out, the crisis of conservation is very real and must be tackled. However, the experience of the HPMA debacle has left a scar on the fishing fleet and on the conservation agenda. The consequential danger of imposing this top-down approach is that no environmental measure is now acceptable to fishing communities, unless they are taken along, listened to and involved. That includes the draconian new restrictions that the Scottish Government are seeking to impose—HPMA2, as they are dubbed—which are currently being consulted on. I am glad that the action plan brought forward has involved fishing and fishing communities, as all movements on the fishing industry should.
There is powerful evidence from my constituency that self-imposed controls introduced by the Western Isles fishermen have proved effective, while increasing the value of the landings. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said, those fishers are committed to sustainability, because where they fish is where they are from. They want to pass this on to the next generation and to maintain their communities in that industry.
That is happening in the Western Isles. Data for 2024 shows that the value of landings increased on the previous year by 4% to £16 million, because of restrictions fishermen took in themselves. The only species that decreased in price is brown crab, which has been in decline for the last 20 years, mainly because of the increased effort from nomadic fishing fleets that come and scour them out. Those statistics demonstrate that a top-down approach to conservation, when conservation efforts of the fishermen’s own making are paying dividends, simply will not work.
Island fishers still face massive challenges with crewing, fuel prices—as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, pointed out—and the escalating cost of going to sea and of going to market. That is why it is good news that the Prime Minister intends to secure a new deal with the EU to simplify our food exports. That would be welcomed in the Western Isles.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for his speech. Might he allow me to put on record my thanks for the important work of the Troon lifeboat crew, whom I met on Remembrance Sunday? Seafood is an important sector to the Ayrshire economy. It is exported at the port of Troon in my constituency and at Prestwick airport, which, in the first six months of this year, exported 1,780 tonnes—1.78 million kg—of salmon. Does my hon. Friend agree that any seafood sector strategy must look at growing sustainable exporting of that brilliant Scottish product?
Torcuil Crichton
I agree with everything my hon. Friend says. It is only by sustaining the industry and communities that we will keep fishing going. The £360 million fisheries and coastal growth fund announced by the UK Government should be distributed fairly by sector, by sustainability and by geography to constituencies such as his. When the Government announced the fund in 2025, it was to be allocated according to the Barnett formula. That means that Scotland receives 8%— £28 million—of the fund, despite having more than half of the UK’s entire catch of fish.
It is a matter of considerable regret that the Scottish Government demanded their share of the coastal and fishing fund without agreeing a mechanism outside the Barnett formula that would see a fair share coming to Scotland. I hope that there will be a rebalancing of the fund over its decade-long existence, and that the Minister listens to representations. It is essential that the fund is used to expand and revive coastal communities with a long association of sustainable fishing, which have, over decades, been fished out by nomad fleets and supertrawlers from other areas.
We should tackle ownership of the seas and of the quotas. I am disappointed with the way that the action plan approached—or rather, did not approach—quota. The APPG report noted that
“debate continues over the extent to which the benefits derived from UK quota are distributed across coastal communities and the inshore fleet.”
Well, that is an understatement, certainly when it comes to Scotland. In Scotland, ownership of fishing quota is concentrated in the hands of just five families who feature in The Sunday Times rich list, who control more than a third of the Scottish quota and whose shares and companies wholly or partly own half of all the Scottish quota.
England fares no better. Almost half of the fishing quota in England is owned by Dutch, Icelandic and Spanish companies, and more than half of England’s fishing quota is in the hands of just three companies. Those statistics themselves make the argument that the fishing quota needs to be urgently reviewed.
We need a system that is fair, and that considers the economic linkage between quotas and the coastal communities that are adjacent to quotas. I am glad that the action plan referred to the community quota being tried in Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles. Ownership and support concentrated in the hands of a few will not give new opportunities to our coastal communities. The system has to be rethought with guaranteed access for inshore fleets, and, as I said, it should be linked and distributed to local authorities on the model we have seen in my area and other areas.
These are bold and ambitious demands, but from small beginnings come a new and revived pelagic fleet, new processing, as has been mentioned, and a new and promising future. A fishing strategy worthy of its name has to tackle the elephant in the room—there are perhaps two elephants: one of conservation and one of control of quota. It also must recognise that, if fishing has a sustainable future, it has to be in the hands of fishers themselves, who have a practical and sustainable view of what is to come.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. We are looking at five minutes a head now, please.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I say a special thanks to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for securing this debate. His excellent speech reflects the contribution he made as a Minister and in leading, with others, the development of the action plan.
As a vice-chair of the APPG on fisheries, I welcome this debate. I support the proposed action plan, while acknowledging that many of these matters are largely devolved to the Scottish Government. That said, it is incumbent on me to highlight once again the importance of the Scottish fishing industry in the context of the UK. Scottish fisheries represent 60% of the UK fishing industry, contribute 60% of the UK’s seafood exports and land 75% of all quota species. That may not be big in UK terms, but it is certainly big in Scottish terms, and it is very big in my constituency, as the Minister knows, with ports such as Buckie, Fraserburgh and Peterhead.
The Minister has previously signalled his willingness—nay, desire—to work in partnership with the Scottish Government on a strategy that involves all four nations. I encourage him in that regard. Might he be willing to revisit the UK Government approach to the fishing and coastal growth fund, as the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) mentioned? The fund was brought in to ameliorate the damaging outcome of EU negotiations under a former Prime Minister, and the unprecedented 12-year access to our waters.
On the upside, the Scottish Government have dedicated £16.6 million in their marine fund Scotland, recognising the importance of the sector to our economy and our coastal communities. Since 2021, it has awarded £86 million to support 499 projects. This year’s funding allocation is revealing: £14.5 million, topped up with only £2.1 million from the fishing and coastal growth fund. Our freedom of information requests have shown that it was indeed a political decision to Barnettise the devolved fund. Scottish fisheries deserve far better than being used to score political points in this way.
In the notes the House of Commons Library provided for this debate, it is highlighted how a report from the Cambridge Industrial Innovation Policy group showed that sector strategies that support economic growth do best if policies are tailored to the needs of different industries, based on detailed evidence, and developed in consultation with the industry.
That brings me to the matter of skills shortages, which has already been referred to. The processing sector has made great strides forward in encouraging a domestic workforce with work incentives, but gaps in the labour market remain, and those gaps are holding back production and economic growth. That is where a bespoke Scottish visa for international workers would make such a difference to companies in the north-east that can neither grow nor innovate with the staff they have in place. It has been done before, in 2003, under none other than Jack McConnell, the former Scottish Labour leader and the last Labour First Minister of Scotland—or, as he is known these days, Baron McConnell of Glenscorrodale.
Alan Gemmell
I am pleased to say I was a civil servant who partly made the Fresh Talent: Working in Scotland scheme. I am pleased that we were able to do that, but what more have the Scottish Government done to attract migrants and to skill people in Scotland for those jobs, rather than relying on an old scheme?
Seamus Logan
I am glad the hon. Member asked that question. The problem does not lie in Scotland; it lies here in Westminster. That is what I have been trying to highlight.
On the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, it is no secret that I and my party think that Brexit was a catastrophic disaster. The cold hard estimate for the seafood industry revealed that Brexit led to a 30% increase in the cost of transporting products and a 50%9 increase in the cost of packaging.
Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)
Can the hon. Member confirm that the SNP’s policy would be to take us back into Europe, almost like the Labour party, and back into the dreaded common fisheries policy?
Seamus Logan
I thank the hon. Member for intervening on that point because I am very happy to put on record that, despite what he says, neither I nor my party wish to go back into the common fisheries policy. I remind the hon. Member that it was his Prime Minister and the previous Government who negotiated the Brexit deal that led us to this position.
Seamus Logan
No, I have taken enough interventions; I am running out of time.
As we head towards the UK-EU summit on 20 November, I understand that the Scottish White Fish Producers Association is concerned that the worst elements of the common fisheries policy could reappear when the SPS is agreed. I hope that the SPS agreement will instead deliver faster, more streamlined export processes, because without that, the benefits will not be felt by fishermen, processors or coastal communities that rely on trade with the European Union.
Scotland needs a seat at the negotiating and decision-making table to ensure that the voice of our fishing and coastal communities is represented, heard and taken on board. Otherwise, a strategy made in Westminster, far from the reality of my constituency in the north-east, will be in danger of failing in its core mission, as the Minister knows.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for calling this debate and the Minister for his prioritisation of a visit to Newlyn in Cornwall so early in his tenure, where I am sure he gained a strong sense of our priorities. Fishing remains central to communities like mine in mid-Cornwall. As we have heard from colleagues on all sides of the Chamber, it is vital that we continue to put our fishermen and women at the heart of shaping and delivering the future of the sector.
More topically, I welcome the continued freeze on red diesel duties announced in the Budget, but we must recognise that EU vessels continue to benefit from access to the crisis mechanisms of the European maritime, fisheries and aquaculture fund and the middle east crisis temporary state aid framework. That is putting our fleets at a significant competitive disadvantage and all too often rendering it uneconomical to leave port. Will the Minister consider how the Government can address that competitive disadvantage?
Turning to the bigger picture, the fleets in our sector, sector 7, remain under significant pressure, including from foreign vessels, which account for approximately two thirds of landings. Although quota distribution has increased marginally in favour of UK vessels in recent years, not all fisheries are quota-bound and, broadly speaking, catch ratios in the sector continue to reflect historically established entitlements, with the highest concentration of effort per job in the sector remaining among the industrial-scale foreign vessels we have heard quite a bit about today.
Torcuil Crichton
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that one of the only opportunities of Brexit was the opportunity to look at the UK quota again and redistribute it to communities and inshore fleets such as his?
Noah Law
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the need for a democratisation of many of the quotas. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about that.
As we all know, not all fishing effort has an equivalent ecological impact. Larger, industrialised and—in my sector, at least—foreign vessels are likely to have a disproportionate impact on stocks, while the smaller vessels of our domestic, largely inshore fleets tend to employ more selective, low-impact fishing methods. Ultimately, the smaller vessels that make up our fleet in Cornwall and across the wider sector act as the bedrock of both employment and environmental stewardship. Those twin priorities should be core Labour priorities. Fishermen tell us about the pressures, which really are mounting in the six to 12 nautical mile zone. Will the Minister consider the efficacy in our sector of potential measures in the six to 12 nautical mile zone, and whether a 221 kW engine-size restriction could meet the employment and environmental challenges? Similar measures have been employed effectively and selectively on a sectoral basis, as in the case of fly seining and beam trawling recently in area 7 and coastal waters, respectively, as well as longer-dated precedent in continental waters, with measures for the North sea plaice box.
Finally, in the light of forthcoming responses to our fisheries management plan consultations, I would welcome the introduction not just of some of the proposed technical measures on engine size, but of an integrated approach to biodiversity targets, a climate-sensitive approach to stock rebuilding—that has been alluded to but not spelled out explicitly—that recognises the reality of mixed fisheries, and recognition of the spatial challenges that we have heard about and the need for integrated marine spatial planning, as so masterfully highlighted in the action plan of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Finally and briefly from the Back Benches, I call Mr Myer.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this debate and on his report.
In my region, our identity is shaped by our coastline. From the old fishing villages of Staithes and Skinningrove through to the port at the Tees, the sea has shaped our economy, our identity and the character of our communities, so I welcome this debate and the call for a national fishing and seafood strategy. I will illustrate some of the points made in the debate by adding two experiences from my constituency.
The first concerns a fishermen from Easington, who came to see me at my surgery earlier this year. He operates commercially out of Whitby, and for three years he had been trying unsuccessfully to obtain a licence to catch bluefin tuna. I have to confess that before coming to this place, I did not think a great deal about the geographical distribution of licences for bluefin tuna fishing, but I soon discovered that it was a source of considerable frustration for fishermen in the north-east, who felt that opportunities were disproportionately concentrated on the south coast. Here was a hard-working local businessman who wanted to diversify his trade and invest in his future, but who had spent three years trying to secure the necessary permission.
I wrote to DEFRA and to the Northumberland Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority, to express this man’s concerns. In July, I was pleased to hear from him that he had finally secured his licence, which he understood to be the only one awarded locally that year. That was a good outcome, but it left me wondering why it took three years, the intervention of an MP and correspondence with different public authorities just for a fisherman to get the opportunity to do what he does best. I hope that any national strategy will look seriously at such barriers, so that we can encourage small fishing businesses to diversify and grow, and not make their lives unnecessarily difficult.
Torcuil Crichton
I sympathise with the plight of my hon. Friend’s constituent, because one of my constituents faced the same problem with planning for a tuna fishery, having a licence granted one year, but not getting it granted another.
Luke Myer
I will discuss my second issue briefly. It was a national story. For those unfamiliar with what happened, in 2021 an enormous number of dead crustaceans were washed up on our beaches, followed by a collapse in catches of as much as 80%, by some fishermen’s estimates.. That was devastating for the local industry; boats were sold and businesses closed. The most troubling thing is that, five years later, we still do not have a definitive explanation of what happened. That battle for truth has been documented in a new film, “All Rivers Spill Their Stories to the Sea”, and we will hold a screening of it in Parliament for parliamentarians shortly. I encourage all Members to attend.
I pay tribute to the local authorities who came together to establish a working group to look into the issue. I pay particular tribute to Councillor Philip Thomson and former Councillor Rachel Creevy for working across parties to drive forward that agenda. Will the Minister look into the findings published by that working group to see whether lessons can be learned by Government? I echo the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge for science funding to be a pillar of the strategy. Ultimately, if we want to restore confidence among those in the industry, we must demonstrate that our fishermen’s knowledge is valued, and that when issues arise, they will be thoroughly investigated and those directly affected can shape and direct what happens next.
Our fishing communities do not lack ambition; what they need is a Government who are prepared to work alongside them to remove unnecessary obstacles and safeguard their environment, and to give them a greater say in the decisions that shape their future. I hope that that is the ambition that guides this strategy, which we hope to see in the near future.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. Mr MacDonald, you have about eight minutes.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
Thank you, Sir Roger—I will take about half of that, I hope. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing the debate. I also welcome the early visits the Minister made to Scotland and his willingness to engage with the industry, which is so important to my part of Britain.
The first point I want to make is that the UK Government are leading the negotiations on fishing opportunities with the EU, and the decisions made over the coming weeks and months will be extremely significant for all our constituents. The economic viability of many remote west highland communities depends on the fishing industry, and particularly fish farming—an issue that has not been discussed so far. The industry supports employment, businesses and entire communities along our coastline. In many of the more remote parts of my constituency, fishing and seafood processing are among the few industries capable of providing skilled, well-paid and relatively secure, all-year-round employment.
The fish farming industry is incredibly important to the west highlands and islands. It employs about 2,500 people in a sparsely populated area, with a substantial number more in related services such as processing and transport. The industry is well aware of the need to constantly improve its environmental credentials, and it must. However, the bottom line is that there are fewer and fewer wild fish, so the need for a sustainable fish farming industry will only grow in importance. Should the hugely well-funded, mainly American, anti-fish farming pressure groups succeed in their aim of closing down fish farming, they will also succeed in sounding the death knell of our already struggling coastal communities.
That matters enormously when we consider the demographic challenges facing the highlands and islands. We have a serious problem with depopulation, with young people leaving because they cannot find the employment or opportunities they need to build a future in their own communities. We cannot expect those communities to survive if we allow the industries that sustain them to disappear. The fishing industry is therefore not simply an economic asset for the highlands; it is essential to the long-term viability of our coastal communities. It is also worth noting that if the Scottish fish farming industry has its legs taken away from underneath it, that will boost the fish farming industries in Norway, the Faroes, Canada, Chile and so on, which would be only too happy to step in.
The second point I want to make is that we face a significant challenge as fish stocks move northwards into cooler waters. For the first nine months of this year, the value of the catch in Scotland was 17% down on the same period last year. That is having a continued impact on our fishing communities and the opportunities available to the fleet. Crab, langoustine and lobster fishing is important in my constituency but, with far reduced catches, it offers a hard and much less lucrative livelihood than a decade ago.
One of my many sons is a recreational diver, and he tells me of the destruction caused to the seabed by scallop dredging. Those who hand dive for scallops in our community have the support of the more environmentally aware locals. Will the Minister please update us on his view on the sustainability and environmental impact of scallop dredging?
Only 54% of the food we eat is produced in the UK. We can and must do better. Our fishing industry has an important role to play in feeding the nation, but we must maintain high environmental standards and protect our fish stocks. As we have heard, Scotland accounts for 60% to 70% of the UK’s fishing industry, and we have a substantial processing sector and a network of businesses around the coast. However, none of that can survive without a viable fleet bringing fish ashore and securing the best possible opportunities for 2027, particularly for key stocks such as cod. A collapse in remote Scotland’s school rolls and visa restrictions threaten the future workforce that we need so badly. I hope that the Minister will take a pragmatic approach to both.
We have good fisheries management in Scotland, but we must strike a balance between protecting the marine environment and sustaining the very fragile coastal communities that depend on it. The fishing industry is vital to the future of the highlands and to the food security and economic prosperity not just of the highlands and Scotland but of the whole of the United Kingdom. I hope that the Government will recognise that and ensure that our fishing communities have the opportunities and support that they need to thrive.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this important debate.
For centuries, fishing has fed this island nation. It has built our harbour towns and sent generation after generation to sea in all waters. In Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, almost three in every 100 jobs still depend on the seafood industry. That is exactly why—not just in Cornwall but across the country—the official Opposition support the creation of the UK’s first comprehensive cross-Government departmental national fishing strategy. I thank all Members who were involved in “An Action Plan for a Thriving and Sustainable UK Fishing Industry” and the all-party parliamentary group on fisheries for the work that it did to pull together that comprehensive piece of work.
However, let us be honest about where the industry stands today. Full-time jobs are down by about 15% since 2024, and landings fell by 10% by weight in a single year between 2024 and 2025. The Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), has said previously in this House that DEFRA is
“held in exceptionally poor regard”
by fishers. A strategy is welcome, but it will mean something only if the Government are prepared to change course, as has been said.
The Government constantly give out the right narrative that food security is national security, but in the Budget a fortnight ago, neither food nor fishing were mentioned. The APPG’s fisheries action plan makes 38 recommendations, and the industry has been clear about which recommendations matter the most. Fishing and seafood must be fully represented in the UK’s food security planning. Fishing grounds must be recognised in marine planning as what they are: vital places that provide food.
The Government must give full effect to the Fisheries Act 2020, which was passed by the previous Conservative Government and balances the social, economic and environmental sides of fishing instead of just putting an emphasis on one of them. Will the Minister commit to a cross-Government departmental national fishing strategy that gives reassurance to the fishing sector, and will he lay out a timetable for it? Will fishing and seafood be fully represented in the UK’s food security assessments?
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) rightly outlined that we must focus on dealing with the short-term issues and pressures that face our fishing sector. Since the Iran war began, fuel costs for fishermen have roughly doubled. Successful businesses have exhausted their reserves and are going bust. Fishermen are leaving the industry. After months of campaigning, Ministers can still point only to diesel relief, marine voyage relief and the growth fund, all of which existed before the crisis began. The Budget offered some help for electricity-intensive businesses, but nothing for fuel-intensive ones such as fishing.
Douglas Lumsden
My hon. Friend mentioned the energy-intensive industry scheme. In the summer, I met Jimmy Buchan, the CEO of the Scottish Seafood Association. His biggest ask was for fish processors to be included in that scheme. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should consider including fish processors in that scheme?
Robbie Moore
I absolutely agree. The Government must look beyond fishermen and at the wider sector, including the food processing sector. That is a key ask as part of this debate. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that in his wind-up speech.
The challenge on fuel means that countries on the continent—France, Italy, Spain, Germany and Ireland—have spent tens of millions supporting their fishermen, so much so that in some of our waters the only boats that can afford to fish are the European ones. That is frankly absurd and prompts the question: what are the Government doing about it? Does the Minister think it fair that British fishermen are competing in their own British waters with a European fleet propped up by their Governments? Will the Minister bring forward a tailored plan to provide fuel support to fishermen, as the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations has requested?
One aim of Brexit was to put British fishermen first in British waters. The previous Conservative Government took the UK out of the common fisheries policy and negotiated 750,000 tonnes of fishing opportunities for 2024. What was that for? That opportunity was squandered by the Labour Government when they handed EU vessels full access to our waters until 2038—12 years of fishing rights signed away at a cost that the NFFO estimates reaches £6 billion easily.
What did our fishermen get in return? Absolutely nothing. Under the deal the Conservative Government negotiated, access would have been agreed year-by-year, giving us the same leverage that Norway uses to secure a fair deal. That leverage has now gone, thanks to the complete disregard of the Labour Government for the livelihoods of fishermen up and down the country. For this Government, fishermen are just another pawn they can sacrifice for a closer relationship with the EU, whatever the cost.
Robbie Moore
The one-year rolling access was in the pipeline to continue, as it was with the negotiations with Europe. It was this Labour Government that signed away our fishing rights for 12 years.
I must turn to the hon. Member for Cambridge, for whom I have a great deal of respect. When the deal was signed in May last year, he was the Minister responsible for fisheries at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. He did not oppose it; he defended it. In a written answer he said:
“That deal secures a continuation of the current access arrangements.”
That is 12 more years of the status quo for a fleet that was promised so much more. That was the deal that he stood behind. I welcome his support today for the fishing strategy, but fishermen in every harbour town will be entitled to ask why he did not fight for them when he was in a position to act.
We have a new Prime Minister who talks a great deal about supporting our food sector and our fishermen. We are about to enter an EU summit on 20 November and the widely circulated joint draft statement says that the Prime Minister welcomes
“decisions on full reciprocal access to waters to fish, until 30 June 2038…and the extension of energy co-operation on a continuing basis.”
There we have it. Our fishermen have been sold down the line yet again by this Labour Government. I will give the Minister the opportunity to intervene if he is able to say why this is such a good deal for our fishermen. He does not wish to intervene. Will he confirm that nothing in the SPS agreement will affect UK fisheries management? Will he instruct negotiators not to concede technical measures or any other backdoor measures to the EU in the forthcoming negotiations?
There is also the challenge of spatial squeeze at sea, which was picked up by many Members. Fishermen are being squeezed out of their own waters. Offshore wind takes their grounds, with compulsory marine protected areas taking yet more in a double displacement. The NFFO warns that the third round of marine conservation zones could, in effect, ban fishing in an area the size of Wales, limiting the scope of fishing in this country and once again damaging the livelihoods of our fishermen. On that point, will the Government review the compensatory marine protected areas for offshore wind? What are the Government doing to make the case for fishing to the Crown Estate?
That brings me to the fishing and coastal growth fund. The industry welcomed the fund, but let me be clear about its scale: £360 million over 12 years is around £30 million a year. However, the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations estimates that the EU access deal will cost the sector £6 billion. What side of the sector are this Government on? Energy upgrades funded through the fund will take months to deliver, and any fuel savings will be eclipsed by today’s diesel prices. When the EFRA Committee asked the Government to frontload the fund, Ministers said no. Without help, investment and skills are already leaving right now. There may therefore not be much of the sector left for the fund to support. With landings down 10% by weight in a single year, does the Minister seriously believe that £360 million spread over 12 years is enough? I put the question again: will he look to frontload the fund to support our sector now?
To conclude, the fishing industry’s asks are clear and reasonable: tailored fuel support and an SPS deal that protects our hard-won controls in our waters, rather than negotiating them away, as this Government have with the 12 years they signed away and are due to put in concrete, so to speak, at the EU summit on 20 November. Negotiations that concede nothing through the back door are an absolute request of the fishing sector, as are an end to double displacement and the first ever UK fishing strategy. Our fishermen feel forgotten. They deserve a Government who are truly on their side. Over the past two years, this Labour Government have shown a blatant disregard for fishermen’s way of life and for the importance of their work to UK food security. This debate is a chance for the Minister to show that he gets it and that he cares. I look forward to his response to the specific questions that have been asked.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Stephen Morgan)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for securing this debate on issues of which he, as my ministerial predecessor, has huge knowledge and expertise. Coming from a coastal community and living in a city that looks to the sea for its livelihood, I am proud to represent the hard-working coastal communities that contribute so much to our nation’s prosperity.
Since my appointment, I have met many representatives of the fishing and seafood industry, from whom I have learned a huge amount. In Newlyn, Weymouth, Grimsby, Peterhead, Fraserburgh and Selsey, I have seen their pride and skill and heard about their work to put our wonderful seafood on our plates. From them I heard loud and clear that fishing is so much more than just another industry. We are an island nation and fishing has shaped the rhythms, ways of life and character of our coastal communities for generations. Traditions, knowledge and skills have been handed down through families. The best tribute I can pay to fishing’s rich heritage is to do my best to secure its future.
While I talk of fishing’s rich heritage, I must, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge eloquently did, convey the deep gratitude and respect I have for all those who work or have worked as fishermen. That includes the many who have sadly lost their lives bringing back our harvest of seafood. My sympathies also go to the families of the crew of the Kilda, who were rightly mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton).
The fishing community contends with tough and dangerous working conditions. I commend all efforts by the industry to improve safety, including by working with Seafish and with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, among other organisations. Last week, I visited the RNLI lifeboat station in Selsey and met the Fishermen’s Mission to hear about their work to save lives and to support the welfare of fishermen. I was struck by the deep connections between the fishing industry and both those organisations. That includes volunteer lifeboat crew, who are drawn from the community and are often fishermen themselves. I place on record my gratitude to all those who devote themselves to improving safety and to saving lives at sea.
I know my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge has taken a leading role in the development of the APPG on fisheries action plan for a thriving and sustainable UK fishing industry. As I said at the action plan’s recent launch, I very much welcome its publication and I have heard its call for a stronger strategic view of the fishing and seafood sector. I will soon be meeting representatives of the APPG, including my hon. Friend, to discuss its recommendations in greater detail.
Any future work to develop a strategy would, of course, need to recognise devolution, the diversity of the sector and the strong frameworks that are already in place. I will also be considering our long-term vision for the fishing and seafood industry further with the sector. As I said at the launch event, many of the APPG’s objectives align very closely with my own. Like the APPG, I want to see a thriving fishing industry that delivers thriving coastal communities, good jobs and better job security. To achieve that, we need environmentally sustainable stocks, a modern fleet, infrastructure and supply chains and above all, a motivated, skilled workforce.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for his helpful and positive responses to the questions we have asked. I am sure he will come on to this, but I gently remind him that, in Northern Ireland and Scotland, one of the problems for many of us is the crews and the workforce, as we raised in submissions to the former Minister. Can the Minister give me some assurance in relation to that?
Stephen Morgan
I thank the hon. Member for raising that issue. I look forward to seeing him next week to discuss the issues facing colleagues in Northern Ireland, alongside the processing organisation. Perhaps we could pick up that conversation then.
Taking action to deliver for the fishing and seafood industry is a priority for this Government. It involves acting to deliver and consider a number of action plan recommendations. To highlight just a few, they include delivering multi-annual funding. We are already doing that through the fisheries and seafood scheme, which also supports training towards accredited qualifications. We are also considering how the action plan’s four pillars can help us to guide policy, recognising that fishing is a vital food-producing sector that aligns well with existing work in DEFRA to build national food security. We could consider how to address capacity gaps in inshore fisheries management as well.
I can also point to a number of other achievements, including significant progress on the fisheries management plans and the recovery of bluefin tuna and bass. The benefits that those successes bring are evident to coastal communities and demonstrate that good fisheries management works. We have allocated unused authorisations with a focus on supporting young and new fishermen entering the industry, and we have produced our UK seafood careers road map. Since we opened the fisheries and seafood scheme, we have received over 600 applications worth £25 million. Some of that is being specifically targeted at small-scale coastal fleets, and we have made funding available for new engines and gearboxes, which will help improve fuel efficiency. Meanwhile, the £1.5 million annual seafood export package is helping seafood businesses reach new markets.
As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald), said, our current focus is on this autumn’s negotiations for fishing opportunities for 2027, from which I will do my best to secure the best deal possible for UK fishermen. Many of those negotiations are challenging and full of trade-offs that need to be made.
Douglas Lumsden
In just 10 days’ time, the UK-EU summit is happening in Brussels. Can the Minister assure us that our fishing industry will not be sold down the river in those talks?
Stephen Morgan
I am coming on to the points that the hon. Member made, but my interest in the negotiations and the summit is to protect UK interests. That is the absolute priority of this Government.
I have spoken to the fishing industry to hear its priorities, and I have taken them into account when setting out our approach to the negotiations. From previous exchanges in the House and with Members, I am aware of concerns about the level of fishing in UK waters by Norwegian trawlers. That is reciprocal, and I know there are UK vessels that appreciate the arrangement’s flexibility. I heard about that when I met the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation in Fraserburgh in August, and stakeholders raised it again ahead of the negotiations with Norway. The negotiations began in October, and I will seek to get the best possible deal. There are also difficult discussions and decisions on balancing the long-term sustainability of northern shelf cod with providing for the needs of our coastal communities in 2027. Addressing that is a priority of mine in trilateral negotiations with the EU and Norway, and I have spoken about it with UK stakeholders in recent weeks. We will continue to engage closely with the fishing industry to identify the best ways forward.
Of course, to support healthy fish stocks, we must prioritise a healthy and productive marine environment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) rightly raised, and I am working to balance the decisions on that with ensuring that the fishing industry remains sustainable. That includes marine protection, and I am mindful of the commitment to put in place stage 3 byelaws before the end of this year. Those byelaws would be substantial and could close 13% of English waters to bottom trawling. I do not want to place any unnecessary restrictions on industry, so given the potential impacts for the fishing industry, it is important that we take time to get this right.
We are also working at pace to finalise arrangements for a new SPS deal, which will make it easier and cheaper to export seafood to the EU. More details on that will follow shortly, as part of the EU-UK summit later this month. Work is continuing to deliver funding. Currently, that is through the fisheries and seafood scheme, but we are also shaping, with the industry and others, the longer-term delivery of the fishing and coastal growth fund.
On cost pressures and similar issues raised by Members, I recognise the genuine hardship that high, volatile fuel prices are causing, as well as the concerns about competition from EU vessels that may have benefited from temporary fuel-related support. There is support via the existing tax system, and we have recently announced funding for new, more efficient engines and gearboxes. I am listening to fishing communities to understand the pressures that they face, and I am looking at all options.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) made a number of helpful points. I recognise that access to the UK’s six to 12 nautical mile zone is an important issue for the inshore fleet, particularly where there are concerns about pressure from larger vessels due to EU activity. I heard that message loud and clear during my time in Penzance and Newlyn. My hon. Friend is right to raise those concerns, and I assure him that I will continue to have those discussions. Any new management measures would need to respect the UK’s international obligations and be evidence-based. I am very happy to meet him on those points.
Stephen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for his work on these important matters. I can go one better: I am very happy to meet him to discuss the issues in further detail.
On labour and workforce challenges, Members will recognise that immigration policy is for the Home Office to comment on. However, I can assure them that my Department and I are in regular conversation with our Home Office counterparts about the concerns of industry, and I will continue to raise those matters across Government.
On engaging with the fishing and seafood industry, my officials and I already engage extensively through hugely varied forums. We have a strong framework of engagement, as I set out in July in the Government’s response to the EFRA Committee’s April report. We can always do more, so I look forward to continuing to improve how the Department engages with stakeholders, including the fishing and seafood industry. I am currently looking to build on the visits I have undertaken in my first few months in post, to listen more to what fishermen have to say. I have a date in the diary to visit Shetland, and I am considering a number of other invitations to ports around the country.
I have heard the calls for a stronger strategic view of the fishing and seafood sector, and I will consider the case for a national strategy. I welcome the APPG’s action plan and its recommendations, some of which are already being delivered. I will also consider its wider findings and recommendations. In the meantime, my focus is on delivery for the fishing and seafood industry. I want the industry to thrive and to turn delivery into thriving communities, good jobs, better food security and a healthier marine environment. As I said at the start, the best tribute I can pay to the sector’s rich heritage is to do my very best to secure its future. I thank all Members for their contributions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge for securing the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the potential merits of a fishing and seafood sector strategy.
School Buildings: Rushcliffe
(1 day, 12 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
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the condition of school buildings in Rushcliffe constituency.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the Minister for hot-footing it down from the main Chamber in just five or 10 minutes— I congratulate him on that. I also apologise to him for securing today’s debate; we recently bumped into each other in a non-educational context, and he specifically thanked me for not mentioning a Rushcliffe school to him at that moment. I therefore suspect that he was neither surprised nor particularly pleased to see that I had secured a whole debate on the subject, but hopefully it also means that he is ahead of the game and in a position to give me some of the answers that I am looking for today.
There has been some genuine progress in education settings in Rushcliffe over the past two years, so I want to start by recognising that: more than £120 million of new education investment has either been spent or is now planned for this Parliament. That includes £3.8 million for Nottingham college—including the campus in Ruddington—to modernise facilities, and £1.2 million for the centre for sustainable construction technology to tackle regional skills shortages. More than £30 million of basic need funding has been used for a 450-place block at Rushcliffe Spencer academy in West Bridgford. Almost £40 million of works are under way at South Wolds academy in Keyworth to replace a single-storey classroom building with a new three-storey block.
Some £8 million has been spent on a state-of-the-art primary school in Sutton Bonington, and £1.2 million has been allocated for building upgrades at Willow Brook primary school in Keyworth. We have seen the completion of cladding, insulation, safety and lighting works at Keyworth primary and nursery school. Some £230,000 has been allocated for building upgrades at Willoughby primary school in Willoughby-on-the-Wolds, and £200,000 has been spent on energy infrastructure at Pierrepont Gamston primary school. A new heating system has been installed at Langar Church of England primary school to reduce running costs. And, of course, £35.8 million of Nottinghamshire county council’s special educational needs and disabilities deficit has been offset and absorbed by this Government.
Improvements are taking place in our schools across Rushcliffe, and I wholeheartedly welcome that level of investment, but my local schools are also facing some significant challenges. Today, I want to highlight six issues that I believe illustrate wider problems in the way we plan, fund and maintain our school estate.
First, St Peter’s C of E junior school in Ruddington unexpectedly became one of the flagship issues in my constituency last Christmas. St Peter’s was built in 1956 using the Derwent system. Last December, surveyors discovered severe structural deterioration, including decay in the timber columns supporting the floors and roof. On 9 December, the building was closed and around 360 children suddenly found themselves without a school building, just three weeks before Christmas.
The response from the community was extraordinary: staff, governors, parents, neighbouring schools and academy trusts pulled together to keep teaching going. A temporary learning village was subsequently constructed by Nottinghamshire county council, at considerable cost, and is now in use. I put on record my sincere thanks to everyone involved. I also thank the Minister for his personal intervention, which helped secure St Peter’s place on the school rebuilding programme earlier this year.
That was such a positive outcome for Ruddington. The challenge now is delivery. Understandably, residents want to know when St Peter’s children will have a permanent school again. The county council would like reassurances about the financial implications of the project, including the cost of the temporary village. St Peter’s itself needs clarity about the proposed design, especially for SEND provision. Its existing provision includes dedicated spaces for therapy, nurture, one-to-one support and targeted interventions. However, the initial plans for the replacement building appear to reduce that provision significantly. I welcome the Department’s recent indication that additional SEND space will be considered through the business case process.
I would welcome three reassurances from the Minister today. First, when can the community expect a clear timetable for the rebuild? Secondly, will the Department ensure that the new school retains the specialist places needed to deliver its existing SEND provision? Thirdly, will the Department work with Nottinghamshire county council to provide clarity about the costs and funding responsibilities, so that financial uncertainty does not delay progress? We have secured the right decision in principle for the parents, pupils and staff of St Peter’s. We now need to get the delivery right and move at pace.
Secondly, St Peter’s points to a much wider issue facing my home county of Nottinghamshire, which has an unusually high concentration of buildings built in the CLASP—consortium of local authorities special programme—and Derwent styles. The county council tells me that more than 750 of the approximately 3,500 CLASP buildings across the UK are in Nottinghamshire—more than one fifth of the national total. These buildings were constructed in the mid-to-late 20th century, using systems that offered quick and economical solutions to the demands of their time. Many are now well beyond their intended working lives. They present significant challenges involving structural deterioration, asbestos, accessibility, insulation, heating and maintenance. This is not only an education issue. I have also campaigned extensively about the condition of East Leake health centre, where the legacy of an ageing CLASP building has become a major obstacle to local healthcare provision. There is therefore a broader question about the concentration of ageing public infrastructure in Nottinghamshire, and whether national capital programmes sufficiently recognise that particular legacy.
When St Peter’s was condemned, Nottinghamshire county council wrote to the Department requesting emergency capital funding and a wider investment plan. Specifically, it wants all two-storey CLASP and Derwent school buildings included in the school rebuilding programme, and existing projects accelerated. I would welcome the Minister’s response to this request. I am concerned that without a specific approach, we could face a major problem in the coming years, like at St Peter’s, potentially comparable in scale to the crisis of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. We should not wait for buildings to fail before acting. Will the Department undertake a strategic assessment of the risks associated with these particular construction types, and work with Nottinghamshire to develop a properly prioritised programme of intervention?
Thirdly, I want to address the growing problem of temporary school accommodation effectively becoming permanent. Two particularly troubling examples in my constituency are Edwalton primary school and Lady Bay primary school. At Edwalton, approximately 120 children are taught in temporary modular classrooms that are more than 20 years old and more than five years beyond their intended lifespan. The headteacher has shown me evidence of a roof with a hole the size of a football, water dripping down walls and timber deteriorating. The school has already spent hundreds of thousands of pounds patching up the buildings over recent years, and they will soon need replacing entirely. That is a classic example of good money chasing bad.
I was grateful to meet the Minister about Edwalton. I warmly welcome the Government’s renewal and retrofit programme worth more than £700 million, which will increase the focus on life-expired temporary buildings. Edwalton’s overall condition rating often combines the permanent building with severely deteriorated temporary classrooms. The danger is obvious. The best buildings on a site could conceal the very worst. Will the Minister confirm that individual temporary buildings can be assessed separately, that local evidence will be considered, and that schools such as Edwalton will have a meaningful route to make their case? When in 2027 should schools expect the renewal and retrofit programme to open, and when are decisions and investment likely to be made? The five classrooms at Edwalton need patching up today, but the headteacher would understandably prefer to reserve funds for a genuinely long-term solution.
Lady Bay primary school has similar problems, with a double mobile classroom first installed in 2007 to accommodate extra children. Those classrooms are still being used today. The school has been waiting for investment to address both accommodation pressures and buildings reaching the end of their useful life. Yet the investment was postponed earlier this year by Nottinghamshire county council due to funding constraints. I raised that with the Department over the summer and was told that funding has been allocated to meet forecast demand for places across the wider planning area. However, as the Minister knows, that has been contested by Nottinghamshire county council, which has pointed to a wider gap between the cost of school places and the funding available. Parents and schools should not have to navigate competing explanations for delay from different public bodies. I would therefore welcome the Minister’s help today in establishing precisely where responsibility lies in ensuring that projects like the one at Lady Bay primary school do not remain in limbo indefinitely.
Fourthly, there is a related problem in Rushcliffe of schools expanding their pupil numbers without receiving the infrastructure investment that they were promised. Rushcliffe is a fantastic place to live and work, and our schools are understandably popular. That popularity creates pressure, particularly where schools have agreed to accommodate additional pupils. At West Bridgford school the published admission number is 222, but the school has been admitting approximately 270 pupils annually. The county council had planned building works to support a permanent increase to 270. Those works have now been postponed, despite the school having accommodated higher numbers for several years.
In another case in south Rushcliffe, East Leake academy has been pursuing an expansion of its dining facilities because the existing space is too small for its population. I welcome the more positive recent engagement with the county council, which has indicated that the project can progress following the end of the current private finance initiative contract in July 2027. But in both cases, investment did not happen when it was promised. These cases are causing genuine frustration among parents, pupils and teachers. Will the Minister explain what safeguards exist to ensure that the promised capacity-related investment is delivered? How does the Department hold local authorities to account on these commitments? Can the Department intervene when agreed projects are subsequently postponed?
Fifthly, I want to briefly raise the future of Ash Lea special school in Cotgrave. Ash Lea serves children with some of the most complex needs in my constituency and beyond. In line with what I described earlier about class buildings across Nottinghamshire, the condition of its building is poor, and the county council, school and academy trust agree that a replacement is needed. I believe an application for the school rebuilding programme was submitted earlier this year, but there are concerns that local government reorganisation could complicate decisions about potential investment and/or finding alternative sites.
I hope the Minister agrees that the future of a special school should not be held hostage to uncertainty about local authority boundaries. Can he confirm the status of Ash Lea’s application, say when a decision can be expected and set out how the Department is working with Nottinghamshire county council to secure a viable long-term solution? Children with complex needs, their families and their teachers deserve certainty, and I hope we can provide it soon.
Sixthly and finally, I want to raise the future of small rural primary schools. Nationally, birth rates have fallen to an all-time low, and many rural schools face the prospect of declining pupil numbers. For small schools, even relatively modest changes in admissions can have a disproportionate effect on staffing budgets and long-term viability. Normanton-on-Soar primary school illustrates that. I am never 100% sure which data to refer to, but I believe that the total school capacity is 83 and the expected number on roll for this year is only 59. Parents, understandably, have raised questions about subsequent staffing reductions, the availability of teaching assistant support and the implications for children with SEND. The parish council has also written to Equals Trust, emphasising the school’s importance to village identity, stability and community cohesion. Indeed, we must recognise that rural schools are not simply units of educational provision; they are vital community institutions.
As chair of the Labour Rural Research Group, I have been arguing for a more sophisticated approach to rural education funding, including proper recognition of sparsity, small school costs and the opportunities created by surplus space. Specific recommendations from the LRRG include, first, using surplus rural school capacity to boost SEND provision by starting new SEND expansion in these areas and, secondly, amending funding formulas for rural schools and rural SEND provision to reflect the impending crisis. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on these points. More fundamentally, what work is the Department undertaking to understand the cumulative impact of declining birth rates on small rural schools, and when can rural communities expect a clearer national strategy for the future of their schools?
I have raised six issues today, but they share a common theme. Whether it is a structurally failing building, a temporary classroom that has outlived its usefulness, a promised extension that has not materialised or a village school facing falling numbers, the underlying problem is uncertainty: uncertainty about funding, about responsibility, about priorities and about timescales.
I am grateful to the Minister for the leadership that he has already shown, particularly at St Peter’s. That experience shows me that rapid progress is possible when local concerns receive proper attention. I hope that today’s debate can secure the same clarity and the same momentum for the other schools that I have mentioned. As the Minister knows, children only get one chance at their education, so they—and we—cannot afford to have their education compromised by inadequate buildings or a lack of local or national willingness to address these long-standing problems. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on securing this debate and on his formidable advocacy for schools across his constituency.
As a former teacher who has spent years standing in front of young people in classrooms in Oldham and Stockport, I know at first hand that although the space around learning is not the entire story, it can make a difference to the whole learning process. Now, as a Minister in the Department for Education, I am proud that we have set out a 10-year plan to renew our schools and colleges so that children and staff have the high-quality classrooms that they deserve.
This Government are doing things differently to fix the failures of the past. Across Government, we are maintaining public investment at the highest sustained level in four decades, supported by an increase in capital spending over this Parliament of more than £120 billion on previous plans. We are increasing and prioritising investment where it is needed most, through maintenance, renewal and rebuilding programmes. For that reason, we are providing unprecedented long-term funding and have increased overall capital investment in education to about £38 billion through to 2029-30—the highest amount since 2010.
With over 22,000 schools and colleges in England, the education estate supports the outcomes, health and wellbeing of 10 million children and young people. The benefits are clear, but the challenges are real. For too long, schools have had to patch and mend buildings that have already deteriorated, instead of getting the rebuilds they need and arguably should have had a long time ago.
We are already turning the page on years of decline in the school estates. Our education estates strategy set out a 10-year plan to deliver a decade of renewal in the estate, backed by unprecedented long-term funding. We are investing almost £3 billion per year by 2034-35 in capital maintenance to improve the condition of the estate and are investing almost £20 billion through to 2034-35 in the school rebuilding programme. There are more than 500 schools already in the SRP, with over 80% in delivery already; 68 schools have been rebuilt, with 56 completed under this Government.
There are two schools in the programme in my hon. Friend’s constituency of Rushcliffe. The rebuild of Sutton Bonington primary school was completed last year. Earlier this year, I was delighted to confirm that St Peter’s junior school is joining the school rebuilding programme, following my hon. Friend’s representations about the conditions at the school; it was his leadership that made the difference in getting that school rebuild confirmed. The Department is working closely with Nottinghamshire county council to rebuild the school, with high-quality buildings for pupils and staff ensuring that the new space supports inclusion now and into the future. The delivery timeline is shaped by the feasibility and design work for the rebuild; this is being developed at the moment in discussions with Nottinghamshire county council and the school.
We will select a further 250 schools to join the school rebuilding programme by early 2027. Places will be prioritised for schools in the worst condition and in the local areas where places are needed now. Earlier this year, responsible bodies were asked to nominate schools using published guidance and criteria. I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s support for Ash Lea academy, which is nominated for the school rebuilding programme. The Department is carefully assessing all the nominations. There is not much more that I can say at this stage, given that it is an ongoing process.
I was grateful to meet my hon. Friend in September to discuss Edwalton primary school. Flying High Trust has a school condition allocation of £1.6 million for 2026-27 to decide how to invest in its schools, including Edwalton. Nottinghamshire county council also has a school condition allocation of almost £5.9 million for this financial year to invest across its maintained schools, including Lady Bay primary school. Those are the main ways in which we allocate resources in the system to ensure maintenance.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Like Rushcliffe, my area has received some condition improvement funding for a few schools: Hayfield secondary, South Axholme secondary and two primary schools, Green Top and Auckley. I have visited nearly all the schools in my constituency. How can they make representations, through me and the Minister, to get some funding for their own improvements?
Josh MacAlister
I would be very happy to exchange letters or discussions with my hon. Friend to help to resolve any issues. We have a specific route for funding very small multi-academy or single-academy trust schools through the funding formula, where they are not in larger responsible body groups. That is why some schools get funding through the condition improvement fund and others get it through the wider allocation process.
In addition to maintenance funding and the school rebuilding programme, my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe mentioned that we have launched the renewal and retrofit programme. The programme is backed by more than £700 million to improve the condition of schools and colleges and increase their resilience to, among other things, the changing climate. It started this year in three regions: Yorkshire and the Humber, the east midlands and the south-east. The current phase is targeting the worst 50 schools—in the sense that their condition is the worst, not their performance; many of them are fantastic schools—with potential projects identified for 2026-27 based on the condition of individual temporary buildings.
The temporary buildings at Edwalton primary school have not been shortlisted for phase 1 based on the available condition data, but following my hon. Friend’s representations I have asked my officials to visit the school and see the building at first hand. From next year, the renewal and retrofit programme is being expanded to all regions in England. Detailed delivery plans, including how schools and colleges will be selected, will be confirmed in due course. I will be happy to keep my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) updated on that expansion.
High-quality school and college buildings are essential to delivering-world class education and creating the conditions for all children and young people to achieve and thrive. Children, families and communities are at the heart of the 10-year plan for a decade of renewal in our school and college buildings. This is about more than just buildings. It is about showing children that their education matters, that their futures matter and that the Government are determined to give them the best possible start in life.
Question put and agreed to.
Submarine Service 125th Anniversary
(1 day, 12 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
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the 125th anniversary of the submarine service.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.
Where were we on 12 April this year? It was a Sunday, so perhaps we were spending time with our families, out in the open air or at church. It was a long time ago—seven months. Remarkably, there are around 140 people aboard HMS Vengeance, one of our Vanguard-class SSBN nuclear missile submarines, who know exactly where they were on that date. They were leaving Faslane on the Clyde for who knows where and, incredibly, they are still out there somewhere, setting the record for the longest patrol ever undertaken by a Royal Navy submarine. They are the silent service: the men and, increasingly, women who wear the dolphins of the submarine branch of the Royal Navy. They are a breed apart, affectionately known as the “Fish Heads”, for it takes something special to live and be ready to fight in a tiny metal tube deep beneath the waves.
I have a particular admiration for them as, despite my father enjoying a long and illustrious career in the deep sea as a marine engineer, I get seasick in a bath. Lacking a keel, submarines—boats, as the Navy infuriatingly insists on calling them—are not the best on the surface in choppy waters, and I have gone green just watching them rolling like pigs, coming and going from Faslane on a blowy day in the Clyde. It came as a delight the day that I went aboard HMS Vengeance at HM Naval Base Clyde to find that the boat was out of the water and up on bricks, so to speak, for maintenance.
It is 125 years since the Navy operated HMS Holland 1, our first submarine, which was named for builder John Philip Holland and was laid down, as our submarines are today, in Barrow-in-Furness. So much has changed in that time. Our modern boats are nuclear-powered and, in the case of the Vanguard class that provides today’s continuous at-sea deterrent, nuclear-armed. It was the 26th President of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt, who advocated speaking softly while carrying a big stick. Truly, Trident is our big stick—a missile with a range in excess of 2,000 miles when nothing on the planet is more than 2,000 miles from the sea.
In many ways, however, little has changed. Submarine design is such that the ship’s complement must fit in around her essential machinery. There is little enough room for basics and none for luxury. When it comes to attack submarines, nothing has changed: 125 years ago, we had just one submarine, and how many do we have today? Well, just the one Astute class at sea: HMS Agamemnon. She is on the Clyde for sea trial, still months off being ready to patrol, while the remainder of the class is tied up alongside for reasons unknown. Perhaps the Minister, mindful as ever of national security, might be able to shed some light on why that is.
Talking of light, we must remember that the submariners’ world is a windowless, skyless one, where time and date mean little. The menu is on a strict daily rotation. That is the only means by which the sailors can tell what day it is. A roast means it is Sunday, curry means Wednesday, Friday is fish and Saturday is steak. Food is of huge importance not just for sustenance but for morale. Indeed, given that the boats make their own oxygen and fresh water, and have effectively a limitless nuclear fuel supply, food storage is the limit on patrol duration. That means that the boat’s freezers must be packed with exquisite care. Woe betide anyone who buries the entire supply of “snorkers”, or sausages, behind all the “babies’ heads”, as steak and kidney pudding is known—the shiny pastry is said to resemble a newborn’s pate. “Nutty”—chocolate and sweets in the parlance—is pivotal too, and it is said that aboard interminable Vanguard patrols it is all that keeps body and soul together.
Contact with the outside world is, unsurprisingly, limited, and only two people aboard—the commander and the navigator—will know where the boat actually is. Modern insulation design means that the old trick of holding a hand against the pressure hull—warm meant you were in the Med, cold in the Arctic—is now an old wives’ tale.
Let us think about that massive patrol for a second: months under fake light, breathing artificial air, drinking tea made with ersatz Millac milk and water distilled from seawater. In these days of a hyperconnected youth well used to the internet, submariners get a 120-word-maximum message via the Familygram system once a week: word comes in and nothing goes out, and family are warned not to send bad news. They deal with all that while sitting still somewhere in the depths of the ocean as the Russians listen out for them, and while being at readiness to fire. How long it takes to come to readiness is classified, but we know that a boat will be asked multiple times on patrol to come to readiness to unleash Armageddon.
We ask a great deal of our submariners now, and we have always done. We should take a moment to reflect on all those still on eternal patrol in the ocean’s depths, for submariner casualties are grim. In the second world war alone, we lost more than 3,160 submariners aboard 74 boats.
I will highlight just one: Lieutenant Commander Malcolm Wanklyn, one of our most successful submariners, who had strong connections with the exquisite Knockinaam Lodge hotel outside Portpatrick in my Dumfries and Galloway constituency. He and his crew aboard HMS Upholder sank 16 enemy vessels, taking 128,350 tonnes of enemy shipping to the bottom. Highly unusually, they sank three Italian submarines. But it was in action off Sicily in 1941 that he made his name. With its Asdic system—the world’s first working sonar—inoperable, Upholder slipped through heavy rings of Regia Marina defences to torpedo the transatlantic cruise liner Conte Rosso, which was ironically Clyde-built but used as an axis troop ship. It earned Wanklyn the Victoria Cross, our highest gallantry award. However, the following year, Upholder and its 30-year-old skipper went missing somewhere off Tripoli. The wreck has never been found; her fate is still shrouded in mystery.
My constituency defers to no one in terms of how many German U-boats we sank. Operation Deadlight in 1945 saw many of the 156 surrendered U-boats towed from Loch Ryan, off my home town of Stranraer, and scuttled or sunk in gunnery training in the North channel. We are also the final resting place of UB-85, a German submarine of the great war, sunk as it sat on the surface off Galloway in 1918. The captured skipper later said that he could not submerge because of damage inflicted by a strange sea creature that had attacked and was driven off only by small arms fire. Fact or fiction, it is a stark reminder that worse things do happen at sea, and that those who today willingly put themselves in harm’s way in the depths of the ocean are worthy of our gratitude and respect.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
My hon. Friend mentioned HMS Vengeance. I am sure that, like all of us, he has seen the report in The Sun newspaper of two days ago that says that HMS Vengeance has now been at sea for 210 days, which marks the longest deterrent patrol in western naval history. Does he agree that that is a supremely impressive feat of naval achievement, in that those people have been at sea for so long to keep this nation safe?
John Cooper
My right hon. Friend makes a fantastic point. It is quite incredible—absolutely jaw-dropping—that those people are out there in incredibly difficult circumstances for so long, beyond what could reasonably be expected. Again, I hope that the Minister can touch on this: it seems that something has gone wrong. The length of patrols is increasing, and this one has reached a record level. It is remarkable.
I mentioned the sea creature, but today’s oceanic terrors are slightly different: ultra-quiet Russian submarines, autonomous uncrewed robot submersibles, and mines triggered by nothing more than the unique sound signature of our boats. Whether operating under the Arctic ice, in the shallow waters of the Med, east of Suez, in the old battlegrounds of the western approaches, in the bitter waters off the Kola peninsula or in the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap, today’s submariners still play high-stakes cat and mouse with Crazy Ivan, a worthy opponent. Are we supporting them fully when the infamously aggressive all-or-nothing Perisher course for submarine commanders, run in the narrow waters of the Kilbrannan sound in Scotland, has ground to a standstill for a lack of Astute boats? A century and a quarter of silent service must not be torpedoed by defence spending cutbacks. The men and women who earned their dolphins fear no enemy bar the accountants of Whitehall.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is always an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank, in all sincerity, the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for securing this really important debate. It is a pleasure and an honour to speak in it and to celebrate with everyone here the 125th anniversary of our submarine service.
I will let you into a secret, Sir Roger. When I was at school, we were tasked in our French lessons to say what we wanted to be when we were older. I remember exactly what I said but I cannot promise that the French is correct. I said: “Je voudrais être un capitaine de sous-marin.” I hope that there is nobody here who actually speaks French, because they will probably tell me that is completely incorrect. Then I looked more into what being the captain of a submarine would entail and I had second thoughts. I genuinely want to echo some of what was said earlier about the huge sacrifice and commitment that our submariners make to keep this country safe. I will add that I, too, get seasick.
Many hon. and right hon. Members will be asking what the Harlow connection is to our submarine service. I am honoured that the UK headquarters of Raytheon and its technology centre of excellence are in my constituency. Many hon. Members will be aware that Raytheon is involved in the development and production of both weapons systems and navigation systems for our submarine fleet. It is also responsible for the Barracuda mine-neutralisation system—and development of the software behind it—which helps to keep UK and allied waters safe. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all those who work in that vital area and keep us safe.
If you will allow me, Sir Roger, I also want to pay tribute to Harlow Sea Cadets. I was incredibly proud to see them alongside our Air Cadets and Army Cadets at our remembrance service on Sunday. They are a credit to our town, and I thank the volunteers who give up their time to ensure that that vital cadet service runs.
I wanted to find a story about a submarine from our past, because I think that telling stories about the brave endeavours of our submariners is important in a debate such as this. I looked through a few examples, and I came across that of HMS Triumph, which Members may be aware struck a mine on Boxing day in 1939. The explosion was so powerful that it temporarily blinded the men who were on the bridge of the submarine. The mine caused catastrophic damage: an 18-foot section of the submarine’s bow was blown off and a 12-foot split was opened in the hull.
HMS Triumph was in German-patrolled waters and was so badly damaged that it could no longer dive. It was leaking heavily, with its pumps working continuously to keep it afloat. The commanding officer, Lieutenant Commander John Wentworth McCoy, decided to bring the submarine home and embarked on a 300-mile journey back to the Firth of Forth in Scotland. On occasions, the submarine travelled at speeds as low as 2.5 knots, making it vulnerable to German attack throughout the journey.
As the submarine approached the Scottish coast, a German bomber spotted it and prepared to attack. Fortunately, before the bomber could strike, British fighter aircraft intervened and it was driven away. Thanks to the incredible leadership of Lieutenant Commander John Wentworth McCoy and his incredibly brave crew, HMS Triumph made it safely back to port despite being close to breaking apart. I think we can recognise the heroic nature of that crew, who faced several additional dangers: a crumpled bulkhead, a damaged torpedo, and steering gear that was severely damaged and barely functioning.
Of course, we are talking about the 125 years of our submarine service, and there will be many stories of incredible bravery and commitment, but I wanted to take the opportunity today to share just one of them. I put on record my thanks to all our submariners, past and present, for everything they do to keep our country safe.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It was an inspired idea of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) to mark the 125th anniversary of the founding of the submarine service today, the eve of the anniversary of Armistice Day. In preparation I spent time happily reminiscing about my schooldays in the 1960s, when I devoured a large range of books about the history of the Royal Navy in general and of submarines in particular. In those days there were still people alive who had participated in the battles of the first and the second world wars, and many of them were writing books. I will begin with a quotation from one of those books:
“When submarines first became units of the fighting fleets of the world in the early years of the twentieth century, they were unimpressive, unseaworthy craft equipped with an unreliable, low performance weapon. Those who manned them were, like the early aviators, looked on as harmless cranks. When the First World War broke out, they had not entirely lived down this reputation. Sea-power was still believed by the orthodox sailor to lie with the squadrons of stately battleships.
But before that war was over Britain, at that time the world’s greatest naval power, had been brought to within sight of total defeat by the submarine in the hands of her enemies. At the same time British submarines, with fewer opportunities to show their potentialities, had dominated the Baltic Sea and held German sea-power at bay on behalf of Britain’s Russian ally.
Submariners had thus joined the front rank of fighting seamen, though they still formed a group apart. In doing so they had revolutionized naval warfare.”
The author of that preface to his book “Fighting Under the Sea” was Captain Donald Macintyre DSO and two bars, DSC. Together with Captain Johnnie Walker, he was one of the two most successful U-boat hunters of the second world war. In the 1960s, such people were writing up the lessons they had learned. It was a great opportunity for those of us studying such subjects to be in touch with them. Indeed, I have a letter from Captain Macintyre regretting the fact that I had been unable to obtain a copy of his first book “U-Boat Killer”, which describes his role in the battle of the Atlantic, and that he was unable to supply me with a copy because he himself had managed to pick up one only when the Boots library sold off stock. Today, with the computer revolution, a copy of “U-Boat Killer” can be obtained with a few taps of the keyboard. I commend it to those who are interested in the story of the other side of the submarine equation.
The other matter to which I would like to draw attention in the limited time available is the question of submarine escape. Hazardous as the profession was, a great deal of inventiveness and ingenuity was put into the idea of how it might be possible to survive if something went terribly wrong. Captain W. O. Shelford was the Navy specialist in submarine escape during the second world war and the 1950s. He wrote a book called “Subsunk” that I also commend because it tells of the tragedies and the successes in trying to save life when something goes wrong.
Let us remember that something terrible did go wrong shortly before the second world war. In 1939 in Liverpool bay the submarine HMS Thetis, on its maiden voyage with 103 people onboard because many of the people from the builders were taking part in what was supposed to be the first of its sea trials, sank due to a concatenation of circumstances that are almost unbelievable until read in the account of the disaster given in “The Admiralty Regrets” by Jim Warren and James Benson. Both those people, like Captain Macintyre, knew that of which they spoke. One had been a human charioteer in the second world war; the other had served in midget submarines. In that case, 103 people were trapped in a submarine. They managed to raise its stern above the surface of the water, yet only four people were able to escape. Subsequently, the submarine was raised and recommissioned as HMS Thunderbolt. It had a distinguished wartime career until, sadly, it was lost with all hands in the Mediterranean.
On the credit side, in terms of looking at the price that had to be paid, were some of the achievements that the submarine service wrote into history. One of the most famous was the midget submarine attack on the German battleship Tirpitz in the Norwegian fjord, where it was hiding in 1943. On that occasion, three midget submarines penetrated and at least two of them managed to lay their charges beneath the hull of the battleship. When they were captured—some of the crew survived; some sadly did not—and taken aboard, they said nothing about the mighty explosion they knew was about to happen underneath them. That explosion disabled the battleship for a considerable length of time.
One has to remember that they were very young men, but some of them went on to have distinguished careers. Two of the midget submarine commanders, Godfrey Place and Donald Cameron, were awarded the Victoria Cross. The third, Lieutenant Henty-Creer, was sadly not awarded the VC because his submarine was destroyed and it is not known whether they successfully laid their charges and were on the way out, or whether they were still trying to get in to lay them. I always feel there is an unfairness that the crew of the X5 did not get the same recognition as the commanders of the X6 and X7, who were awarded VCs. As I think Churchill once said, every medal “casts a shadow”. Lieutenant Godfrey Place went on to become a rear-admiral in charge of reserves. I am not allowed to display accessories while making a speech, but if anyone wants to see it, I still have the autograph of Rear-Admiral Place, as he then was, from when he visited Swansea to meet the reserves back in the 1960s.
I hope hon. Members can see from my enthusiasm, if not the rather unstructured way in which I have made my remarks, that 60 years later, some of us are still inspired by the memory of what it was like to read about the extreme peril that very young men put themselves into—usually, if not always, as volunteers. So many of them did not live to tell the tale, but my goodness, what a glorious page in British naval history they wrote.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for securing this debate celebrating an institute so deeply connected to my city of Portsmouth.
Portsmouth has a proud history with the Royal Navy submarine service. Just across the water, HMS Dolphin served as its home and headquarters from 1904 to 1999, training generations of submariners. I encourage all Members to visit the Royal Navy Submarine Museum in Gosport, where they can see Holland 1, the Navy’s first submarine, and walk through HMS Alliance to experience the extraordinary conditions in which submariners served during the second world war. The real gem is the moving and brilliant 15 oral life histories from submariners and their families, including words from Victor Crosby, a Pompey submariner who survived the sinking of HMS Saracen off of Corsica in August 1943. Sadly, Victor was captured by the Italians, but he escaped during the chaos following Italy’s surrender. He was hiding out with an Italian family, hoping to reached allied lines, but was tragically betrayed and shot by German military police. His grave remained unnamed for 75 years until historians established his identity. It is a remarkable story of sacrifice and a Portsmouth family loss.
The submarine service is not simply a part of history; it remains vital to our security today. For 125 years, the men and women of the silent service have protected our nation, often unseen, unrecognised and unthanked. From disrupting enemy shipping in two world wars and gathering intelligence in the cold war to delivering our continuous at-sea deterrent today, submariners have played an extraordinary role in keeping Britain safe. Every day beneath the waves they undertake demanding and often dangerous missions, spending long periods away from their families and children—some of whom I have taught in my city of Portsmouth—while knowing that much of their service will never be publicly recognised.
We should also recognise the fantastic work of charities and organisations such as the Submarine Family and We Remember Submariners, alongside wider Navy charity networks such as Aggie Weston’s and the Naval Children’s Charity. They provide vital practical, emotional and financial support to serving and former submariners and their families, including those facing hardship, bereavement and mental health challenges. Our responsibility to submariners does not end when they leave the submarine or hang up their uniform; we must stand by them and their families throughout their lives. I look forward to Portsmouth’s Op Valour centre playing its part in continuing that support. We owe them an enormous debt of gratitude.
The service’s contribution extends far beyond those at sea. Submarine construction and maintenance supports thousands of highly skilled jobs, sustains communities and protects vital sovereign industrial capabilities. I particularly welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to a new apprenticeship scheme for the Dreadnought programme. It is an important investment in Britain’s future skills and defence industry, but we should remember that Portsmouth was once a proud centre of submarine construction. A generation of skilled workers helped to build the fleet that protected our nation. That shipbuilding capability was lost, and Portsmouth’s historic role in naval shipbuilding was further diminished under the Conservative Government. For a city whose identity is so closely bound to the Royal Navy, that loss is still felt very deeply. As we invest in the next generation of submariners, I want to see Portsmouth’s naval heritage recognised and opportunities created for our city to play a greater role in Britain’s future defence industry.
Behind every submarine’s capability is people. We must ensure that this country looks after those who put their lives on the line to protect it. I welcome the Government’s over 14% pay raise for the armed forces, and I welcome investment in service accommodation and practical improvements to service life. However, there is more to do. The Minister will know that I have long campaigned for better paternity leave for our serving fathers. I want to see longer, better paid leave, alongside reform of how parental and compassionate leave are administered.
I have heard from service fathers that access to leave can vary considerably, with some reluctant to ask for support that they are entitled to because decisions rest with their commanding officer and they fear the consequences for their career. Operational requirements must of course come first, but I believe that an independent human resources body could help to make these decisions more consistently and fairly while protecting our operational effectiveness. I am pleased that the Minister for Veterans and People has agreed to meet me to discuss these issues, and I look forward to working with him to make progress.
As we mark 125 years of the Royal Navy submarine service, we should celebrate not just the vessels, the technology and the operations, but above all the people: the submariners, past and present, and the families who support them. The silent service may operate beneath the waves and away from public view, but its contribution to our country speaks volumes. For more than a century, submariners have served in the shadows so that the rest of us can live in safety and freedom. To every submariner, past and present, I offer my deepest gratitude, and to those currently out on deployment, I say, “Fair winds and following seas.”
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Mr Shannon, you have not a second more than five minutes.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for setting the scene incredibly well, to mark a truly monumental milestone in our nation’s history: the 125th anniversary of the Royal Navy submarine service.
The silent service has been the invisible shield safeguarding the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. From the gruelling unsung deployments of the cold war right through to today’s continuous at-sea deterrent, our submariners have stood fast in the deep. They have operated in the most hostile, claustrophobic and demanding environments known to mankind. Winston Churchill said of them:
“Of all the branches of men in the forces there is none which shows more devotion and faces grimmer perils than the submariner.”
I want to use my time today to put on record the immense, proud and historic contribution that Northern Ireland has made to the 125-year legacy. Our province’s history is inextricably linked to the survival and success of the submarine fleet. During the battle of the Atlantic it was the port of Londonderry’s HMS Ferret that served as the UK’s most westerly naval base. It was from our waters that the horrendous fight against enemy U-boats was co-ordinated, keeping our nation’s vital supply lines alive. It was also on the shores of Lisahally in Northern Ireland in May 1945 that the mass surrender of the German U-boat fleet took place—a moment of triumph etched forever into our local history.
Furthermore, during the darkest days of the troubles, our maritime borders were kept safe by the brave deployments of the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. We remember operations such as Op Granada where vessels such as HMS Cachalot—a traditional diesel-electric patrol submarine—carried out elite Special Boat Service kayak insertions along the rugged coast from Torr Head to Garron to intercept the IRA’s illegal arms smuggling and protect innocent lives on land.
Northern Ireland’s connection to the silent service is not just a relic of the past; it is an active and living relationship. Right now, Northern Ireland businesses and engineering firms are the ones providing the high-tech muscle and keeping our modern fleet moving. Just recently, Magherafelt-based construction firm Henry Brothers secured millions of pounds in infrastructure contracts at HMNB Clyde, delivering the critical facility upgrades to sustain the current Vanguard class and pave the way for next-generation Dreadnought nuclear deterrent submarines. Our local workers are literally building the secure facilities that allow our submariners to deploy. Let us also not forget the engineering heritage of Harland and Wolff, whose Belfast workforce has historically stood ready to repair and refit the vessels that keep our seas secure.
When a submarine slips under the waves, it disappears from public view, but it never disappears from our minds. The isolation and sacrifice of missing births, deaths and family milestones along with the heavy burden of absolute secrecy is a weight carried not just by the crew but also by the families waiting anxiously back home in Strangford and across the UK. As we mark 125 years, we remember the nearly 6,000 submariners who have gone on eternal patrol and never returned home. We owe them a debt that we can never fully repay.
What has never changed is the courage of the people. The courage, technical excellence and sheer grit of the British submariner remains exactly the same. Northern Ireland is very proud of its role in this history, proud of its industry supporting the fleet today and proud to stand with the silent service for the next 125 years.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) on securing this debate.
The first debate I led in Westminster Hall on 15 January 2025 was also on the UK submarine service. It is an important issue which we should always keep coming back to periodically—perhaps some of our colleagues from other parts of the United Kingdom will take turns next time round.
I want to talk about the naval base and dockyard at Rosyth in my constituency. Just last week I had a ten-minute rule Bill on submarine recycling—a programme which I will come back to later. Rosyth was a critical part of the submarine service during world war one, from where squadrons of submarines left for the battle of Jutland. In the second world war it was particularly a base for Polish submarines. If anyone has the time, including perhaps the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who is sitting opposite, to read up on the history of the Polish submarine Orzeł, they will find that it is a fantastic story about not only the boat itself while it was based at Rosyth, but the antics—shall we say—of some of the crew, which are famous around Fife. I am delighted that there is a memorial to the crew of the Orzeł and other Polish members of the community who served with the Royal Navy in world war two being constructed very close to Rosyth. It is a reminder that when the UK fights wars, we tend to fight them with our allies and that we will continue to do so in the future.
Rosyth is also a very key part of current submarine activity. We currently have missile tubes for Dreadnought-class submarines being constructed at Rosyth with fantastic hard work and high-end manufacturing being done there. Indeed, the manufacturing standards are so high that they are also building the same equipment for the US Columbia-class submarines. Anyone who has dealt with anything about defence will know that for the Americans to give up that level of investment in one of their key pieces of technology shows exactly how important that workforce is. Indeed, they are also building parts of the next Virginia-class submarines as well. Again, that is a testament to the fantastic workforce at Rosyth.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
Just across the river from South East Cornwall is HMNB Devonport, which has been at the heart of our naval history for more than 300 years. As my hon. Friend makes clear, the interoperability and the support of the defence supply chain across the country, from Cornwall to Scotland, are crucial. Just yesterday, I had the absolute privilege of visiting the naval base and HMS Anson to see at first hand how the base and the incredible servicemen and women are on the frontline of our defence. We are talking about 300 years of history and a huge future for our Navy. Does he agree that the UK Government are demonstrating our commitment by investing more than £7 billion in Devonport’s facilities and that that will be a great opportunity for the servicemen and women I met yesterday going forward?
Graeme Downie
I agree entirely. I was about to move on to talk about submarine recycling, something that is of course shared between Devonport and Rosyth. I have never been on a submarine while it has been in service, as my hon. Friend has. However, I was privileged to go on to HMS Swiftsure, which is currently being recycled at Rosyth dockyard. More than 60% has already been completed—more than 90% of it will be recycled and reused in other submarines and for other defence uses, including in Dreadnought, guaranteeing jobs across the UK as a vital part of the submarine supply chain.
Something that I will repeat in this House over and over again is the need to take advantage of the highly skilled workforce we have at Rosyth, who are currently undertaking submarine recycling. Swiftsure having almost been finished, there are six further submarines currently sitting at Rosyth: Resolution, Churchill, Revenge, Renown, Repulse and HMS Dreadnought. It is quite something to think that we are about to have going into service a new HMS Dreadnought when the previous HMS Dreadnought is still sitting in Rosyth, waiting for something to be done to it. The skilled workforce there are ready to do that. If my hon. Friend the Minister is able to give me any update—I always ask for an update on the next stages of the submarine recycling programme— I would be very grateful, because there is a huge opportunity not only for UK submarines, but for that facility to become a centre of excellence for the world. This is something that has never been done before, but is now being done by the incredibly skilled team at Rosyth.
I will finish by echoing the words of colleagues from across the House and saying that we must always remember the critical and unique role that submariners play in our defence. That has been echoed by the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway and others. They have spoken about the silent service and the pressures of not being in contact that both submariners and their families must endure. We should always be grateful not only to the submariners themselves, but to their families for allowing them to protect our country.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for initiating this debate on the 125th anniversary of the submarine service.
The Liberal Democrats pay tribute to the courage and discipline of all those Royal Navy submariners who serve far beneath the waves. The UK has a proud maritime heritage, and for more than a century our subsea fleet has given our island home a critical strategic advantage. Royal Navy submarine crews operate undetected for months at a time, in cramped conditions, at a classified depth, hundreds of metres below sea level. At that depth, the water pressure is five times the fatal limit for a human being. Every person who serves in our armed forces deserves our respect, but we should acknowledge that this kind of service takes a special kind of bravery.
In the first few decades after 1901, early submarines were both experimental and dangerous. In my constituency of North Devon, a memorial in the coastal town of Ilfracombe bears the names of two local men: Leading Seaman George David Cook and Engine Room Artificer David Bennington. Sadly, both were killed in the sinking of HMS Affray in the channel in 1951. That was the last Royal Navy submarine to be lost at sea. They were just two of the brave souls who served somewhere most of us cannot imagine going.
Thankfully, modern submarines are much safer and more advanced, but looking back, we can see that the submarine service and the advent of the submarine era “torpedoed” all the accepted wisdom of naval strategy. At the time, Admiral Sir Arthur Wilson famously condemned early submarines as
“underhanded, unfair, and damned un-English”.
He is often said to have described submariners as little better than pirates, even as the Royal Navy began exploring the technology’s true potential. It is just as well that we learnt quickly.
In the past 125 years, the UK has twice seen off the terrible danger of the U-boat threat, during two world wars, while our subsea fleet has become one of the most lethal capabilities of the Royal Navy, first with conventional and now with nuclear-powered submarines, providing everything from cruise missile launch to covert naval deployment of special forces and the UK’s round-the-clock nuclear deterrent. NATO now maintains the submarine rescue system—the NSRS—which is led by the UK, France and Norway.
However, despite all the advances of the last 125 years, we know that rescuing a stranded submarine crew is difficult, and that the duty that crews volunteer for is unique. Far beneath the waves, the submarine service developed its own culture and identity—its own slang and traditions. Having served in the armed forces myself, I know just how much comes back to personnel, grit and character. Faced with isolation, stressful deployments and patrols of six months or longer at sea, it is training and teamwork that sets a submarine crew apart. That would have been just as familiar to Drake or Nelson as it is to the Royal Navy today. Last November, the Defence Committee had the chance to visit Faslane to see the work and dedication of those personnel for ourselves.
Senior figures in the Navy have expressed concerns about the difficulty of recruiting and retraining personnel for this highly specialised service several times. Changing that means making it clear that we hold the submarine service in great admiration. The silent service are a breed apart. They are usually unseen, but their duties are immense, and on this anniversary, we pay tribute to their heroism.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) on securing this important debate on the 125th anniversary of the Royal Navy’s submarine service, and for introducing it so ably.
I declare two interests: first, my late father, Stoker First Class Reginald Francois, served in the Royal Navy during the second world war, although he was a minesweeper man, not a submariner; and secondly, I am, by virtue of my father’s service, a long-standing honorary member of the Rayleigh branch of the Royal Naval Association. Members of the Rayleigh RNA were out in force on Remembrance Sunday, led by their chairman Mike Sandbrook, who is a former submariner. I am wearing my RNA tie this evening.
Despite Admiral Wilson’s strictures, which we heard about from the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome), the Royal Navy’s first operational submarine, the Holland 1, entered service in 1901. It was built in Barrow-in Furness, which is where BAE Systems builds our nuclear submarines today. The submarine service began the first world war with some 60 submarines. Those gave good service to the King, as evidenced by the fact that five of the 14 Victoria Crosses awarded to the Royal Navy during the great war went to submariners. The Royal Navy began world war two with a similar number of submarines, although by 1945, that number had more than trebled. RN submarines operated in the Atlantic and Pacific, but perhaps most famously in the Mediterranean—my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway has already mentioned the exploits of HMS Upholder.
During the cold war, the Royal Navy transitioned to primarily nuclear propulsion, and our first nuclear attack submarine, HMS Dreadnought, was commissioned in 1960. RN submarines played an important role in the Falklands war of 1982. That includes the HMS Conqueror famously torpedoing the Argentinian cruiser, the General Belgrano, and returning to port flying a Jolly Roger. Later classes of attack submarine—the Swiftsures and Trafalgars—continued the noble tradition of protecting the seas, as is now performed by the latest Astute class.
In 1968, the Royal Navy assumed the role of providing our nuclear deterrent from the Royal Air Force, and the Resolution class of ballistic missile submarines entered service. From then onwards, at least one Royal Navy nuclear deterrent submarine has always remained at sea, in the ocean depths, providing the ultimate guarantee of our national security. That mission, known as the continuous at-sea deterrent, or Op Relentless, has been successfully performed for more than 57 years. That is an amazing tribute to the professionalism and endurance of Royal Navy submariners.
The Royal Navy also has an extremely proud tradition of utilising its nuclear attack submarines to monitor potential adversaries, particularly the Russian navy as it seeks to operate in the High North and the north Atlantic. Nevertheless, as we have already heard, there are also concerns about the availability of our attack submarine fleet.
It is an oft-forgotten fact that Vladimir Putin’s father was a submariner and Putin has continued to invest heavily in his submarine fleet and increase the monitoring by Russian submarines of undersea cables around the British Isles that are absolutely fundamental to our commercial life.
In the light of that, it is deeply worrying that, for a period of several months earlier this year, not a single one of our attack submarines was at sea, as is well known to the Chinese and the Russians. Perhaps when the Minister responds to this debate, he can explain why that was the case and, even more importantly, what is being done to fix that situation. It is simply unacceptable that the Astutes, which cost £1.5 billion each, are tied up alongside for long periods when the Russians are roving at will in the north Atlantic. The wall of silence about the chronic unavailability of the Astute class cannot go on; I would like the Minister to address that issue when he responds.
In summary, the Royal Navy’s silent service, whose motto is “We Come Unseen”, has an extremely proud tradition of service to this nation. It takes a quite extraordinary individual to be prepared to serve at sea, often for months at a time, especially on deterrent patrols that take them away from friends and family, and without access to so much as a mobile phone. The nation rightly remains proud of those who wear dolphins and will no doubt continue to give valiant and resolute service to the people of these islands, just as successfully as they have done for the past 125 years.
The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)
It is a pleasure, Sir Roger, to serve under your chairmanship for the first time in my role.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) on securing this debate and giving us this opportunity to recognise 125 years of the Royal Navy submarine service. This anniversary is an opportunity to reflect on the service’s extraordinary history, to recognise generations of submariners and the families who supported them, and to remember those who gave their lives serving our country. The work of submariners often depends on remaining unseen, but today we can ensure that their contribution is properly recognised.
On 2 October 1901, the launch of Holland 1 marked the beginning of the Royal Navy’s submarine story, as we have already heard. During both world wars, submariners distinguished themselves in conditions that demanded exceptional courage, skill and endurance, engaging in everything from reconnaissance to disrupting enemy supply lines.
The introduction of nuclear propulsion brought another profound change. In 1963, HMS Dreadnought entered service as Britain’s first nuclear-powered submarine. Six years later, the Resolution class of submarines began our continuous at-sea deterrent. Successive generations of submariners have maintained that deterrent without interruption. That unbroken mission depends on a crew at sea, on those preparing to take their place and on everyone ashore whose work makes each patrol possible.
Alongside providing deterrence, our submariners gather intelligence, hunt hostile submarines, protect maritime forces and offer the ability to strike targets at sea and on land. Their ability to operate undetected gives the UK options that few other capabilities can provide, and much of their work cannot be discussed publicly. Operational security rightly limits what we can say about individual deployments and the readiness or availability of particular submarines.
Mr Francois
Before the Minister chides me for discussing submarine movements in Parliament, I am not doing so; I am discussing the absence of submarine movements. So, either now or before he ends his speech, will he tell the House why not a single one of our nuclear attack class submarines—the Astute class—was at sea for months?
Mr Bailey
I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford for setting himself up, because I will take great pleasure in explaining to him why we are in that position.
However, I will first explain that a central part of democracy is the ability to report responsibly on submarine operations. Crews cannot reply to speculation, and their families cannot be told where their loved ones are. Unfounded guesses about the activities of a boat, particularly a submarine on a deterrent patrol, leave a husband, a mother or a child at home worrying about when they will next see the brave sailors who crew our submarines. For that reason, I urge responsibility in discussions about these matters.
The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway asked me to shed light on why we are here. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford has so passionately set himself up to hear why. It is quite clear that the cuts made in the 2010 strategic defence and security review did the damage that we are trying to recover from now. Let us be clear: it was the Opposition who deferred the replacement of Vanguard by four years, and it was the Opposition who slowed the Astute build.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. If the Minister wishes to give way, he will. He does not have to.
Mr Bailey
Thank you, Sir Roger. It was an 8% cut in real terms that did lasting damage, taking us from 2.6% of GDP down to 2.1%. This Government have taken us from 2.3% when we entered office to 2.7%, and we will go on towards 3% in 2030. We have had to put £26 billion into our bases to recover from the damage that the Opposition did—£15.1 billion in Clyde, including the purchase of three new floating docks and shoreside maintenance facilities to fix the underinvestment, and, as we have heard, an investment of £7.1 billion at Devonport.
I urge some humility at a moment when we are trying to talk about the submarine service. Scrutiny strengthens our armed forces, but careless disclosure and discussion—and using our service people as a political football—do not support our armed forces; they damage the people and families who are out there serving and putting their lives at risk for us.
Chris Vince
I want to make this point because I heard other hon. Members mention it, and I know my wife would not forgive me if I did not. We have spoken very passionately about submariners and the sacrifice that they make, but the Minister is absolutely right to identify the huge sacrifice that their families make, particularly in relation to the nuclear deterrent. Those families cannot know where their loved ones are—that is a huge sacrifice. Does he agree?
Mr Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow, who spoke so passionately about the contribution of Raytheon, about and the wonderful Sea Cadets in his constituency and about HMS Triumph. He has just made the point that I was trying to make earlier: we need to be responsible in our reporting and discussions. We need discussions that challenge but are respectful of those who cannot respond when they are used as a political football.
I wear this tie of the submarine service today because, from 2017 to 2020, I worked in the Ministry of Defence alongside some incredible submariners. Every Monday, I had to go up to see some of the colleagues I now work opposite and explain to them why our systems and services were in such a mess. Every Monday, we had to explain the damage that had been done to the submarine service and to the Royal Air Force.
I welcome the comments from the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who gave an excellent account of the U-boats. I have a reading list from him about the U-boat killers and the importance of the aircraft that support our submarines. Again, I point to the aircraft that were deleted in the 2010 SDSR. We should all remember the loss of the XV230, the Nimrod from 120 Squadron under the captainship of Flight Lieutenant Squires, which was lost 20 years ago this year, and the 14-person crew—12 RAF, one Royal Marine and one Parachute Regiment—who lost their lives. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for recognising the contribution of those airmen as part of the undersea mission. I also felt great pride during his discussion of “Subsunk”. I was held at readiness to deliver that mission.
I want to acknowledge those who support the service ashore: our engineers, dockyard workers, designers, civil servants and industrial partners who build and sustain the submarines on which it depends.
Graeme Downie
I thank the Minister for setting out how the Government are putting in place the infrastructure necessary for the future of the submarine service. On a very specific point, will he raise with his officials the need to upgrade the contingent docking facility at Rosyth? That would allow it to host HMS Dreadnought as part of ensuring the continuous at-sea deterrent for decades to come.
Mr Bailey
My hon. Friend is a doughty champion not only for our servicepeople and the submarine service, but for his constituency. In response to his question about Rosyth, HMS Swiftsure is a demonstrator of the necessary recycling capabilities. Again, I have to point to the fact that although an abundance of submarines and boats in my hon. Friend’s constituency require fixing, the party of the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford chose not to address that. I welcome my hon. Friend’s championing of that point; I was pleased to see his appointment to the Select Committee on Defence.
Jim Shannon
In my contribution, I referred to the critical role that Northern Ireland played during the second world war. I also paid tribute to what the submariners and the Royal Marines did in the conflict in Northern Ireland by stopping illegal weapons coming from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree—I know he will—that we are not often told about that critical role for our security?
Mr Bailey
I agree with the hon. Member about the centrality of Northern Ireland, which I think is symbolically represented in the capturing of the German U-boat fleet during the second world war. That is why, very early on in my role, I made two visits to Northern Ireland to recognise its contribution to our services and defence industry.
This anniversary is also a moment for us to remember and honour—we are on the eve of Armistice Day, so this is particularly fitting—those submariners who did not return and the families whose lives were changed forever by their loss. We remember the nearly 6,000 submariners and 150-plus submarines that never returned. Behind those figures are lives, friendships and families. They must never become simply numbers on a page or used as political footballs. The submarine community speaks of them as being on eternal patrol—an expression of remembrance and of a bond that does not end with death.
Doing justice to that history also means looking ahead. The Dreadnought programme will provide the next generation of CASD. Advanced attack submarines from AUKUS will carry forward the service’s tradition of technological innovation. But our gratitude must be more than that.
I will stray from my script. As I was sitting next to two incredible submarine captains in the Ministry of Defence, they encouraged me to wear the tie of their service today. I will never walk past the dolphins— I understand their importance. I hope that everything I do is reflective of their service.
John Cooper
I will be as brief as I can. As a former journalist, I have to say that it is right that we scrutinise the military; it is not a political football. We have not really heard what is wrong with Astute-class submarines. To paraphrase Admiral Beatty at the battle of Jutland, something appears to be wrong with our bloody ships.
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. It has been a tremendous opportunity to pay tribute to the stoicism and bravery of submariners throughout the ages, which has sadly and too often been tinged with tragedy, as we have heard. We can all go home tonight and sleep safely in our beds knowing that they are out there somewhere, watching over us.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the 125th anniversary of the submarine service.
Written Corrections
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministerial Corrections
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Women and Equalities
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Satvir Kaur
We want to ensure that all employers are supporting their employees’ health and wellbeing, because that will benefit the employees and their organisation. That is why the Government are getting large employers to publish action plans, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate mentioned, setting out how they will make meaningful changes to tackle the barriers women face throughout their working lives, including the steps being taken to improve support for menopause and endometriosis and to address the gender pay gap.
[Official Report, 3 November 2026; Vol. 792, c. 385WH.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Equalities, the hon. Member for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur):
Satvir Kaur
We want to ensure that all employers are supporting their employees’ health and wellbeing, because that will benefit the employees and their organisation. That is why the Government are getting large employers to publish action plans, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate mentioned, setting out how they will make meaningful changes to tackle the barriers women face throughout their working lives, including the steps being taken to improve support for menopause and to address the gender pay gap.
Work and Pensions
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Pritchard
The Secretary of State talks about jobs hubs. May I gently say to him that the best jobs hub of all is a business that is expanding and that the best youth hub of all is a business taking on apprentices? He mentions a wide range of schemes to try to get young people back into work. In The Wrekin, youth unemployment has risen by 27.8% in the last 12 months alone. A lot of the schemes are in urban areas. What is he going to do for my young constituents who live in rural and semi-rural counties such as Shropshire?
Pat McFadden
The right hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the importance of jobs. That is why he will be pleased to know that there are 243,000 more people in work than at this time last year. He will also be pleased to know that the employment rate in the UK is higher today than in all but one of the 14 years when his party was in power.
[Official Report, 12 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 11.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Pat McFadden):
Pat McFadden
The right hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the importance of jobs. That is why he will be pleased to know that there are 243,000 more people in work than at this time last year. He will also be pleased to know that the employment rate in the UK is today higher than, or as high as, it was in all but two of the 14 years when his party was in power.
Helen Whately
… Young people tell me they want real jobs. That is why we will halve national insurance for 21 to 24-year-olds, so it is cheaper for businesses to hire them. Under the Conservatives, there will be thousands more jobs for young people. Will the Secretary of State get the Chancellor to use his Budget to do the same?
Pat McFadden
…The employment rate in the UK today is higher than in every year but one of the Conservatives’ 14 years in power.
[Official Report, 12 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 11.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions:
Pat McFadden
… The employment rate in the UK today is higher than, or as high as, it was in every year but two of the Conservatives’ 14 years in power.
Written Statements
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Notification of Contingent Liability
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (John Healey)
The independent Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England decided at its meeting ending on 3 February 2022 to reduce the stocks of UK Government bonds and sterling non-financial investment-grade corporate bonds held in the asset purchase facility by ceasing to reinvest maturing securities. The Bank ceased reinvestment of assets in this portfolio in February 2022 and commenced sales of corporate bonds on 28 September 2022, and sales of gilts acquired for monetary policy purposes on 1 November 2022. The sales of corporate bonds ceased on 6 June 2023, with a small number of outstanding corporate bonds reaching maturity on 5 April 2024. Therefore, the APF is now comprised solely of gilts. On 17 September 2026 the MPC announced it will unwind the APF through an annual sales pace of £20 billion in purchase proceeds terms until gilts held for monetary policy purposes are fully unwound by the end of 2034. Taking the maturity profile into account, this is equivalent to an average annual stock reduction of £46 billion. In addition, £120 billion of the longest dated gilts in purchase proceeds terms will be held to maturity by the Bank for the purposes of indirectly backing current and future banknote issuance.
The Chancellor at the time agreed a joint approach with the Governor of the Bank of England in an exchange of letters on 3 February 2022 to reduce the maximum authorised size of the APF for asset purchases every six months, as the size of APF holdings reduces.
Since 5 May 2026 when the maximum authorised size of the APF was last reduced, the total stock of assets held by the APF has fallen further from £524.9 billion to £482.4 billion. In line with the approach agreed with the Governor, the authorised maximum total size of the APF has therefore been reduced to £482.4 billion, comprising entirely of gilts, of which £362.4 billion is authorised to be held for monetary policy purposes and £120 billion is authorised to be held for the purposes of indirectly backing current future banknote issuance.
The risk control framework previously agreed with the Bank will remain in place, and HM Treasury will continue to monitor risks to public funds from the APF through regular risk oversight meetings and enhanced information sharing with the Bank.
There will continue to be an opportunity for HM Treasury to provide views to the MPC on the design of the schemes within the APF, as they affect the Government’s broader economic objectives and may pose risks to the Exchequer.
The Government will continue to indemnify the Bank, the APF and its directors from any losses arising out of, or in connection with, the facility. Provision for any payment due under the liability will continue to be sought through the normal supply procedure.
A full departmental minute has been laid before Parliament providing more detail on this contingent liability.
[HCWS462]
Single Living Accommodation: Independent Review
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)
The Government recognise that for too long, military accommodation has fallen short of the standards our service people expect and deserve. This Government are committed to making this right, and last year, we published the Defence housing strategy to deliver a generational renewal to fix family housing.
We also recognised the need to fundamentally reform accommodation for single and unaccompanied personnel. That is why, in January, the Government commissioned an independent review into single living accommodation, led by Natalie Elphicke Ross OBE. I am pleased to announce that, today, Natalie has published the SLA review report. The Government welcome the review and its recommendations.
The Government will consider all 19 recommendations in more detail before setting out a full response in the coming months. Given the scale of change being proposed, it is essential that we take the time to get this right and put in place the foundations needed to deliver meaningful change for our people.
This is a substantial piece of work that has examined the full spectrum of SLA provision, from how it is managed and maintained to how it is funded and delivered. The review highlights the vital role that military accommodation plays in the lived experience of our armed forces personnel, and the contribution it makes to recruitment, retention, wellbeing and operational effectiveness. It also identifies the systemic issues that have contributed to poor living standards, including shortcomings in the Department’s governance and oversight of accommodation. I am extremely grateful to Natalie, the review team, and the many service personnel and stakeholders who contributed their time, expertise and lived experience to this important work.
The report makes 19 recommendations, including to establish a new decent SLA standard; strengthen maintenance through a more preventative and proactive approach; improve personal safety, privacy and digital connectivity; modernise communal facilities; enhance the quality of accommodation data; and strengthen the accountability and oversight of accommodation reform across Defence. Taken together, these recommendations propose a fundamental reset of the Department’s approach to managing and delivering single living accommodation.
We are already taking steps to drive this work forward. Air Marshal Sir Paul Lloyd, Deputy Chief of the Air Staff, has agreed to oversee this important work and will be supported by teams from across Defence. One of their immediate priorities will be to assess the changes we can make to deliver a standard that better meets the needs of our people in single living accommodation.
I would like to reiterate my thanks to the review team for producing such a thorough report. We are determined to do right by our people and look forward to presenting our full response to Parliament in due course.
[HCWS458]
Flood Action Week: Correction to Written Statement HCWS370/HLWS378
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
On 13 October 2026 I made a written statement at the start of Flood Action Week. There were small errors in the section of the statement related to the targets for the flood and coastal erosion risk management investment programme.
The statement said:
Through this investment, we expect to:
better protect 200,000 properties;
increase the proportion of flood risk management assets at or above their required condition to 93.5%;
generate more than £27 billion of avoided economic damage, delivering almost £7 of benefit for every £1 invested;
create or enhance 2,500 hectares of habitat and improve 750 kilometres of river.
It should have said:
Through this investment, we expect to:
benefit 200,000 properties;
increase the proportion of flood risk management assets at or above their required condition to 93.5%;
generate more than £27 billion of avoided economic damage, delivering almost £7 of benefit for every £1 invested;
create or enhance 2,400 hectares of habitat and improve 750 kilometres of river.
[HCWS457]
Bovine TB Control Strategy for England: Government Response
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
I wish to update the House regarding the Government’s response to the co-designed bovine TB control strategy for England, which was published on 5 November 2026.
For too many farmers and their families, bovine TB has brought uncertainty, stress and financial hardship. I have enormous admiration for the resilience shown by those affected.
This Government believe that no farming family should have to accept this disease as an unavoidable fact of life and livelihood. This marks an important step towards making that vision a reality.
The co-designed strategy published in June this year sets out a long-term vision for England to achieve officially bovine TB-free status by 2038, and the actions needed to get there. Since its publication, officials have been considering its recommendations in detail. Taken together, these recommendations respond directly to the challenge set by Professor Sir Charles Godfray and his expert review panel to bring a step change in the urgency and focus of efforts to tackle bovine TB.
Realising this vision is about much more than reducing disease. It is about giving farmers greater confidence to invest, innovate and plan for the future.
Therefore, we have formally adopted the co-designed strategy in full and are endorsing its overall direction of travel as our long-term plan to tackle bovine TB in England.
Work is already under way to deliver several of the strategy’s recommendations.
This includes:
continued development of a deployable cattle vaccine and the companion “DIVA” skin test to detect infected amongst vaccinated animals. The final phase of DIVA field trials is complete, and a contract has been awarded to manufacture DIVA test reagents to good manufacturing practice standards. We will continue to progress these necessary steps to achieve domestic licensing requirements and international recognition. This progress is underpinned by the strategy’s ambition to deploy cattle vaccination by 2030;
a pilot to explore the use of privately funded ancillary TB blood testing to identify infection earlier and support risk-based disease management;
expansion of Government-funded mandatory interferon-gamma blood testing, helping to detect infection sooner, reduce breakdown duration and minimise consequential costs for farmers;
roll-out of badger vaccination in priority areas through the newly contracted badger vaccination field force, with three new vaccination areas already established and more to follow in 2027 and 2028; and
the introduction later this month of a new Government-funded scheme to collect and test found-dead badgers.
In our published response, we set out how we would welcome the co-design steering group using its first delivery plan to explore how compensation paid for the compulsory slaughter of cattle could better support shared responsibility and effective disease-risk reduction while maintaining confidence in the system.
Affected farmers already face significant financial and emotional impacts beyond those covered by compensation. At the same time, compensation represents a significant cost to taxpayers. We owe it to all to consider whether these arrangements remain appropriate, affordable and sustainable.
The co-designed strategy is built on a clear principle: lasting solutions are most effective when they are developed with those most directly affected.
That principle must remain at the heart of the next phase of bovine TB control.
That is why we will also take forward the recommendation to establish a new joint industry-Government board to replace the existing Bovine TB Partnership for England, launching a public appointments process for board members before Christmas, and establishing the board at the earliest opportunity in 2027.
We know that bovine TB will not wait for these new arrangements, so to maintain momentum, we have asked the existing co-design steering group to continue its work and develop the first delivery plan. That plan, to be published in late spring 2027, will be considered and endorsed by the new industry-Government board and set out the priority actions for delivery, including which recommendations will be taken forward first, how, and by whom they will be delivered.
The publication of the co-designed strategy in June was an important milestone. By formally adopting it as the Government’s official strategy, we carry through the momentum created by all those who contributed their time, expertise and experience to this work.
[HCWS456]
Regional Water Councils
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I welcome the opportunity to update the House on a critical step in the Government’s reform of England’s water system, one that demonstrates our commitment to strengthen local leadership, empower communities and ensure that essential services are accountable to the people and places they serve.
The Prime Minister has set a clear vision: a future where the services on which people depend every day are affordable, accountable and, crucially, shaped by strong local leadership. These reforms are part of this Government’s drive to move power out of Westminster and give communities greater control over the services and investment that shape their lives. My priority is ensuring that the water sector serves the public, not private interests, to ensure that the basic essentials of clean water and a healthy environment are protected for us all to enjoy.
Regional Water Councils
That is why the Secretary of State has asked strategic authority mayors—and council leaders where mayors are not yet in place—across England to work together to establish eight regional water councils, one in each river basin district.
These councils will bring together people with a stake in their local water system, including local leaders, businesses, environmental organisations, farmers, infrastructure providers, community and democratic representatives such as MPs and others. Together, they will identify the priorities, challenges and opportunities in their local water system and shape the planning processes currently under way in the water sector and more widely.
The valuable knowledge, relationships and local understanding of catchment partnerships across England will be critical to the success of regional water councils. They will help connect local and catchment-level expertise with wider regional conversations, ensuring that regional priorities are rooted in the realities of local communities and environments.
Strategic devolution
The House will recognise that many of the challenges identified do not operate at a national scale. Nor do they stop at local authority boundaries. Water resources, flood risk, environmental improvement and economic growth are often shared across whole river catchments and regions, but the specific challenges faced, and appropriate responses, are unique to local people and place. Involving local leaders from an early stage will ensure that local priorities are properly reflected within water planning.
Under the new model, mayors or council leaders will have a leading role in ensuring that outcomes reflect the unique context and interests of the region. A stronger regional approach, underpinned by local representation, will help organisations plan more effectively around common priorities, identify opportunities for collaboration and support investment that delivers benefits for communities, the economy and the environment. Ultimately, this new model will support a future where services are shaped to local needs and accountabilities lie with local leaders.
Early rollout
The strengthened Water Bill, which will be introduced next year, will set out further details on the future framework for regional water planning. However, major planning and investment decisions are already being developed. Waiting for legislation would mean missing an important opportunity for regions to contribute to decisions being made now. I believe it is imperative that regional perspectives inform those discussions and that local leaders are able to provide their input on the development of the new system from the outset.
Work will therefore begin immediately. The Environment Secretary wrote to mayors, MPs, council leaders and other regional stakeholders on 5 November, inviting proposals to establish eight regional water councils. Regions will be asked to work together with pace and ambition to bring partners around the table and help shape the next phase of reform.
Demonstrating their commitment to supporting this work from the outset, the Government will provide £1 million to the councils to support technical expertise, partnership co-ordination and engagement activity this year.
Conclusion
People across the country are crying out for a fresh approach to the way we manage our water system. They want cleaner rivers and coastlines. Businesses want confidence that future infrastructure can support growth and investment. Environmental organisations want a more joined-up approach to improving water quality and restoring nature. Local leaders want stronger mechanisms for bringing partners together around shared priorities.
The launch of regional water councils represents an important step towards achieving a water system that works for people, nature and the economy.
[HCWS460]
Ebola: Medical Evacuation from DRC of a British Citizen
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Yvette Cooper)
I wish to update the House on a British citizen who is receiving treatment for Ebola at the Royal Free hospital in London. The thoughts of the whole Government are with the patient, their family and colleagues at this difficult time.
The patient is a British national and medical doctor who was working at an Ebola treatment centre in the Democratic Republic of the Congo when they contracted the disease. The individual’s employer arranged for their medical evacuation in collaboration with the World Health Organisation, and the Department of Health and Social Care and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office supported international and commercial partners to effect their safe transfer to the UK. The journey followed established infection prevention and control procedures, which also apply to everyone involved in the individual’s care.
The UK Health Security Agency, NHS England, the Royal Free hospital, the London ambulance service, other emergency services and local resilience partners worked together to ensure the patient’s onward journey to hospital, ensuring that this was undertaken in accordance with specialist HCID—high consequence infectious disease—infection prevention and control procedures.
The UK has robust and well-rehearsed systems for managing patients with diseases such as Ebola. These include dedicated treatment facilities and specialist clinical expertise through the HCID network. The patient was returned safely to the UK on 5 November and is receiving expert care at the Royal Free hospital, where strict infection prevention and control measures remain in place.
The UKHSA judges that the risk to the general public remains low. Ebola is not spread through the air in the way that flu or covid-19 can be. An infected person can only transmit the virus once symptoms have developed, and transmission requires direct contact with the bodily fluids of a symptomatic infected person, or with contaminated materials. The UK also has established surveillance and public health systems to identify and manage suspected cases, including specialist assessment, testing and contact tracing where required.
The ongoing outbreak in the DRC and surrounding areas is very serious. The Government continue to monitor the situation closely and to take appropriate steps to protect public health. The UK has advised against all travel to certain parts of the DRC. To safeguard those supporting healthcare and humanitarian efforts, UKHSA is operating the returning workers scheme to support and monitor people returning to the UK from affected areas. Information boards are in place at relevant UK ports of entry, providing information about the current outbreak and advising people who have returned from an affected area and feel unwell on how to seek help.
Internationally, the UK is using finance, technical expertise and diplomatic engagement to support locally led efforts and to strengthen health systems. The UK has allocated £78.7 million to support the country-led Ebola response in the DRC, to strengthen disease surveillance, support frontline health workers, improve infection prevention and control, expand access to treatment, strengthen community engagement and support safe burials. The UK is working in partnership with the WHO, the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, and humanitarian organisations to support the country-led Ebola response.
The UK is also supporting regional preparedness initiatives in countries including South Sudan, Zambia and Burundi, helping to build more resilient health systems and strengthen health security across the region. We are working with the WHO and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations to accelerate the development of vaccines, treatments and diagnostics to support the response to the Ebola outbreak in the DRC.
Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to everyone involved, including our partners in the DRC, who helped bring the patient home safely, and to the NHS staff who are now providing their care.
[HCWS464]
GP Winter Proactive Care Programme
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Public Health and Patient Safety (Dame Diana Johnson)
On 9 November, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announced that £40 million of funding will be reinvested in general practice to help GPs proactively identify and support up to 300,000 vulnerable patients this winter. This ringfenced funding will help keep people well at home, prevent serious illness and reduce avoidable hospital admissions as we strengthen preparations for extra pressure on the NHS over winter.
Selected patients with conditions including heart disease, frailty or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease will receive additional support from their GP tailored to their health needs, such as medication reviews, health checks and falls prevention support. This will help general practice play an even greater role in preparing the NHS for winter by keeping vulnerable patients well and helping prevent avoidable hospital admissions.
This programme comes alongside greater flexibility for practices to increase GP capacity as pressures rise. Since 1 October, practices can use GP reimbursement funding to bring in locum GPs, giving them greater freedom to respond to local demand and increase capacity during winter.
There are currently more than 2,800 additional GPs compared with July 2024, with more than 30,500 fully qualified full-time equivalent GPs working in general practice—the highest number in over a decade. Over 400 million appointments have been delivered over the past year, around 24 million more than in the equivalent period to July 2024. Almost half of patients now contact their GP digitally, helping make it easier to seek care throughout the day rather than facing the 8 am scramble.
We know this winter will present particular challenges for the NHS after the record levels of demand faced this summer. Preparations began in July, with a focus on strengthening urgent care and promoting vaccination.
Alongside the GP winter proactive care programme, we are investing £190 million announced at the Budget to help the NHS manage winter pressures and £140 million in new urgent care schemes. We are also working to boost flu vaccine uptake by expanding the number of pharmacies offering the vaccination and rolling out simpler digital booking tools.
There is more to do, but more GPs, more appointments and earlier support for vulnerable patients will help more people stay well at home while reducing avoidable pressure on the NHS this winter.
[HCWS463]
Railways Bill
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
My noble Friend the Minister of State for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) made the following ministerial statement on 9 November 2026.
I am pleased to inform the House that today the Government have laid an amendment to the Railways Bill to ensure that discounts for veterans and service personnel are protected in law. Veterans and service personnel currently benefit from railcards that provide one third off most rail fares, but until today have had no statutory protection for this discount. It is vital that those who give so much for our country have their service and sacrifice recognised, and that is exactly what we are doing by safeguarding these discounts in legislation.
Not only does this give reassurance to the armed forces community and their families that the provision of these discounts will continue, it also underlines our commitment to place passengers firmly back at heart of our railways through the establishment of Great British Railways (GBR).
This Government have been clear that for too long our railways have been run in the interests of profit not passengers. That is why we are setting up GBR to be a new organisation, with a new culture and mindset from the very beginning. GBR will place a relentless focus on the passenger experience by delivering the reliable, affordable and high-quality services that passengers want and deserve. No community will be left out of GBR’s railway—there are already statutory protections for discounts for young, elderly, and disabled people, and today we are ensuring that both those serving and those who have served our country are also prioritised for this protection.
By placing these discounts on a statutory footing, we are ensuring that future generations of veterans and service personnel can continue to access these benefits with confidence and certainty. It also builds on our recent expansion of free rail travel for a bereaved military family member attending Remembrance events, ensuring that travel costs are not a barrier to paying tribute to loved ones who made the ultimate sacrifice.
Taken together, these measures demonstrate our determination to recognise the contribution of the armed forces community through meaningful action. Ultimately, this amendment ensures that veterans and service personnel cannot be forgotten and that their service to this country will continue to be recognised across our railways for years to come.
[HCWS461]
Publishing Pay Information in Job Adverts
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Bridget Phillipson)
I have announced the Government’s intention to introduce a new statutory requirement for employers to publish pay information in job advertisements when parliamentary time allows. In the absence of a job advert, the employer must give the candidate this information in writing before the job interview.
This announcement follows our consultation on equal pay and pay discrimination, which ran from 14 July to 27 October. Early findings show overwhelming backing, with 94% overall support and 93% of surveyed employers in favour. This measure builds on that momentum, turning existing good practice into standard practice nationwide.
Publishing pay information is a small change that removes an everyday frustration felt by jobseekers and is part of the Government’s broader plans to tackle pay discrimination and help get more young people into work. Far too often, jobseekers are forced to enter an already competitive recruitment market “salary blind”, expending time and effort on applications without knowing whether a role will cover essential living costs. Pay transparency ensures recruitment is fair from the outset. It provides women with a stronger footing to negotiate starting salaries fairly, reducing the likelihood of lowball offers and helping tackle the gender pay gap, while delivering practical benefits to employers by saving recruitment time, attracting better-suited candidates, and fostering healthier competition for talent.
This announcement sits alongside our equal pay commitments, including:
Make the right to equal pay effective for ethnic minority and disabled people;
establish an equal pay regulation and enforcement unit with the involvement of trade unions;
ensure that outsourcing of services can no longer be used by employers to avoid paying equal pay.
More detail on the wider package will be shared in due course.
[HCWS459]
Grand Committee
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (Continuation) Order 2026
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (Continuation) Order 2026.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, this Order was laid before the House on 14 September 2026 and provides for the continuation of the Secretary of State’s powers under the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, also known as the TPIM powers. The continuation is for a further five years.
I think all noble Lords accept that it is the first duty of government to protect the public, and central to that mission is to counter the threat we face from terrorism—a threat which, sadly, is enduring and evolving. In response, there is a range of tools, including the powers conferred on the Secretary of State by the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, which I well recall, having dealt with it at the time as shadow Minister for these issues.
The measures ensure that, where prosecution or deportation is not possible, the Secretary of State can impose specified restrictions and requirements on an individual involved in terrorism-related activity, to protect the public from a risk of terrorism. 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. The orders were renewed twice, in 2016 and 2021, and these powers are due to expire at the end of 13 December 2026. As TPIMs remain an important part of the UK’s counter-terrorism toolkit, we seek to renew them today. This position is supported by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the director-general of the Security Service.
As noble Lords will know, the Secretary of State can 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. These conditions include that the Secretary of State reasonably believes that the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity, and 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, 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.
It may help noble Lords to know that, 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, there are four TPIMs currently in force.
These are undoubtedly restrictive measures, which is why it is right that 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, however, stringent safeguards. 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 and the conditions were 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 decided to make this statutory instrument to provide for the continuation of TPIM powers for a further five years, the maximum period allowable in the legislation. We take this step because, sadly, we still face significant terrorist threats, and it is necessary to continue upholding the first duty of government: securing the nation and keeping our citizens safe.
The House of Commons has considered this order, and I hope that noble Lords will also support it today. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, the Official Opposition support this order. The Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 gives the Home Secretary powers that are needed in the small number of cases where the threat is real, but prosecution is not possible. Without this order, those powers would lapse on 13 December this year. Continuing them until December 2031 is the responsible course of action and we will certainly not stand in the way of this.
However, I have a few questions for the Minister. First, he stated that four TPIM notices are currently in force. How has that figure changed since the last renewal of the powers in 2021? I appreciate he may not have those figures to hand. More broadly, is the Minister satisfied that the powers are being used in proportion to the threat rather than falling into disuse?
Secondly, what is the Government’s assessment of compliance and breaches? For instance, how often are TPIM subjects found to have absconded or breached their conditions? Does he believe that the police and security services are properly resourced to monitor them?
With those questions, I reiterate the support of the Official Opposition for this order.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for his broad support for TPIMs. They were introduced when the noble Baroness, Lady May, was Home Secretary; I shadowed her at that time, and we had some concerns, some of which were around the issues the noble Lord has mentioned. Absconds and breaches are important issues.
I can give the noble Lord some figures. Since 2017, 16 TPM subjects have been prosecuted, with breaching measures imposed on them, and 12 pleaded guilty. To date, three have been found guilty by a jury. Judges have imposed custodial sentences on individuals who have breached the terrorism prevention and investigation measures, which I hope demonstrates to the noble Lord and the Committee the seriousness with which courts take these breaches.
On conclusion of any custodial sentence, the Home Secretary has the power to revive the existing TPIM if it provides a necessary and proportionate response to any threat that the individual may still pose. It is important that I put on record that the breach of a terrorism prevention order is a criminal offence. Every suspected breach is treated seriously and investigated, and we will always work with the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to support prosecutions accordingly.
I mentioned in my opening remarks that we currently have four individuals on TPIMs. I hope the noble Lord will be reassured that we provide a quarterly update on the TPIMs figures, and we have had 33 since their instigation. Off the top of my head, I do not have the quarterly figures for before the latest quarter, but there are four existing TPIMs. We will give an update every quarter on the numbers to date.
The Secretary of State takes these powers very seriously. The number one priority is to ensure that a TPIM is proportionate. When the Secretary of State—the Home Secretary in this case—signs off that TPIM, they must have a full submission and a full examination of it, and they will challenge it to ensure it is required and necessary. The appellant can appeal in court against that TPIM, and therefore a robust case is always made. A breach or indeed an abscond is a serious matter, and TPIMs provide significant levels of control over a range of movements and locations. As the noble Lord will know, on a number of occasions we remove people to new locations, so they are broken away from other influences.
I say to the noble Lord that we can rest assured. When I was in his position as a shadow Minister in the House of Commons, I asked about and was concerned about absconds and breaches. Now, as a Minister in government working alongside the Home Secretary, I am confident that we have a regime that is minimising those breaches. As I said to him in relation to the figures, if breaches or absconds occur, we take them extremely seriously, and these cases will potentially result in a custodial sentence. With those remarks, I hope I have assured the Committee that the order is worthy of general support.
Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 (Display of Tobacco Products) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
That the Grand Committee do consider the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 (Display of Tobacco Products) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak also to the draft Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 (Age Verification Defence to Underage Sales) (England and Wales) Regulations 2026.
The Tobacco and Vapes Act, which received Royal Assent earlier this year, was landmark legislation that will deliver on the Government’s commitment to create a smoke-free generation and tackle youth vaping. As we know, smoking claims around 75,000 lives a year in the UK. That is why from 1 January 2027 it will be an offence to sell tobacco products, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009, which will help to create the UK’s first smoke-free generation. The Act has also strengthened protections for children by making it an offence to sell vaping products or nicotine products to anyone under the age of 18, closing loopholes in the previous age of sale requirements. This reflects our health advice that, while vapes can be an effective aid for adult smokers to quit smoking, children and non-smokers should never vape or use nicotine products.
The two instruments before the Committee today will support the effective implementation of the new age of sale measures in the Act. I begin with the age-verification regulations. The Act provides powers to set out in regulations steps that retailers may take to verify that a customer has reached the legal age of sale, as a defence to the age of sale offences. This instrument sets out the steps that would satisfy this defence in England and Wales. It aims to give retailers confidence about how they can verify the age of customers attempting to buy these products. It also provides for two alternative methods of age verification which will both satisfy the defence.
First, a person charged with an age of sale offence may rely on the defence where they can prove that they were shown a physical identity document bearing the customer’s photograph, a date of birth and a holographic mark or ultraviolet feature. These criteria capture common forms of ID such as passports, driving licences and PASS cards. Secondly, a retailer may rely on a digital proof of age. This must be verified and delivered through a digital verification service, known as DVS, which has been independently assessed against the UK DVS trust framework and is listed on the statutory DVS register.
The provisions on digital proof of age follow the passage of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, which placed the trust framework and the DVS register on a statutory footing. They also follow the coming into force of the Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Licensing Conditions) (Amendment) Order 2026, which enables the use of these services as part of alcohol sales. I shall be clear that there is no requirement for individuals to use digital proof of age, nor are businesses required to accept it. It simply provides an additional, voluntary option alongside physical documents.
In developing the criteria for physical and digital proof of age, we have considered three key aims. First, we have sought to mirror the criteria for physical and digital proofs of age that can be used for alcohol sales—something we rightly discussed in Committee. This aims to capture the many retailers who sell alcohol as well as tobacco, vaping and nicotine products, who will need to remember only one set of criteria. Secondly, the criteria ensure that a range of commonly used forms of ID can be accepted. Thirdly, we have sought to future-proof the regulations by ensuring that digital proof of age can be used alongside traditional physical documents. In other words, we are seeking to make this workable.
Neither the Act nor these regulations create a requirement for retailers to ask every customer for proof of age before every sale. The steps set out in this instrument are also not the only means of establishing a defence. The Act provides an alternative defence where a retailer can prove that they took “all reasonable steps” to avoid committing the offence. This is very much a re-enactment of the defence in previous tobacco and vapes legislation of having taken all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence. These regulations set out an additional, more prescriptive route to establishing a defence. A retailer who follows the steps in these regulations can have confidence that they would be able to demonstrate a statutory defence if they were ever subsequently challenged over a sale—another matter that arose, correctly, during Committee.
The next statutory instrument I will refer to relates to the display of tobacco products in retail premises. Under the current rules, introduced by the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002 and related regulations, retailers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are prohibited from displaying tobacco products. The 2002 Act includes an exemption that allows retailers to display tobacco products to a customer aged 18 or over, on their request, and a linked defence where a retailer mistakenly displays products to someone whom they reasonably consider to be 18 or over. This statutory instrument updates those provisions so that tobacco products can be displayed, on request, only to people born before 1 January 2009, aligning display restrictions with the new age of sale that comes into force on 1 January.
Without these amendments, under the current display legislation, individuals aged 18 and over could still be shown tobacco products, even if the products could not legally be sold to them. This would undoubtedly create an inconsistent and confusing position for retailers and could increase the risk of accidental underage sales. By aligning the age at which customers can be shown tobacco products with the new age of sale, we are aiming to help businesses comply with the law and to support effective enforcement.
These changes also aim to ensure the continued effectiveness of restrictions on tobacco display. We have decades of evidence to show that reducing the visibility and accessibility of tobacco products helps to reduce their appeal, particularly among young people. Restrictions on display also contribute to a more supportive environment for adults who are trying to quit smoking, by reducing exposure to tobacco products in everyday settings.
These regulations mark what I believe to be an important milestone in the implementation of the Tobacco and Vapes Act. They are a step towards creating a healthier future for today’s children and for generations to come, and I commend them to the Committee.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for missing the first 90 seconds of the Minister’s speech, which was the time it took me to sprint from my room to the committee corridor. I am grateful to the Minister for her lengthy explanation— it has enabled me to get my breath back. As she explained, these instruments follow from the Tobacco and Vapes Act, which is an Act I supported as a long-standing member of the APPG on Smoking and Health, and which actually carried forward a policy started by the previous Conservative Government. As the Minister has said, the first SI is relatively simple. It ensures that tobacco products, which cannot be displayed in shops, are not shown to anyone who is not old enough to be sold them—that is, anyone born after 1 January 2007.
The Government recently closed a consultation on extending point of sale restrictions to nicotine products. This is actually overdue. The display of addictive vapes in plain view of children has helped to increase youth usage, and it has undermined their essential role as a primary smoking cessation aid. I was interested to see the coverage in the BMJ regarding large amounts of industry lobbying around the consultation. Of course, this is nothing new, as those of us who have worked on this issue for a long time know. This was then followed by another story about how AI bots flooded the initial consultation on the then Tobacco and Vapes Bill in 2023. Of the 118,756 responses received, 90,835—that is, 76%— were submitted by bots. The DHSC said the submissions were
“often duplicated many times and sent at high frequency from a small number of IP addresses”.
This bombardment appears to be the first documented instance of large-scale automated interference in a formal public health policy consultation. We know that the tobacco industry will often work with or through other organisations, third parties or proxies to fight regulation. For example, the C-Talk website is dedicated to independent retailers, convenience stores and high street businesses. Campaign materials on this site, relevant to the consultation exercise, appear to have been written by somebody who completed an internship at British American Tobacco. Paul Cheema, the co-founder of the site, has recently received awards and prizes sponsored by Imperial Tobacco and has also appeared in an advertisement for another tobacco company, JTI. That is a concerning relationship.
Consultations are not referendums; they are there to gather evidence, information and views. But where responses come from does matter. When it comes to tobacco, responses should be driven by public health, not commercial interests, in order to drive decision-making to protect our population from the harms done by these lethal products.
The second instrument outlines what defence is accepted for retailers when it comes to verifying age, making it clear that either physical or digital ID must be checked. While the mention of digital ID may set alarm bells ringing for some, given previous plans to mandate digital ID for workers in the UK, I actually think this is fair, ensuring that this is an option for consumers and mirrors what has already been introduced for alcohol. It makes sense that we make the identification process as seamless as possible.
These regulations are about ensuring we are ready ahead of 1 January. There will be many more to come, and we have recently seen many announcements relating to vape shops from other government departments, such as the need for planning and the removal of business rate relief. It is important that we do not encourage the sort of shops and behaviours that we are seeking to resolve, so I welcome those initiatives.
Finally, the Minister will recall the pressure, as the Bill went through, for a road map showing how smoking rates will be reduced, having some milestones and ensuring that vaping policy is a broader part of a tobacco control plan. The Government resisted this, but I would be keen to hear when the Minister winds up what type of evidence is being gathered to judge the success of the Act, alongside other government policies on tobacco and vaping.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, these two statutory instruments are essential stepping stones towards a historic milestone in public health. They will help to enable the smoke-free generation policy to come into legal effect on 1 January 2027. They are not about reopening the principle of the rising age of sale, which both Houses voted decisively in favour of. We now need to implement the policy as effectively as possible.
I was a strong supporter of previous legislation prohibiting retail stores from displaying tobacco products openly to the public. As the Minister said, tobacco products can be shown only once a customer’s age has been verified as being 18 or over. I agree with her that the instrument before us sensibly updates those rules to reflect the forthcoming changes to the age of sale. They will help to ensure that lethal products are never displayed to anyone who cannot legally be sold them.
The Government are also proposing point of sale restrictions for nicotine products such as vapes and nicotine pouches. For too long, we have seen brightly coloured nicotine products, designed to be attractive to young people, displayed at child height near shop counters. The indiscriminate promotion of these products must stop. I welcome the proposal to store nicotine products separately, so that the customers buying them are not inadvertently exposed to tobacco displays.
As we seek to promote switching from smoking tobacco to vapes instead, we need to recognise the problem of perception. Action on Smoking Health has shown that 54% of UK adults and 52% of smokers mistakenly believe that vaping is as harmful or more harmful than smoking tobacco. Most significantly, that figure rises to 61% among smokers who have never tried vaping. I was a very early supporter of legislation promoting vapes, or e-cigarettes as they were then called, as a means of quitting tobacco. But now, we have to balance very carefully how vapes are promoted. We want to clamp down on their appeal to young people and at the same time ensure that these restrictions on promoting vapes do not inadvertently worsen misconceptions among adult smokers.
We need smokers, most of whom want to quit, to understand that switching to vaping can really help them and that vaping products are less harmful. So, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how nicotine product point of sale restrictions will be designed so that they do not entrench dangerous misconceptions about their relative harm compared to tobacco products. Can she also say whether there will be scope for improved public health messaging, such as Swap to Stop, on covered retail units?
The second instrument concerns the legal defences available to retailers when verifying a customer’s age. It provides clarity by accepting both physical and digital forms of identification. Responsible retailers, who know their regular customers, can continue to serve them without unnecessary friction.
Data from ASH shows that 41% of 11 to 17 year-old smokers and 47% of children who vape purchase the products directly from retail shops. Furthermore, it shows that 71% of retailers in England and Wales actively support mandatory age verification, with only 20% opposed to it. Tighter verification is urgently needed. Responsible retailers want to do the right thing. What detailed guidance will be published to explain what these defence changes mean in practice for shopkeepers operating Challenge 25 schemes?
As we approach 1 January, leadership and clear communication from central government will be decisive in making the policy work and helping us to move further towards the smoke-free generation that we are seeking. Retailers and local councils are doing their part. Perhaps the Minister can tell us more about the Government’s national public awareness campaign and when it will launch. If we combine clear regulations, evidence-led public health messaging and dedicated support for our front-line retailers, we can ensure that 1 January 2027 marks the true beginning of the end for the tobacco epidemic in this country.
Finally, I want to share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, when it comes to the relationship between tobacco companies and C-Talk and the Protect Your Store campaign. The tobacco industry often uses proxies to circumvent restrictions that are in place to prevent it from influencing health policy. But those restrictions are there for a very good reason. Retailers should stand ready to implement this important, life-saving policy, and evidence shows that when consumers spend their money on things other than tobacco it is good for the UK economy. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this SI and for turning up this morning. She is clearly under the weather; perhaps she should have a hot toddy and take a rest for the rest of the day, given that she will be in her place at the Dispatch Box tomorrow evening for Committee on the Health Bill.
Protecting young people from the harms of smoking and vaping is the principle underpinning both these measures, but it is essential that the regulations implementing these changes are practical and properly scrutinised. The first instrument I will address today concerns the display of tobacco products, aligning existing exemptions with the new generational ban. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward change, but it raises wider questions about the cumulative burden being placed on retailers.
The Government’s own impact assessment estimates that the changes to vape displays could cost retailers £26 million. The Association of Convenience Stores has suggested that the costs of a full display ban could actually exceed £160 million for convenience stores alone. These figures demonstrate the substantial financial pressures facing businesses as a result of these reforms. Can the Minister therefore clarify what assessment has been made of the specific costs associated with implementing this instrument, particularly for small independent retailers? What assurances can she provide that businesses will receive sufficient time and guidance to adapt?
The second instrument sets out the steps that retailers must take to check a customer’s age when selling tobacco or vaping products so that they can demonstrate that they have followed the law if an underage sale takes place. These provisions follow on from the fact that the generational ban introduces a fundamentally different approach to age verification. Rather than simply establishing whether someone is over 18, retailers will need to determine whether customers were born before a particular date: namely, before 2009.
This creates additional complexity for shopkeepers and their employees, who will be expected to understand and enforce the law. The Government must ensure that those acting responsibly are not inadvertently exposed to prosecution because of unclear requirements. Can the Minister explain how the Government will ensure that retailers can reliably check whether a customer is legally entitled to buy tobacco, particularly as the age limit will change each year? What expectations are there for people to carry identification as they get older?
During the passage of the Tobacco and Vapes Act, concerns were raised about the extensive powers given to the Secretary of State. Concerns have been repeatedly raised about the breadth of the Government’s regulation-making powers and the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. It is therefore vital that these powers are exercised transparently, with clear evidence supporting the measures introduced. Can the Minister tell us how the Government expect trading standards officers to enforce these additional requirements without providing them the resources to do so?
As my noble friend Dr Caroline Johnson highlighted in the other place, these powers could allow the Government to extend smoke-free restrictions to a wide range of places with limited parliamentary oversight. While these SIs deal particularly with tobacco displays and age verification, the wider concern about scrutiny remains. Can the Minister reassure the Committee that future regulations will be subject to proper consultation and parliamentary scrutiny, and that the Government will clearly explain why further restrictions are necessary?
I hope the Minister will address these concerns and reassure the Committee that these regulations will be implemented fairly and scrutinised properly.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate and grateful for the support for the measures that we are taking. I know that many noble Lords who have spoken today have long been active campaigners, and I am extremely grateful. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Young, welcomed the various steps across government, which speaks to the fact that this is not just a matter for health; there are other actions that we can take. I am also glad that the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, welcomed the clarity that these regulations will provide. He referred to avoiding unnecessary friction. That was very much part of our discussions during the passage of the Bill, and it is one of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, which we share.
In just seven weeks’ time, the smoke-free generation will become a reality in this country, and that is something to celebrate. The first young people born in 2009 will turn 18, the law will change and those young people will enjoy a life that is free from the harms of tobacco that have plagued successive generations before them. These two sets of regulations are important steps in making sure that retailers are ready—I take on board the concerns raised—that the law is consistent and that the new age of sale is implemented successfully from 1 January. That is what these regulations seek to do.
I turn to the points raised. The noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Rennard, raised questions about the tobacco industry’s influence and input into consultations. I remind the Committee that our consultation on proposals to reduce the appeal of tobacco, vaping and nicotine products closed on 2 October. The consultation spoke to aligning the display of vaping products, nicotine products, cigarette papers and heated tobacco devices with display restrictions—in other words, removing them from display and moving them away from the eyes of children and young people. We are currently considering the responses.
Concerns were raised about interference. We have robust controls in place to prevent the manipulation of public consultations. These controls certainly worked effectively in our past consultation, where we set out the case to create a smoke-free generation. I assure noble Lords that we remain alert to the kind of interference raised by the noble Lord, Lord Young, in particular, and we will not be deterred from doing what is necessary to promote healthier living and to protect children and young people.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, asked about a road map. Of course, we very much share the ambition to further drive down smoking rates; we are far from complacent. I know how pleased the Chief Medical Officer was recently at the historic low in smoking rates, but we do not stop there; we will continue. Our immediate priority is delivering the Tobacco and Vapes Act and the comprehensive programme of secondary legislation that sits behind it. With the investment in stop smoking services and enforcement, these measures will form our programme for delivering a smoke-free UK.
It might be helpful if I remind the Committee that the Act includes a requirement for the Secretary of State to review the operation of the Act within four to seven years of Royal Assent and to lay a report before Parliament concluding the findings of this review. I assure noble Lords that we remain open to evaluating the impact of the Act and to being held to account on that. I remember the conversation about what the right length of time was. This is our feeling on the right length of time, so we can give the Act time to make an impact and be realistic with Parliament about what has been achieved.
Lord Rennard (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, can I ask her a little more about this promotional campaign beginning on Monday? What is the budget for this campaign? I am delighted to hear that it will appear on television, radio, social media and elsewhere, but these things cost, and I would like to know how much will be invested in this programme. Perhaps the Minister could let me know another time.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I will be very pleased to write to the noble Lord on that point of detail.
Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 (Age Verification Defence to Underage Sales) (England and Wales) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
That the Grand Committee do consider the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 (Age Verification Defence to Underage Sales) (England and Wales) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield
That the Grand Committee do consider the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to the two statutory instruments. I think it is fair to say that financial services are a key driver of growth in the United Kingdom. Embracing innovation is essential if we are to maintain our position as a leading global financial centre, particularly in relation to tokenisation, digital assets and the technologies underpinning new forms of payments, trading and market infrastructure.
I turn first to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026. As noble Lords will know, earlier this year the Government legislated to establish a financial services regulatory regime for crypto assets, including stablecoins. That framework gives firms the certainty they need to invest and innovate in the UK while ensuring appropriate protections for consumers and markets.
The instrument before the Committee today makes a number of targeted amendments to that regime. It does not replace the regime already approved by Parliament but ensures that it operates as intended, remains proportionate and supports a competitive UK market as this sector develops. In particular, it ensures that requirements designed for crypto asset trading do not apply disproportionately to the use of appropriately regulated UK-issued stablecoins for payments.
The Government consider that stablecoins issued in the UK, appropriately regulated to ensure that they are truly stable, could play a significant role in both retail and wholesale payments. The Government are currently consulting on wider reforms to payments regulation to accommodate tokenised payments, including stablecoins. Without these amendments, firms using UK-issued qualifying stablecoins in payment chains could be captured by crypto asset regulatory activities designed primarily for trade. It would therefore be disproportionate to require firms using UK-issued qualifying stablecoins in payment chains to secure permissions under the crypto asset regime now, only to require further permissions under the future payments framework.
This instrument therefore excludes UK-issued qualifying stablecoins from the crypto asset dealing and arranging activities. Lending and borrowing involving those stablecoins will remain regulated, given the different risks that those activities can present. It also excludes the temporary holding of those stablecoins in connection with a payment transaction from the crypto asset safeguarding activity. This is about ensuring the right regulation applies to the right activity, rather than removing stablecoin activity from regulation.
Alongside this principal change, other amendments clarify the regulatory perimeter for stablecoin issuance and backing asset arrangements. They also bring forward the commencement of provisions clarifying that qualifying stablecoin backing assets are not treated as collective investment schemes or alternative investment funds, and that neither qualifying stablecoins nor the assets backing them are electronic money. These changes are aimed at removing barriers to stablecoin adoption for different use cases ahead of the crypto asset regime coming fully into force in October 2027. Acting now provides clarity before firms need to comply with the new regime.
The instrument also introduces targeted exclusions for certain proprietary trading and market-making activities, technical service providers and certain central securities depository arrangements. Finally, it makes corresponding amendments to the financial promotions regime to ensure that the perimeter remains aligned with the crypto asset regime. Following extensive engagement with parliamentarians and industry, these amendments provide greater certainty and remove unintended barriers, while retaining appropriate protections for consumers and market integrity.
I turn to the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Addition of Relevant Enactments) Regulations 2026. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 gave the Treasury powers to establish financial market infrastructure—FMI—sandboxes. These sandboxes allow new technologies to be tested in financial markets within a modified legislative framework where existing requirements might otherwise impede innovation. The powers were designed to be flexible. When Parliament legislated in 2023, it was not possible to know every provision of legislation that might need to be modified as technologies developed. Section 17 of the Act therefore allows further legislation to be added to the list of relevant enactments that can be modified using the sandbox powers.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I fully accept that these two instruments contain sensible changes to reflect the introduction in the case of stablecoin in one and, in the other, to promote innovation within the crypto sphere. I will not do a line-by-line analysis—the Minister has laid out much of that—but I have some concerns. I will address each SI in turn to reflect those areas of concern.
Using the same order as the Minister, I start with the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026. This SI exempts qualifying stablecoin from regulation related to most dealing and arranging activity. I recognise that, as the Minister pointed out, this does not apply to general lending or borrowing, but it removes regulation from institutional collateral and repurchase arrangements. I recognise that the word “institutional” is intended to show that consumers would be protected even though there is a relaxation of lending and borrowing rules around repos and collateral. But, to me, the very fact that we are making this distinction again between institutional and consumer in the way we regulate—or in whether there is any regulation at all—raises again the whole issue of the regulatory perimeter.
The mini-bond scandal of just a few years ago is a powerful example of how bad actors manipulate around the edges of the regulatory perimeter established by the FCA to exploit people who think they are protected by FCA regulations when they are not. It is not difficult to confuse people, because the FCA’s approach means that some activities of a firm are regulated, while others—carried out by exactly the same firm but merely with a different customer base, as it were—are not. Many investors can be fooled and exploited.
I would just like to hear the Minister’s comments, because I am concerned. The crypto industry has plenty of honest players but it is also a magnet for the criminal, the corrupt and the inept. I would like a lot more assurance that this SI is not setting up the next mini-bond scandal, particularly around the area of institutional repos and collateral, which could easily be reformed in such a way that consumers could be persuaded that they were indeed qualified and sophisticated enough to purchase them, and then we will be back into another Woodford and that sequence of scandals.
I am also mindful that, when those mini-bond scandals first broke, the FCA basically said, “Nothing to do with me, guv—they’re outside the perimeter”. I would like to have some assurance that the FCA is now recognising that that perimeter cannot be such a hard line; it has to have some flexibility when there is obvious abuse.
The second of the statutory instruments deals essentially with the sandbox. I certainly do not object to it but again I have questions. I recognise that I was somewhat involved in the early days of the sandbox approach, and it has played a very important role in supporting innovation by using practical experience to get regulation right. It was first conceived of and introduced by UK financial regulators after the financial crisis to develop an effective regulatory framework for the fintechs, which is how I got involved in the process. The model, indeed, has been both recognised and copied around the world.
This SI, however, significantly extends the scope of the sandbox. The primary weakness of the sandbox system is that the regulator picks and chooses who gets to go in. When it picks out one of several small rival companies looking at approximately the same kind of innovation, it hugely advantages that entity that is chosen to go into the sandbox. Rivals suddenly find that they may struggle to get investment. Then, when the regulations appear, they are very much structured around that particular sandbox experience and so are often very tailored to the specific company that was in the sandbox and in effect they shut out relatively close rivals.
Companies have not dared to complain about a lot of this publicly because they are afraid that they will be treated as FCA troublemakers. How will the Government and the FCA address this issue now that the scope will be very much wider, drawing in many more pieces of legislation and a much bigger activity base?
Secondly, what kind of oversight does Parliament have as these innovations are introduced? This statutory instrument assumes permanent enactment by negative SIs, but the scope of the legislation essentially makes regulatory innovation subject only to regulatory decision-making. That is a direction which many of us in this House have raised before, and it seems that these changes in particular double down on that concern over both scrutiny and oversight.
As regards the breadth of the shift of what had previously been primary legislation now to the regulator, much of the motivation seems to be driven by the introduction of DIGIT, a digitally native short-dated government debt instrument that the Government intend to issue in 2027. Although DIGIT depends on known technology in the form of blockchain, the risks of unexpected technology failure are high, liquidity is an issue, and the system clearly lacks interoperability. How is Parliament supposed to raise these issues and challenges, given the way in which decision-making is essentially transferred to the regulator, which as far as I can tell has not provided satisfactory answers on any one of the issues that I just listed?
The SI also makes it clear that the regulator can go on to make changes which are far more sweeping than the examples it discusses in the Explanatory Memorandum that is attached. I would very much like the Government to address some of these concerns.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these two instruments. On these Benches, we welcome the steps that the Government are taking to support the development and regulation of digital assets in the United Kingdom. This is an area of considerable opportunity for our financial services sector, and it is so vital to UK growth. It is important that we establish a regulatory framework that supports innovation and competition while maintaining appropriate protections for consumers and the integrity of our markets.
I recognise the work being undertaken by Chris Woolard, the Government’s digital markets champion, to explore the potential role of stablecoins in our financial system. We also note the Government’s proposed digital gilt next year—DIGIT, as we heard it called by the Minister. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, was right to ask about how we can follow the path of these important changes, given that future changes would limit parliamentary accountability.
Although these are broadly welcome developments, I return to a concern that we raised repeatedly during the passage of the Financial Services and Markets Bill through your Lordship’s House: the absence of a clear co-ordinated strategy for the development and adoption of digital assets across our financial system. Indeed, it was precisely this concern that motivated our amendment to the Bill—now Clause 50—requiring the Government to develop a comprehensive digital asset strategy.
The development of digital assets is taking place at considerable pace around the world. Stablecoins, tokenised securities, digital currencies and distributed ledger technologies all have the potential to transform different aspects of our financial system. But these are not isolated developments; they are increasingly interconnected components of what could become a fundamentally different financial infrastructure. Therefore, what we need from the Government is not simply a collection of individual regulatory initiatives such as these, however welcome they might be, but rather a clear explanation of how these initiatives fit together, what the Government ultimately want to achieve and, above all, how they will ensure that the UK remains competitive as these technologies develop internationally. The proposed digital gilt is a useful illustration of this concern. Last week, the FT made the pointed observation that it was unclear what the exercise was intended to achieve beyond demonstrating that a digital gilt could be issued.
Turning specifically to the first instrument, we welcome the Government’s intentions to make UK-issued regulated stablecoins more practical to use for everyday payments, transfers and settlement. The instrument rightly introduces a number of exclusions from the regulated activities framework. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, about flexibility in the event of abuse.
I have two areas of concern. First, if you are a potential stablecoin operator, you would be desperate to know exactly what the regulatory regime will be before you finally commit. The Treasury still holds the ring on how payment systems regulation will change, and its consultation has closed. When will final decisions on the regime be taken?
Secondly, the relatively narrow scope of today’s SI illustrates the wider point about the need for a whole-system approach. The principal payment-related exclusions are focused on a particular category of stablecoin: those issued by an appropriately authorised UK issuer. They do not extend generally to the wider range of crypto assets, and other activities, including certain exchanges and custody services, remain within the regulatory perimeter. Therefore, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how these measures fit within the Government’s broader plans for the adoption of stablecoins and digital assets. Do the Government intend to set out a more comprehensive vision for their practical application across the economy?
Turning to the second instrument, we welcome the Government’s intention to provide greater flexibility for innovation through financial market infrastructure sandboxes. As I understand it, this instrument expands the range of legislation that may be modified within an FMI sandbox rather than itself making substantive changes to those enactments. That additional flexibility is welcome. It is right that firms should be able to test emerging technologies in an appropriate and controlled regulatory environment. I know that the Financial Services Regulation Committee is conducting an inquiry into sandboxes, and I look forward to its conclusions.
A fundamental question is what happens beyond the sandbox. It is one thing to demonstrate that a particular technology or process can work within a controlled environment. It is quite another to establish that it can operate successfully, at scale, within the wider financial market. There is a risk that we develop a succession of interesting pilots that demonstrate technical feasibility but never make the transition into commercially viable, widely adopted infrastructure.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank the noble Baronesses for those remarks and those numerous questions. I hope I can get to all of them and answer them at least adequately. Both noble Baronesses made a general point about digital asset policy. The Government have a substantial programme of work under the Wholesale Financial Markets Digital Strategy, including legislation, regulation and industry co-ordination. Specific initiatives such as the digital securities sandbox, the digital gilt instrument—DIGIT—the crypto asset regulatory framework and payments reform complement work being taken forward by the regulators and the sector. Chris Woolard, who has been the wholesale digital markets champion, is leading industry’s work through nine taskforce action groups and published his first report back in July. It is also fair to say that there has been cross-party consultation on this, and with the industry. I seem to remember that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, raised taking stablecoins for payments, not just for general assets, when we discussed this back in February. We all just want to get this right, because it is so technical and it is so important for the economy as well.
To answer the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, about FCA oversight and the mini-bond scandal, for example, the Government consider this approach to be the right and most appropriate one. UK-issued stablecoins will remain subject to high regulatory standards, and other requirements continue to apply. I will write to the noble Baroness on the issues that she raised on repo and collateral.
The digital securities sandbox allows both incumbents and new entrants to come into it. At the moment, 17 have gone through the first gateway, and three are actually in the sandbox now and in a position to—
Baroness Kramer (LD)
Can I just ask whether the Minister has any numbers for how many people have applied to go into the sandbox and have been turned down? Do we know, or do they get discouraged so early that there is no record?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I shall write to the noble Baroness on that. What I do know is that organisations are applying to go into it, so it is obviously being used and the industry sees it as very important. As I have said, we just need to get this right.
Further affirmative SIs may be needed as permanent changes issuing from these debates come forward in future. On the removal of UK-issued stablecoins from these activities creating a gap in consumer protection before the new payments regime is introduced, it is true that certain UK stablecoin transactions that would have fallen from the crypto regime will now remain unregulated until the payment reforms are implemented. However, the Government consider that this is the right approach and is more proportionate than requiring stablecoin payments to obtain crypto permissions now, only to seek different permissions under the future payments framework. This does not mean that stablecoins will be removed from regulation. Stablecoins issued in the UK will remain subject to high regulatory standards, and firms will remain subject to other applicable regulations.
Turning to some of the points made by noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, on the issue of DIGIT, the Government are helping to demonstrate the technology through the digital gilt instrument. DIGIT will be a new digitally native UK government debt instrument issued on DLT within the DSS. The pilot is intended to test DLT across sovereign debt issuance and to catalyse development of UK digital market infrastructure, and the first transaction is expected in the first quarter of next year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, also asked about the Government’s plans for stablecoin. It has the potential to have a significant role in retail and wholesale payments. We already see the benefits that stablecoin can provide in cross-border payments, reducing costs and improving efficiency. The Government also recognise that unlocking the full transformative potential for digital assets and blockchain technologies requires payments that interact with them directly, and stablecoin can play an important role in achieving this. It will therefore be important for the UK to harness those opportunities in promotion of the ongoing competitiveness of UK financial services. The crypto asset SI is explicitly intended to support a competitive UK regime by removing barriers while retaining appropriate regulation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about digital assets. The Government are a strong supporter of digital assets and see them as a key strategic priority. The Government are actively taking forward actions set out in the July 2025 wholesale financial markets digital strategy. We have appointed to Chris Woolard, and many other actions are being taken to support this work, such as the Bank of England and Financial Conduct Authority’s input on tokenisation, which closed in July. They intend to publish a further road map soon.
The Government have also made substantial progress on the digital security sandbox and the digital gilt instrument. I think it fair to say that the Government are taking this very seriously. We see the contradictions in this, especially with stablecoin and the efficiencies it can make. Obviously, the parliamentary regime and consultation is very important. The crypto asset SI avoids duplicative requirements for UK stablecoin payment activity ahead of wider payment reform, ensuring that requirements designed for crypto asset trading do not apply disproportionately to stablecoins used for payments, while regulation is retained where the risk is justified.
For the sandbox, these regulations make targeted additions to the legislation within scope of the FMI sandbox powers. This is needed because barriers to innovation cannot always be identified in advance. The changes will ultimately allow the digital securities sandbox to operate more effectively and, in particular, to provide the flexibility necessary to support the issuance of DIGIT through a platform participating in the sandbox.
In conclusion, these are proportionate measures that support innovation in financial services while maintaining appropriate protections. They ensure that regulation is targeted at the risks presented and that our frameworks can adapt as markets and technology develop. I commend both instruments to the Committee.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I was pleased to hear that the Government will publish another digital road map. It would be good to know whether it will be shared with Parliament in some way and will cover some of the broader issues beyond the wholesale side.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I am sure we can arrange that when it is published. Because it is such a technical issue, we obviously need to ensure that we have expertise from all over the place to keep us on board with what is happening in this field, so I take on board what the noble Baroness is saying.
Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Addition of Relevant Enactments) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield
That the Grand Committee do consider the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Addition of Relevant Enactments) Regulations 2026.
International Claims Commission for Ukraine (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2026
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wood of Anfield
That the Grand Committee do consider the International Claims Commission for Ukraine (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2026.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Wood of Anfield) (Lab)
My Lords, this order is required before the UK can ratify the convention establishing an International Claims Commission for Ukraine. Noble Lords will remember that the UK signed the convention on 16 December 2025.
The international claims commission builds on the register of damage for Ukraine established two years earlier, in 2023, which collects and records claims from individuals, organisations and public bodies in Ukraine for damage, loss and injury inflicted by Russia. Once the commission has been established, the register and its work will be transferred to the commission. The commission will review, assess and decide on claims recorded in the register, as well as subsequent claims, and determine the amount of compensation due in each case.
The convention requires participating states to confer specified privileges and immunities on the commission and on persons connected with its work, to enable them to perform their functions independently and effectively. That is what this order is about: it gives effect to those requirements in UK law. By ratifying the convention, the UK will support the principle that Russia must pay for the damage it has caused and help establish a credible international process for assessing claims and delivering justice for Ukraine.
This is about more than compensation. It is part of the UK’s wider commitment to stand with Ukraine for the long term—a commitment shared by both this Government and the previous Conservative Government —and to ensure that Russia is held accountable for the consequences of its aggression. There can be no just and lasting peace without justice and accountability, and the claims commission is an important step towards ensuring that those who have suffered loss, injury and damage have a credible route to redress.
This order was laid in draft before Parliament on 14 September 2026 under Section 10 of the International Organisations Act 1968. It is subject to the affirmative procedure, and, if approved by both Houses, it will be made by His Majesty in Council under Section 1 of that Act.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for this introduction. We debated this in June. This is the next step in its implementation, and I think it is welcome on all sides. As the Minister said, this is an instrument of the Council of Europe, and I have just a few questions for him.
This obviously takes us further down the road. Has the commission started work or when is it likely to start work? It is understood and accepted that there are no plans to visit the UK and that whatever plans might happen in the future are limited, but presumably there is the possibility that members of the commission may wish to interview Ukrainian exiles in the UK in order to get evidence for assessing damages. It would be interesting if the Minister could clarify whether that would be the case. Certainly, one would not want to obstruct such a process.
We are debating this against the backdrop of current meetings between Russia and the United States, which, to be honest, are quite concerning. What it seems is being discussed comes pretty close to something like persuading the Ukrainians to surrender, which I know is not the UK’s policy. Apart from a few fringe people in the political arena, all the official parties are strongly supportive of Ukraine.
Can I test the Minister a little? I know it is hypothetical, so I have no doubt that he will use that as a defence. President Zelensky has said that he is worried that we may be facing a new Yalta: a situation where the great powers carved up Europe without much reference to the people who were directly affected by it. That is obviously President Zelensky’s concern. People can recognise that the brave people of Ukraine are war-weary and exhausted and would welcome peace, but not peace at any price.
Are we involved in these negotiations, and to what extent does Britain have the opportunity to influence the outcome and ensure that the interests of Ukraine and, indeed, the wider interests of Europe, are fully appreciated? One of the concerns that many of us have is that there is a degree of ignorance and carelessness within the American Administration and, indeed, America’s wider political society, in regarding Europe as some faraway place that does not affect them very much. It affects us very much, and it is not acceptable that it should be carved up by outsiders who are not party to this. I hope that the Minister will understand the concerns we have.
On the specifics of the commission, I remember from the last debate that the seized Russian assets added up to about half the assessed damages or liabilities at that time. Is that still the case? Can we be sure that this is the best case for ensuring that those assets are not returned to Russia but are instead used for these purposes, and that the other half is still an obligation on Russian when it comes to the time of reconstruction?
On a very minor but important detail, on the fact that the commission does not allow road traffic offences to be given immunity, we realise from past experience that this is important. We have had concerning misuses of immunity in the past, so I want to acknowledge that we are grateful that this has happened and to accord the fact that the devolved Administrations have said that those aspects of the commission’s activities that are devolved will be subject to separate legislation, which I understand is at hand.
To conclude, I welcome this development. Timetabling would be of interest and, obviously, assurances that it will happen and that we will not be left with a situation where outsiders, in effect, negate its efficiency.
As a passing interest, many years ago I was for several years a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, an organisation for which I have huge admiration and was very grateful to be part of. It continues to produce valuable initiatives and support democracy and human rights, more vigorously than perhaps any other institution in Europe. I hope that the United Kingdom will continue to be a full and active participating member of the Council of Europe. As an aside to the Conservative Front Bench, I am concerned that the Conservatives are going down a path that could lead to Britain’s withdrawal from the Council of Europe if we were to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. Support for the convention is a precondition of membership. I hope that that will not be the case, but I cannot leave this without saying that it is a concern.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for going through this debate on the International Claims Commission for Ukraine. As he said, the order gives effect to the privileges and immunities required by the convention in establishing the International Claims Commission for Ukraine (Immunities and Privileges) Order. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said, we debated the convention in detail in June, and I will not detain the Committee with a rerun of that detailed debate. However, some points raised by my noble friend Lord Callanan in that debate remain relevant. I hope the Minister will be able to provide an update on them.
On the question of Russia’s liability for the costs of the commission, can the Minister say what assessment the Government have made of the likely total cost to the UK of the commission, should Russia never join it? In addition—and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, touched on this—can the Minister say what the Government’s latest position is on the use of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine? The Minister’s predecessor did not answer the point in our previous debate about including compensation for Russian actions between 2014 and 2022. Perhaps I can press the Minister for an answer on that today.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, mentioned the position of my party on the ECHR. The Conservative Party would leave the ECHR. This policy has been considered in detail, and it has been set out in full. We would, of course, continue full-throated support for Ukraine outside the ECHR, and I see no reason why leaving the ECHR should prevent us backing efforts to ensure that Ukrainians who have suffered such loss as a result of Putin’s illegal war get the compensation they deserve.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, but I wonder if I might get clarification, because leaving the ECHR means leaving the Council of Europe. There are only two countries in Europe that are not members of the Council of Europe. They are Russia and Ukraine. So, is the Conservative Party’s position that the UK is going to be the third one?
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
I think I will leave it as I have already said. We are steadfast in our support for Ukraine, and we will support the Government when they are doing the right thing by our Ukrainian partners, who have suffered so terribly at the hands of Vladimir Putin.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, for their contributions. I will try to quickly answer their questions. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked whether the commission has started work. No, it has not started work yet. The register of damages has been compiled. The process is that countries such as the UK have to confirm the convention, and this SI enables us to do that. We anticipate—I am looking at my officials—that that will be ratified early next year, and other countries have to do the same. Then the process of beginning an administrative body to do the work begins. The register of damages, which is the essential prerequisite for this, is well in train, but not the claims commission itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, also asked whether the claims commission will want to do interviews in the UK. It is quite possible. I cannot see into the future, but these privileges and immunities are the standard way in which members, officials and functionaries of the commission would work, consistent with commitments we have and the behaviour we expect. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, also asked me to become a CNN pundit on the Abu Dhabi talks—I feel like a CNN pundit on this one. Jonathan Powell, the National Security Adviser, my friend and colleague, is in Abu Dhabi today and tomorrow. He will be in the vicinity of the conversations. We are fortunate in having him as a National Security Adviser with extremely close connections to the E3 national security adviser network and to the American representatives. We are pleased that we have some engagement in this process.
The noble Lord is also right to say that there are a number of different initiatives. The Finnish and Norwegian leaders recently had a call with Vladimir Putin, and there is uncertainty about what will happen next. I live in hope that there will be a breakthrough in Abu Dhabi. My expectations are governed by a series of false dawns when the Russian position, sadly, did not change. To go back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, I completely agree that there are lots of questions about the future of European security that need to be answered, but a ceasefire has to be in place first before any of these other issues are addressed collectively. That ceasefire should be achieved as soon as possible.
Both the noble Lord and the noble Earl raised the issue of Russian sovereign assets. Our position is that Russia should compensate Ukraine for its internationally wrongful acts: it must fund the cost of the reparations mechanisms. Until Russia agrees to do so, the operational costs of the claims commission—just those costs—will be covered by its member states from the point at which the organisation is established. As a member, the UK will contribute to these operational costs. The precise amount will depend on the agreed funding arrangements between members, which is yet to be decided.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Vaux of Harrowden) (CB)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
National Policy Statement for Fusion Energy Generation
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Curran
That the Grand Committee takes note of the initial proposed National Policy Statement for Fusion Energy Generation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Baroness Curran) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to be with you this afternoon. At its heart, EN-8 is about preparing for a transformative new energy source. Fusion offers the prospect of abundant, low-carbon, safe energy. It has the potential to strengthen our long-term energy security, support economic growth and position the United Kingdom at the forefront of the emerging global industry. Fusion is already supporting UK jobs, supply chains and innovation. Efforts to commercialise it will enable us to capture a significant proportion of the emerging global market.
This debate is not about what specific projects should look like or where they should be located. Rather, it is about ensuring that our planning system is ready for the significant opportunities that future fusion energy projects may bring to local areas and to the UK as a whole. It is about signalling to the rapidly growing global fusion industry that the UK is open for business and that we are ready to support real-world fusion energy deployment.
EN-8 marks an important milestone in that journey. As noble Lords will know, national policy statements are statutory documents prepared under the Planning Act. They provide the principal framework for the assessment of development consent applications for nationally significant infrastructure. Once designated, EN-8 will be world’s first national planning policy dedicated to fusion energy infrastructure. It will sit alongside the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) and provide the primary planning framework for nationally significant fusion energy projects in England and Wales.
It is important to be clear about what EN-8 does and does not do. EN-8, alongside EN-1, provides developers and decision-makers with clear policy for assessing nationally significant fusion energy projects. It establishes a proportionate approach that reflects fusion’s distinct characteristics, while ensuring rigorous assessment of relevant environmental and safety planning considerations. As fusion remains a rapidly developing field and future facilities may differ in design and operation, EN-8 provides for a deliberately technology-neutral framework that supports innovation and will remain relevant as fusion technologies develop.
What EN-8 does not do is approve any specific fusion energy development. Nor does EN-8 allocate sites for future fusion projects. Nor does it replace existing regulatory regimes that protect the environment, workers and communities. Rather, EN-8 provides much-needed clarity and transparency for decision-makers, as well as developers who want to build in the UK, reducing uncertainty and making the UK a more desirable place to invest.
Why is a stand-alone NPS needed for fusion, and why now? The simple matter is that it would not be appropriate to apply requirements designed for nuclear fission power stations to fusion facilities, given the differences in the technology. The two technologies are fundamentally different and have very different hazard profiles. Fusion involves joining light nuclei, such as hydrogen isotopes, to produce heavier ones, such as helium. Fusion does not use the fuels used in nuclear fission, cannot create a runaway chain reaction and does not create very long-lived radioactive waste. A fusion-specific national policy statement therefore provides the most proportionate and effective approach to planning for future fusion energy developments that supports innovation and investment.
With over 70 years of research and development and a world-leading regulatory framework separate to nuclear fission, the UK has already established itself as a leading destination for fusion research and development. In our March 2026 fusion strategy, we set the guiding objective to accelerate growth of our UK fusion industry. Major programmes such as the spherical tokamak for energy production—I think I got that right—which is our prototype fusion power plant programme, demonstrate our ambition to remain at the forefront of global efforts to commercialise fusion energy and provide the demand to grow a UK supply chain. We are also seeing private development such as the UK Infinity Fusion Consortium moving at pace and developing plans to deploy in the UK. Implementing a clear and predictable planning framework now is therefore an important part of creating the conditions necessary for investment and deployment.
EN-8 is therefore not simply a planning document. It is part of a broader effort to ensure that we are ready for the opportunities that fusion can offer. It provides certainty where certainty is needed, flexibility where flexibility is required and a proportionate framework that reflects the distinctive characteristics of fusion technology. EN-8 has been designed with these principles in mind.
EN-8 follows the structure of other technology-specific energy national policy statements and sits alongside the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1). EN-8 explains how EN-1’s generic assessment principles apply to fusion energy infrastructure and sets out the fusion-specific considerations that earlier consultation has suggested. It explains what, if any, additional factors need to be considered by developers of fusion energy infrastructure.
In addition, while the Nuclear Regulatory Review deliberately excluded fusion, given the differences in technology and regulatory approach to nuclear fission, we have nevertheless considered the review’s recommendations carefully and reflected those relevant to fusion in EN-8. The draft NPS does not exclude semi-urban locations and acts only where necessary, it supports socioeconomic benefits from fusion and it avoids unnecessary or duplicative requirements through proportionate, outcome-based assessment. EN-8 gives developers, regulators, communities and decision-makers clarity and confidence, while retaining flexibility for the future.
Between June and August this year, the Government consulted publicly on the draft EN-8. Respondents from industry, academia, regulators, councils and the public broadly supported a technology-neutral framework dedicated to fusion which is aligned with the wider national policy statement suite. Of course, respondents also highlighted areas where further clarification could be helpful, including on the interaction with regulatory regimes, the approach to phased or evolving fusion projects, the treatment of cumulative impacts, climate resilience and the wider socioeconomic benefits that fusion may bring. These are all important points, and the Government are carefully considering all consultation responses as part of the next stage of the process. I would like to place on record my thanks to everyone who contributed to the consultation and to the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee for its scrutiny of the draft document.
Fusion remains a potentially transformative energy source, and commercial deployment is growing ever nearer. But if the United Kingdom is to maintain its position as a global leader in fusion, we cannot wait until projects are ready to be built before putting the necessary frameworks in place. I look forward to hearing the views of noble Lords in today’s debate. I beg to move.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the publication of the Draft National Policy Statement for Fusion Energy EN-8. We stand at a critical juncture in our transition to a clean energy future. Fusion energy offers the extraordinary promise of near-limitless low-carbon power without the long-lived high-level radioactive waste associated with traditional nuclear fission. By establishing a dedicated, streamlined planning framework today, we ensure that the United Kingdom remains a global leader in commercialising this revolutionary technology.
We can see the tangible reality of this ambition right now in Nottinghamshire with the pioneering spherical tokamak for energy production, or STEP, project at West Burton. This world-first prototype is not just a scientific experiment; it is an economic engine for the East Midlands, proving that the green transition can drive regional growth, create high-skilled jobs and revitalise our industrial heartlands. By providing a clear planning pathway through EN-8, we give the STEP project and the commercial ventures that will inevitably follow it the long-term certainty that they need to succeed.
I particularly welcome the Government’s decision to grant fusion projects critical national priority status, aligning them with our broader decarbonisation goals under EN-1. Furthermore, distinguishing fusion from fission by removing rigid population density restrictions is a sensible, science-led approach that recognises the inherent safety advantages of fusion technology, where a meltdown or runaway chain reaction is physically impossible.
However, while we must pave the way for innovation, we cannot afford to outpace our regulatory safeguards. A robust policy framework must answer the difficult questions before the concrete is poured. First, we must address the capacity and readiness of our regulators. The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee recently raised valid concerns regarding the relative inexperience of environmental regulators with first-of-a-kind commercial fusion. How are the Government planning to resource the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive so that they can rigorously assess complex systems such as STEP without administrative bottlenecks?
Secondly, while fusion does not produce high-level waste, it generates significant amounts of low and intermediate-level radioactive materials through tritium use and materials activation. What specific criteria would EN-8 enforce regarding lifecycle assessments and the long-term decommissioning of these facilities? Where and how will this waste be safely managed?
Finally, as prototypes scale up into commercial plants, we must look at the broader geopolitical and security landscape. How will this planning framework interact with non-proliferation considerations, particularly concerning the international supply chains for deuterium and tritium?
EN-8 is a bold, necessary and deeply exciting step forward. If we can resolve these pressing questions around regulatory resourcing, waste management and supply chain security, we will not only secure our own energy independence but pioneer a clean energy blueprint for the rest of the world. I thank the Minister for introducing the national policy statement and for her introductory remarks, and I look forward to her response.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Curran, for securing it. I welcome the chance to speak on what is a really extraordinary scientific journey—one that, as others have said, is vital to our long-term net-zero future. The running joke has always been that fusion is the energy of the future and is always 30 years away.
Earl Russell (LD)
Whether 15 or 30 years away, however, we are making progress, and that joke does not really apply anymore. We are trying to do something really extraordinary: to build a star here on earth, to heat hydrogen to around 10 times the temperature of the core of the sun, and to hold plasma in a chamber with magnets cooled to near absolute zero.
Britain is not sitting on the sidelines on this but is actually leading the world. The Joint European Torus at Culham has set records for fusion energy output. The MAST upgrade is the world’s largest operational spherical tokamak. Public and private investors, from the UK Atomic Energy Authority to Tokamak Energy, are pushing ahead and pushing each other forward. We have rightly earned our place at the heart of this.
The prize, as others have said, is incredibly large. The International Atomic Energy Agency counts fusion among the most environmentally friendly sources of energy: no carbon dioxide; no harmful atmospheric emissions; and it produces fuel from hydrogen and lithium, which are both widely available. We know that electricity demand here is expected to double, or more than double, by 2050, as we seek to electrify our heating, transport and industry. The UK Atomic Energy Authority believes that fusion could provide steady baseload power that would complement our renewables. If it works at scale, we could move from an energy politics of scarcity and competition towards abundance, and the global market has been estimated to be worth £12 trillion.
But we need to be honest about the climate argument, which is a point that the Commons Energy Security and Net Zero Committee also made. The earliest we will see this energy in production and viable is the 2040s, so we need to continue on our renewables journey and we need to cut our emissions. This energy will come late in the day in terms of meeting our climate targets.
That being said, we on these Benches back fusion. We support it, and we support the £2.5 billion invested so far and the £1.3 billion to be put into STEP. The Government are backing a winner, and I believe that it is justified, but the risk is also large, and the horizon is long. Ministers and the Government have a duty to be open about the costs and processes involved and to make sure that we are getting value for public money.
That brings me to EN-8. As the Minister said—I did not know this until she said so—it is the world’s first policy for energy fusion. Obviously, planning policy is our primary consideration here today. There is a lot here that we welcome and support, and my sense is that that is also the case for others around the Room today. We welcome the designation of low-carbon fusion energy as a critical national priority; the priority for brownfield and former energy sites; and the recognition that fusion’s low radiological risk means no population density limits. We also welcome the encouragement of collocation with energy-intensive users, such as data centres, and the 19 fusion-specific considerations on top of EN-1.
We also welcome the broadening of what can count as a nationally significant project. The Government are bringing in fusion infrastructure with thermal, or combined thermal and electricity, capacity over 50 megawatts, which recognises that fusion plants may supply heat as well as power. We also welcome the application of good design principles, which are key, and how the new plants will meet the very important climate-resilient targets—as we know, our climate is changing in the future.
As the Minister said, industry has broadly welcomed the draft. I thank the Minister for noting that the Government will look at the responses and points that have been made on that draft.
I have a few areas that I would like to explore while I have the chance to do so. In 2022, the Government decided that fusion would continue to be principally regulated by the Health and Safety Executive and the relevant environmental agency. As the noble Lord, Lord Khan, has already mentioned, of course we recognise that fusion is not fission, but the Commons Energy Security and Net Zero Committee was entirely unconvinced that removing the Office for Nuclear Regulation would reduce bureaucracy and warned that “the relative inexperience”—or, really, the complete inexperience—
“of the Environment Agency may lead to the excessive caution”
in this field. My question for the Minister, therefore, is: how will regulators be adequately resourced? What specialised staff are the Government seeking to recruit and what are the timeframes for ensuring that all this is done in good time?
I understand that fusion sits outside the nuclear siting and licensing regime of 1965; that makes sense, but questions remain about how third-party liability, insurance and—as has already been mentioned—long-term waste costs can be handled. As the industry seeks to invest, it will need further clarity on these points.
Can the Minister also say a little more on where we are at with the STEP programme? I understand that the aim is to submit a development consent application in 2029 and to start building in 2030. Even conventional schemes can take well over a year, so are we still on track for this timetable? It feels like quite a tight timetable for a one-of-a-kind plant.
Fusion plants will be strategic national assets and the supply chains behind them will depend on global supply chains. What considerations have the Government given to securing those supply chains, particularly when we will face a world of competition, particularly with the USA and China, which are particularly investing in this technology? What are we doing to make sure that those supply chains work?
The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee also called for non-proliferation guidance to be issued now, not at the five-year review. Will the Government accept that recommendation?
For me, another important point is that these are really big infrastructure projects and we want to support community benefits. What more are the Government doing to make sure that local economies, the wider economy and the people who live next to these big industrial sites will benefit from them? Is it still expected that STEP will support around 10,000 jobs? What work is being done to support the skills and apprenticeships that will go with that?
Issues have also been raised around how we talk to local communities about these projects. Obviously, this is a new, evolving and unknown technology, so there is a real need for the Government to put effort and consideration into how they communicate these projects to make sure that the public are reassured of their inherent safety.
Cooling water is an issue. Tomorrow, we will debate the Environment and Climate Change Committee’s report on drought. Obviously, we know that this is subject to forward plans, but it looks like we could be short by 5 billion litres of water per year by 2030. These plants have big cooling needs, and they may be collocated with data centres and other high intensity water and energy requirements. Given that collocation is mentioned in this document, will the Government give more consideration to desalinisation or other methods so that we can look at water usage? Water usage is quite a critical element of these projects.
There is still some debate about the relationship between EN-1 and EN-8; I understand what the Minister says, and that EN-1 is the overarching document. I welcome the fact we have developed a separate policy with EN-8, but there are some issues about the relationship between those two documents, which could do with further clarification.
I also want to ask about the energy spatial plan, which the Government are in the process of developing and should be published later this year. But this plan needs to work with the energy spatial plan. These plants, particularly at start-up, will require to draw huge amounts of energy from the grid—although, when they are up and running, they will supply energy back to it—so grid planning and siting are key issues.
I like the fact that we are at the forefront of this technology, but the technology is evolving and changing, and other countries are investing heavily in it. Just yesterday I was reading about the helicon current drive at the DIII-D national energy facility, which is a new development of an old technology that hopes to maintain a steady state for longer so that we can get closer to getting long-term energy out of these plants. That highlights that the technology is moving really quickly, so I guess there is a question about how EN-8 will develop with new technologies.
In the European Union, policy on fusion energy is still country based, and we are ahead of the EU now. But these are big, large-scale projects, and as part of our reset with Europe we should be looking for greater co-operation with our European partners. I think we are actually ahead of the game here, and on this document we could be leaning into Europe to develop better policies based on this. I would encourage the UK Government to include fusion as a key element of our European reset.
We are supportive of this national policy statement. We think this is a real opportunity for the UK to press home its technological advantages in this area. The development of and investment in this technology is really important towards providing our future long-term energy security and helping deal with the problems of energy use and climate change.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Amey, Acteon and Buckthorn Partners. I welcome this national policy statement and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Khan, on his contribution. I will return to the specific points he raised as I think they are very important in the context of getting this policy right. We are in a period of consultation. The strategy aims, as we know, to accelerate growth in the UK fusion industry, building on the £2.5 billion in R&D provided by the previous Conservative Government. Today, this will be primarily achieved by investing £1.3 billion into the spherical tokamak for energy production—STEP—prototype fusion power plant. STEP, as has been mentioned, aims to design, develop and build a prototype fusion plant by the 2040s. The Conservative Government committed £240 million in funding towards the first phase of concept design in the previous Parliament.
Before I go into detail on a specific number of issues, which I would be grateful to the Minister to take into account, this is part of the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy, or EN-1. It was drawn to our attention in the statement that we should also read EN-1 and other relevant national policy statements. In reading it, I came across a section that I know will have the enthusiastic support of the Minister, because it talks about the need for new nationally significant infrastructure projects and new nuclear energy infrastructure. Also within the section is the acknowledgement of the
“need for new nationally significant gas infrastructure”.
Gas is noted
“as a reliable source of flexible generating capacity”.
We need to:
“Meet ‘peak’ demand for gas”,
and
“Allow for a sustained delivery of large volumes of gas, for example, demand over a particularly cold winter”
and also
“Provide access to the most competitive gas supplies”.
In the spirit of harmony across this Committee, I congratulate the Chancellor on announcing Jackdaw. On the subject of hydrocarbons, we on this side of the Committee welcome the approving and defending of the Sea Lion Field by the Foreign Secretary—now known as the MP for Port Stanley and the Government’s special oil envoy for the South Atlantic. I say that today because this is the first day of consideration by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, under the UN convention, in its hearing on the UK/Argentina dispute, of oil exploration in the Sea Lion Field. We wish the Foreign Secretary well in his strong defence of oil production in the South Atlantic.
Turning to the specific points in the Motion before us, particularly in terms of the House of Commons consideration of planning for fusion and the draft national policy guidance, I thought it would be helpful to outline some of the concerns and comments made by the private fusion companies and industries bodies. They welcome the draft National Policy Statement for Fusion Energy Generation but submitted several key requests for stronger political clarity. I very much hope that these will be taken into account by the Government.
They noted that individual private fusion companies did not submit stand-alone written evidence to the House of Commons Energy Security and Net Zero Committee’s inquiry. Instead, private sector views were channelled through representative bodies, primarily through the Fusion Industry Taskforce, or FIT, which represents more than 20 private engineering, supply-chain and fusion organisations, and the Fusion Industry Association, or FIA, which is the global trade body for around 50 private fusion developers. I would like to address some key points raised by the private sector representatives during the parliamentary scrutiny of draft EN-8 and ask the Minister to ensure that, if she does not fully respond today—which I would totally understand—all these points will be taken into account when the Government come to respond.
First is the question of unclear regulatory sequencing and timing. The FIA and FIT warned that draft EN-8 lacks sharp clarity on how the development consent order process interacts with regulatory justification decisions and permitting by the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency. Industry representatives stressed that unclear decision points prevent developers and their supply chains committing capital and signing contracts with confidence.
The second point, admirably raised by the noble Lord, Lord Khan, as well as by FIT, is the concern is that the HSE and Environment Agency currently lack enough suitably qualified and experienced personnel to evaluate what are diverse, first-of-a-kind private fusion plant designs. FIT warns that capability bottlenecks inside these regulators could severely delay plant approvals as the sector scales. This challenge is recognised across the Committee and I hope the Government will take it into account and respond fully when it comes to their public response.
The third point is ambiguity over long-term radioactive waste liabilities. FIT commented that the draft EN-8 note failed to define who holds long-term financial and operational responsibility for fusion waste disposal across a facility’s life cycle, specifically how liability is split among the developer, the operator and the Government. It noted that this uncertainty directly harms private investment cases and project profitability.
The next point is the absence of decommissioning funding mechanisms. Industry witnesses highlighted that separating fusion from nuclear fission under the Energy Act 2023 removed established fission decommissioning frameworks without replacing them. Private sector developers require a clear, proportionate mechanism for meeting future decommissioning costs rather than waiting until the Government’s target date of autumn 2027.
Then there is the very important issue of silence on third-party radiological liability and insurance. Supporting industry concerns, Lloyd’s Syndicate 1176 and sector witnesses pointed out that neither EN-1 nor draft EN-8 establishes substantive policy on third-party radiological liability, insurance or financial protection. Fusion is excluded from the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, so private developers cannot rely on existing fission insurance pools and therefore face uncertainty over early-stage risk coverage. That is another point that I hope the Government will be able to address.
There is also the very important point about the risk of planning consenting becoming the critical path. Industry leaders warned that if planning and consenting timelines are not streamlined alongside EN-8, bureaucracy rather than engineering would become the main bottleneck to building commercial plants in the 2030s. They stressed that planning frameworks must match the rapid commercial pace of private developers already selecting sites for pilot power stations. This is absolutely critical. I suggest to the Minister that more regulation and red tape can suffocate private sector development, and I hope she will be able to respond positively to the points that have been made on planning. One is on delaying commercial deployment: private developers, some targeting pilot plants by the early 2030s, have argued in planning consultations that overly prescriptive, multi-stage, statutory engagement rules risk slowing down first-of-a-kind infrastructure delivery.
Then there is the question of consent-based siting advantage. Take the example of West Burton; it was selected through a competitive volunteer-led siting process in an area—Megawatt Valley—with a 60-year heritage of coal power generation and strong local appetite for industrial renewal. Planning specialists point out that private developers acquiring commercial or greenfield sites without a prior local bidding contest face very different community dynamics that cannot be replicated simply by covering STEP’s outreach template.
There is then the question of reversing the Planning and Infrastructure Act. The Government recently removed rigid statutory pre-application consultation requirements from the Planning Act 2008, specifically to cut red tape and prevent developers running defensive box-ticking consultation rounds to avoid judicial reviews. Reintroducing a bespoke statutory consultation standard solely for fusion runs counter to the Government’s wider push for streamlined, flexible pre-application guidance. These two aspects of planning law need to be considered and, I hope, responded to by the Government.
There is a risk of gold-plating and regulatory caution from adding extra consent layers. In written evidence to the committee, planning stakeholders warned against creating additional consent letters or rigid procedural hurdles for nascent technologies. Critics argue that turning voluntary practice into strict statutory law invites legal challenge over whether a developer met subjective standards of “good” engagement, potentially recreating the exact planning bottlenecks that EN-8 is designed to prevent. At the heart of the questions that I put to the Government this afternoon are these critical planning issues that need to be addressed if we are to be successful in taking this technology forward.
Finally, I add one or two additional points that were made by those making representations on the note before us. One is a lack of a commercial market and off-take framework. In oral evidence, the FIA emphasised that planning rules alone would not deliver private fusion plants without a supporting commercial market mechanism. Private developers targeting competitive power prices need clear revenue and off-take structures alongside EN-8 to unlock private project finance.
Then there is the question of the need to support export and engineering ambitions beyond UK builds. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, alluded to—I was going to call him my noble friend, but he is my noble friend on this issue as we are agreement on this—the FIT argued that the draft EN-8 focuses too narrowly on domestic site construction, rather than positioning the UK as the premier global hub to develop, engineer and export fusion technology. It urged the Government to ensure that planning and regulatory frameworks reinforce sovereign supply chains and international exportability. If we develop the IP that is involved in this, that is a critically important point for the Government to look at.
Reference has also been made to the importance of securing long-term skills and supply chain certainty. Both the FIT and the FIA noted that private fusion firms are predominantly people-driven enterprises that require a predictable multi-project pipeline to attract talent and justify supply chain investment. They warned that, without clear policy signals linking EN-8 to a trained workforce and to skills programmes, UK firms risk losing engineers and manufacturing capability to competing markets such as the US and China.
Finally, in oral evidence, private sector representatives highlighted the challenge of transitioning public laboratory breakthroughs, such as those at Culham, into private commercial enterprises. They called for clearer pathways to ensure public/private partnerships and national test facilities actively accelerate private sector deployment, rather than keeping intellectual property and capability locked inside state programmes.
These are all reasonable points that have been made about the Draft National Policy Statement for Fusion Energy Generation EN-8, and which the committee in another place wisely looked at in its report Planning for Fusion. Given that we have not yet heard the Government’s response, I very much hope that this exchange in Committee is taken as part of the consultation exercise. I also hope that the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Khan, are considered as representations and fully responded to by the Government. I would not necessarily expect the Minister to respond today, as that would be unreasonable because many of these points are very detailed, but the Government should take them into account when they come to respond fully to the whole consultation exercise and, indeed, to the committee’s consideration of these issues in another place.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for a very substantial debate, and I very much appreciate the comments they have made. If I may begin with the very last comment made by the noble Lord, I can assure him that my view as a Minister, which I would be certain about, is that comments made in Parliament have very significant status. Particularly given the detailed consideration that has been given here today, I can guarantee that that will be fed into the concentration process; it will be given special status, because it is from Parliament, and it will feed into forming the view that the Government take to respond to that. I also thank the noble Lord for recognising that some comments here today are very detailed indeed, and I may not respond to all of them, but I guarantee that I will come back in detail to them and feed them in.
I also appreciate the noble Lord’s ingenuity because, in every engagement I have with him on the broadest range of energy topics, he squeezes in Jackdaw and the court case that is going on today. I recognise that, but he does that in great spirit because of his commitment to the issue, rather than for any other reason.
I will just make two broad points before I go onto the detail in front of me. The first is on the broad issue of planning. I recognise the substance of what the noble Lord said about planning issues and their relevance to the whole energy field. I think I have said in Parliament before that, in a previous life when I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament and when it was of a different persuasion, I was a Planning Minister. I took the importance of planning very seriously, as a mechanism to protect and support, but also as an opportunity. We need good, balanced planning systems. When regimes do not have that, often business does not thrive either, so planning needs that balance. It is there to facilitate and encourage, not for red tape. For this Government, it is not there to smother business in any way whatever. We want a lively planning system that is the servant of economic growth and development to make sure that we have coherence in the system and a level playing field, and that people have stability. That is part of what today is about: it is to give that coherence and stability, so that investors can have confidence that they know what the framework is, rather than haphazard, piecemeal support. I will engage with the noble Lord’s substantial points and look at them again, and make them a theme of how we look at the consultation.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, as he always does, made very substantial points about the link to clean energy, and the need to support the renewables industries and recognise the myriad challenges that we face at the moment. I assure him that we will continue on that journey and have many discussions about this. This is one part of that journey, but it does not take us off that path, because we know that this is a longer-term issue, not an immediate solution, and we will not argue that it is or put it forward as such.
I will now try to address some of the other points that were made that I have not addressed yet. Some of your Lordships made similar points, so forgive me if I reference one noble Lord and not another. I will make sure that I respond in writing to anything that I have not picked up.
My noble friend Lord Khan made a very useful, interesting and important contribution to this debate, and raised some very significant and substantial points. The regulatory framework around waste is vital, and I will address the point about public opinion and how we engage the public on this. The UK already has a robust regulatory framework in place, governing the treatment, storage and disposal of intermediate and low-level reactive and other harmful waste. We are recognised as having that as well. EN-8 requires developers to demonstrate how waste from their fusion facilities will be managed safely and in accordance with all existing legal and regulatory requirements, the right construction, operation and decommissioning.
The Government will continue to consider how waste from fusion facilities will be managed as the sector develops, which links to the very important point that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised about engagement with local communities and the public more broadly. The broader public are, understandably, perhaps not terribly well versed in the details of fusion energy, so we have a responsibility as the Government to be clear about what fusion is and that it is different from fission, and that, even with both energies, we have robust safe regulatory regimes in place. It is important that Parliament questions that thoroughly—that is why this process is so important—but we need to find mechanisms to ensure that local communities get the benefit of that but understand that planning gives them that protection and confidence. I take that point seriously.
I also welcome the support from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for enabling thermo-generating fusion plants to be considered as nationally significant infrastructure projects. I think that was also said by my noble friend Lord Khan.
The theme of regulator capacity came out quite significantly. Of course, we have looked at the committee report and will respond properly and in full. The Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive are heavily experienced in this sector. They have successfully regulated fusion facilities for decades, having, for example, regulated the JET facility at the UK Atomic Energy Authority in Oxfordshire. The Government will continue to fund these regulators to further build their fusion capability and provide access to subject experts at the UK Atomic Energy Authority. We will continue to support early engagement with developers and knowledge building across the planning and regulatory system and engage with investors to ensure they can have confidence that the skills and understanding capacity are there.
On fusion timelines and energy production, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, also mentioned that the timing of fusion energy will not impact short-term climate goals, which I recognise. It is unlikely to make material impact until the 2040s. However, the benefit of fusion energy development remains, with jobs, inward investment and the development of technologies, such as high temperature superconducting magnets, all adding to the UK’s economy well before the fusion energy does—notwithstanding the general points the noble Earl made about clean energy. In the longer term, as energy demand increases, as the noble Earl recognised, fusion will become a more invaluable source of baseload energy.
As my noble friend Lord Khan highlighted, non-proliferation and liabilities are vital issues that we are required to address. Although they are important, these are not strictly planning matters, which is why EN-8 does not directly address them. Outside of planning, the Government have committed in the fusion strategy to clarify third-party liabilities for fusion and believe that the conventional insurance market, rather than the nuclear market, is the most proportionate approach. The Government are engaging with the insurance market to understand the risks of fusion and develop bespoke insurance products. As part of this, the Government have also committed to identifying, by autumn 2027, a proportionate mechanism to ensure that decommissioning facilities can be met by fusion operators, rather than falling to the public.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised questions about STEP. I am happy to confirm that STEP is progressing well, and we still expect government investment in fusion to support over 10,000 jobs by 2030. Alongside that, we have invested £50 million into skills development through the FOSTER programme. STEP, as well as demonstrating that fusion is commercially viable, acts as a demand signal to the wider fusion supply chain. Earlier this year, a number of contracts were placed with the STEP programme, including the construction partners and magnet engineering partners. We know that there is much to do. It is a very large project, but we are ambitious. As we have recognised, we have got a lot of status in this, and we have to remain ambitious.
I also take this opportunity to note, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, set out, that the new strategic spatial energy plan is at the heart of the Government’s vision for our power system and will set out the blueprint for our future energy system. The UK’s fusion strategy commits to including fusion within that when fusion technology is sufficiently mature.
Moving on to water, I can confirm, and assure noble Lords, that water use is obviously an important planning consideration. Fusion energy infrastructure may use water for cooling, but this water is returned—just at a slightly higher temperature—and this is tightly controlled by environmental regulation. EN-8 will require applicants to set out their proposed cooling systems and apply the mitigation hierarchy to any significant environmental impacts. As I have said, obviously they are required to look at local impact considerations, including the social and economic impacts on local areas. As was said, it is vital that local communities understand that it is not just a government imposition and that they see the benefit.
I can also assure noble Lords that we have always been open to collaboration with the EU and other international partners, and that remains the case. We will continue to work on that.
I will address the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, as best I can. I think we all recognise that fusion is a fundamentally different technology to nuclear fission, with a different hazard profile. A dedicated national policy statement is therefore the most appropriate way forward, because this is so significantly different and has to be understood by the public to be so. We need an appropriate regime to provide a clear and proportionate planning framework for fusion that supports commercialisation while maintaining robust protections for workers, the environment and communities—and gets that balance right. EN-8 offers a better balance for investors and communities.
The fusion sector itself called for this national policy statement, and the responses to the public consultation are supportive. Of course, we will look at those along with the comments raised today. We will address that point. The Planning Act was updated last year to streamline the consenting process, in July new guidance covering all key stages of the process was published, and the Planning Inspectorate is redesigning its services to support the implementation of these reforms. This will include providing bespoke and technical advice to applicants, including fusion developers, at the early stages of the consenting process. I hope that addresses some of the issues that were flagged.
The national policy statements will now be reviewed and either updated or withdrawn at least every five years to ensure that they remain appropriate and reflect the Government’s priorities and ambitions. As I said, the Government will reflect on the committee’s report on the wider planning framework and respond. I very much appreciate the range of comments that were made today and the recognition of the opportunities that this energy can provide. We hope to address your Lordships’ very significant points.
Fusion has the potential to contribute to our long-term energy security, support both near-term and long-term economic growth, create highly skilled jobs and—as has been said—strengthen the United Kingdom’s position in a technology of the future. We are already a world leader in this. Through our fusion strategy, we are taking the steps needed to translate that scientific and regulatory leadership into long-term economic, commercial and strategic advantage. We see EN-8 as an important part of that approach, building on our global leadership by ensuring that the planning framework in England and Wales is ready to support the safe and sustainable deployment of fusion energy in a way that supports innovation and investment. As part of that process, we also listen to communities, business and industry.
I thank noble Lords for their comments. If I have missed any specific issues, I will reply later. I am sure that we will continue to discuss some of those broader themes.
Earl Russell (LD)
I apologise for intervening. I really appreciate those responses, but my point about water and collocation was not just about the fusion plants themselves. Since the Government have collocation at the heart of their documents and plans, and that includes AI data centres and other industries with very water-intensive use, it would be good to have further consideration of other processes of desalinisation, if circumstances allow. This is not something that the Minister needs to respond to me on now, but I recognise that for fusion it would be abstraction of water and there are regulations around returning that, but with this abundant energy there comes possibilities for doing things that we have not done before. I leave that there.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl for that point. I will not respond specifically on desalinisation now to make sure that I get a proper briefing on it first. It may cover a broader issue. I take the general point, however: we live in technologically changing times; there is a lot of excitement about that and huge opportunities, but it raises significant questions. We raised this on the Floor of the House and have seen some very significant debate around it internationally. It is a legitimate question, and one we must keep on the agenda. I will respond to the specific question that he raised.
House of Lords
Automobile Industry: ZEV Mandate
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Woodley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the automobile industry’s concerns about Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate compliance targets and the potential for a loss of jobs.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Dacres of Lewisham) (Lab)
The automotive sector’s future is zero emissions. The Government are investing more than £7.5 billion to drive investments and safeguard jobs for the future. Tata is investing £4 billion in the UK gigafactory, with further investments from Stellantis, Nissan, Bentley, McLaren and others. We are taking a balanced approach to the transition. We have just closed a consultation reviewing the ZEV mandate. We are working with the devolved Governments to publish the outcome as soon as possible.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that response, and I take the opportunity, on behalf of the House, to wish her a happy birthday today. How lucky she is to have her first Question come from me.
We are less than eight weeks from the end of the year, and March 2027 is the most important month in the car industry’s calendar for sales. Therefore, an urgent outcome from the ZEV mandate consultation is needed now. I hope the Government’s commitment to end sales of pure petrol and diesel cars by 2030 does not threaten production and jobs in the sector, helped by reducing the EV target to below the 80% currently on the table. Are the Government giving serious consideration to other technologies or fuels that should have a role in the future—for example, mild hybrid electric vehicles?
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his good wishes; I am feeling very lucky today. I also thank him for his years of dedicated service to and championing of the automotive industry. He is right that now is a critical time for the industry. That is why the Government are conducting a review of the ZEV mandate, which we aim to publish this year. We are working with industry to protect jobs and accelerate reindustrialisation. The future of our automotive sector is zero emissions, and the Government are committed to ensuring that those jobs come to the UK. The department has discussed mild hybrid vehicles in detail with manufacturers. Their future role will be part of the outcome of the review.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I am the Minister who set the ZEV targets in the first place. The noble Baroness will remember that under Rishi Sunak we moved the 2030 phase-out date for petrol and diesel cars to 2035. We thought that struck a better balance between our emission targets and—as the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, opposite said—protecting the automotive sector. This Government returned it to 2030. Is the Minister reflecting on whether that was the right decision? Also, the Government are rumoured to be adjusting the trajectory of how we get there. If they change the trajectory but not the end date, perhaps they are not being as honest with the public as they ought to be.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
As I have mentioned, the Government are committed to reindustrialisation and the future is zero emissions. I am pleased to hear what the noble Lord mentioned on the moving of those targets under former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. The review, which concluded a few weeks ago and will be published by the end of the year, is not hiding anything. That is why we are involving different parts of the automotive sector, including trade unions and other organisations and groups. With their help and support, and taking their views on board, we want to find out exactly what needs to be done to move in the right direction so that we get to those targets together.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, available charging is vital for EV drivers, yet ChargeUK is warning that £1.7 billion of charging infrastructure is in jeopardy if the ZEV mandate is changed. What account are the Government taking of the needs of drivers and of further investment in clean, green driving as they consider watering down standards for car makers?
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
The Government are working hard to make sure that we are involving all parts of the automotive industry. The noble Baroness mentioned charging points: we are investing £600 million to support the rollout of charging infrastructure. That includes working with local governments, strategic authorities and our devolved nations to make sure that everybody is pulling in the right direction to ensure that we get the rollout in all parts of the country.
Baroness Shah (Lab)
My Lords, I wish my noble friend a happy birthday. EV charging capacity and support are available quite readily and easily for home owners. Can my noble friend explain how the Government are supporting renters and leaseholders in accessing EV charging?
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
I thank my noble friend because she raises an important issue of equity and fairness. We recognise that not all drivers have access to home charging. If you live in an apartment block and do not have a drive, you cannot just park outside your home and plug in. We are supporting local authorities with funding to install on-street parking. We want to make sure that it is accessible, which is why we are providing a further investment of £100 million over the next two years so that on-street public chargers are available and accessible. We are also looking into tariff porting to enable those who use public charging points to get the best and most affordable prices they can.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, the EV that I drive is one of the best vehicles I have ever driven, so I am a bit biased, but I want to ask about how EVs relate to the national grid. How can we ensure that, as there are more EVs on the road, the grid itself is able to cope, not simply the charging points? Have the Government considered how EVs might be used, when they are plugged in on somebody’s drive, to provide electricity back into the grid at peak periods? Perhaps drivers could be compensated for doing that.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
It sounds like we are moving to solar panel cars. We are looking into the interesting points that the right reverend Prelate makes. We are making sure that we are providing charging points, which is why we are spending the £100 million to ensure that we get that breadth of service. I am sure noble Lords will recall that the Government have said the UK grid is an important part of our country’s infrastructure. It is important not only for EV charging but for homes, business and all industries that use electricity. We need to make sure that our future electricity grid is sustainable and working for all.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, the Minister gave some impressive figures about investment, but is the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, not correct in saying that uncertainty and inconsistency in government policy is the thing that really threatens investment across the automotive industry and in charging? Can the Minister give some reassurance that we will not be in a position of continuous and running consultation on dates that need to be clear to give some sense of direction?
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)
I would like to reassure the noble Baroness that the work we are doing to make sure that we have direction, and are clear, gives that surety to the industry so that it knows we are sure-footed and can have that confidence. Without confidence, we are not going to get the investment into the country for the automotive industry or for other industries. That is why we are investing £7.5 billion to help businesses, drivers and manufacturers. That surety will help to bring that investment in.
Neighbourhood Health Services
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lansley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of neighbourhood health services in improving patient outcomes and reducing pressure on hospitals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, the success of neighbourhood health will be measured against the national goals in the neighbourhood health framework, including improved health outcomes and better urgent and emergency care performance. Early local reported evidence from neighbourhood health approaches is encouraging, including reported reductions in emergency department use and in emergency admissions. The learning from the 43-place national neighbourhood health implementation programme is informing wider implementation, alongside an independent national evaluation commissioned through NIHR.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am grateful for that response from the Minister. Can I ask about the example of heart valve disease, which affects one in 15 people over the age of 75? Of those, half go undiagnosed, which can lead to severe illness, hospitalisation, expensive treatment and, unfortunately, avoidable early mortality. We have digital diagnostics available in the community now which, in the hands of GPs and pharmacists, can enable much of that lack of diagnosis to be met and therefore preventive treatment to be successfully applied. What are the Government doing to enable the spread of diagnostics into the community, which is vital in that transition from hospital to community, from treatment to prevention and from analogue to digital?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord comes forward with a good example; digital diagnosis is a huge support in the improvements that we seek to make for patients, so we are investing in digital diagnostic transformation through NHS England’s diagnostics digital capability programme. That will ensure that networks have that core set of digital capabilities so that care can be improved in quality, safety and productivity. Those are all outcomes that we seek in neighbourhood healthcare.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has underpinned the importance of general practitioners. My noble friend will be aware that there is a big variation in the number of GPs per patient up and down the country. Can she say a little about what the Government are doing to deal with these under-doctored GP areas?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
It is true that general practice is a cornerstone of neighbourhood health. I am glad that people will now find it easier to access their doctor and have more choice in how and when they book appointments. With reference to digital access, I believe that will greatly help in accessibility to GPs, but we are improving capacity. We are employing more GPs; there are now 2,800 more fully qualified full-time equivalent GPs employed compared with July 2024. That is the highest number since 2015. We have also made changes to the GP contract so that PCNs and practices can hire more GPs and introduced a practice-level GP scheme. We are focusing our efforts on the more under-doctored areas that my noble friend describes.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, we cannot expect neighbourhood health services to succeed without ensuring that resources shift from hospitals into the community, so can the Minister set out how much additional NHS funding will be directed towards primary and community care, and how this will be monitored?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, joined-up care requires changes to funding flows in order that we can shift our resources. That is where the focus will be. I am glad that from next year we will be trialling for neighbourhoods and places payment mechanisms which mean that savings from reduced unplanned hospital care can go into increased investment in community services. That will not only provide extra funding in terms of neighbourhood health but drive change, which is what we are seeking. In addition, we announced in the Budget 250 neighbourhood health centres, with 120 delivered by 2030, and the first wave of 27 sites comes with a commitment of £50 million.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, given that 97% of emergency departments feel that the current pressures on them are unsustainable through the winter, when will the Government establish seven-day services in the community so that bed occupancy rates can fall from their current 93.4% to 85%, which is much safer and will allow emergency departments to deal with really major emergencies and trauma?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
By expanding urgent community care, we will reduce avoidable emergency department attendances, hospital admissions and ambulance conveyances. That is why we are engaging not just an urgent community response but virtual ward services. I also point to the fact that we are supporting patients to book the most appropriate urgent care service through NHS 111 or the NHS app before attending emergency departments. There are a number of very good examples around the country of how people are doing that. Winter is going to be hugely challenging, and that is why, for example, we are putting in £190 million to help the NHS manage winter pressures and £140 million for new urgent care schemes.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, we all agree with the shift from hospital to community but, as we discussed on the Health Bill in Committee last night, we are still waiting for details of how it will all fit together. Can the Minister explain whether existing primary care providers, especially local GP practices, will be expected to rebrand as neighbourhood health centres and maybe offer some additional services, particularly secondary services, or will existing GP practices be told to physically move from their current premises into a neighbourhood health centre, and how will they be consulted?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
We are supporting ICBs, providers and everyone across the NHS to work together differently. That is the main point I want to get across. In March this year, we published Fit for the Future: Towards Population Health Delivery Models, which set out three new population-based contract types. They aim to bring various aspects of services into a single contract, and they will deliver a shift from what is currently fragmented, service-by-service commissioning to end-to-end pathways around the patient. That is where we need to get to. GPs are very much part of that, and we have involved them throughout.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, we cannot have neighbourhood health without having more community nurses, yet the majority of nurses are in the acute sector, so what are the Government doing to increase the number of community nurses?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness will be aware that the Secretary of State has confirmed that the workforce plan will be published in the new year. It will take account of that point and the new way of working—how we build the NHS into the future around patients. The point that she makes is quite right. The workforce plan will set out how we will do that.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I draw attention to my declared interest as chairman of King’s Health Partners. Section 131 of the 2006 NHS Act requires NHS England to ensure that it has been properly professionally informed in determining how to provide diagnostic, preventive and treatment health services and public health services. It is proposed that this obligation will no longer apply to the Secretary of State when NHS England is abolished. How do His Majesty’s Government propose to ensure that proper, clinically informed information is available in determining the provision of local health services in the future?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As I recall, we discussed last night in the Health Bill the establishment of a clinical council which could guide and advise the Secretary of State, who is, of course, ultimately responsible.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, community pharmacies are a key pillar of neighbourhood health services, providing treatment for small illnesses and as part of the vaccination programme. Can my noble friend the Minister outline what plans the Government may have to extend and expand the vaccination programme to community pharmacies?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend is quite right that expanding the availability of NHS vaccinations through community pharmacy is very much the way forward. That is why in the last flu season we enabled the provision of flu vaccinations through pharmacists to two and three year-olds. It is why in this flu season we are extending that still further, to children and young people in clinical risk groups and for catch-up vaccinations. We have also piloted delivery of the RSV vaccination for older adults and pregnant women, which my noble friend has campaigned on very successfully.
Climate Change: Resilience
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lennie
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to further improve the UK’s resilience to the impact of climate change.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, the Climate Change Committee’s fourth independent assessment of UK climate change risk sets out a worsening picture of climate change impacts. We are committed to improving the nation’s resilience to climate change. That is why we have set out our intention to develop specific, measurable objectives and detailed delivery plans for the fourth national adaptation programme in 2028, in line with the two degrees centigrade of warming by 2050, as advised by the Climate Change Committee.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. While the report did point to measurable and welcome improvements that have been made, there was an apparent absence of co-ordination across government departments, meaning that resilience is more patchy and less effective than it might otherwise be. Have the new Labour Government seized the initiative by ensuring reach across all departments in the face of the undeniable human-caused climate change that this country and the world now face?
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right in his analysis. The Government agree that the third national adaptation programme, which was published in 2023, was weak, particularly in its lack of clear targets and limited co-ordination across government departments. For the fourth iteration of the adaptation programme, we are putting in place a stronger framework, built on specific, measurable objectives, which will prepare this country for at least two degrees’ centigrade of warming by 2050. This Government are taking a more comprehensive, joined-up and strategic approach to climate adaptation, based on co-ordinating across systems and outcomes rather than simply addressing isolated risks. We have robust governance in place to ensure that departments are fully engaged at all levels to deliver on climate adaptation.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that a year of drought, wildfire and now flood warnings shows that resilience cannot be left to individual sectors, including outside government? Will the Government commit to a national wildfire strategy, as the farmers are urging, and confirm that the review of critical infrastructure resilience standards that is due by the end of the year will include water supply?
Lord Katz (Lab)
The noble Baroness is of course correct in emphasising the joined-up nature of the various threats to our country’s resilience from climate change, whether it is drought, as discussed yesterday, or the problems of flooding, with extremely variable weather systems expanding the problem. On wildfires, she will be aware that the Prime Minister called a wildfire summit at the end of last month, which brought together all the necessary stakeholders to seriously consider how we can improve our resilience to them. She is right in saying that the number of wildfires has increased. Over the summer, there were a record 1,300 wildfire incidents in England and Wales. It is a serious problem. Our focus is indeed on building resilience through better prevention, preparedness, response and strategy, which can help protect communities, nature and critical infrastructure from the growing threat of wildfires.
Lord Deben (Con)
Would the Minister accept that the real problem in the question of wildfires is that our firefighters do not have proper equipment? In my former constituency, they had to choose between facing the dangers not properly clad or having heat problems themselves. What are the Government doing urgently, as we are likely to have constant wildfires as a result of climate change?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am not entirely sure it would be fair to say what the noble Lord was implying. It is the case that the Government, from the Prime Minister downwards, take this issue of wildfires very seriously. In terms of response, firefighters on the front line will be boosted by additional specialist wildfire teams and state-of-the-art wildfire-specific personal protective equipment, backed up by £45 million. Also, the RAF’s Chinook helicopters and A400M aircraft will be equipped so that they can join in the fight against wildfires and be ready when requested to help crews across the UK battle blazes where they find them.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the Adaptation Committee of the Climate Change Committee. It is good to hear of the Government’s commitment to more specific targets for addressing adaptation, but, in the light of their recent announcement that there will be no more changes to building regulations, will the Minister tell us how the Government will ensure that new homes are going to be fit for the future in terms of resilience to flooding, resistance to overheating and, of course, the outstanding water efficiency we need to address the increasing incidence of drought conditions in this country?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question and, more importantly, for her work in this area and her long-term commitment to ensuring that we have stronger resilience. To be clear, with regard to the ongoing work of the Government in reforming planning guidance and promoting the building of more houses—particularly social houses—it is absolutely right that we set the right framework for a multitude of resilience factors, whether it is around energy and water conservation or resilience to flood. That is why the Government continue to work with our industry stakeholders, particularly the building sector, to make sure we have the skills, the materials and the know-how so that we have resilient properties in the future.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Yesterday, the Minister was answering questions on the reservoir water levels. Linking that to this question and UK resilience, I ask the Minister: what are the current meteorological predictions for rainfall in southern England over the next six months? And what is plan B if the rain does not fall?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am tempted to say that we should all do a dance, but that would be facetious. I am afraid that I do not have the exact data that the noble Baroness requested in front of me, so I will be more than happy to write to her in reply. This is important. As we discussed yesterday on the question the noble Baroness referred to about drought and water levels, we take both a long and a short-term approach with the water companies. We make sure they are investing, and we have this record level of £104 billion in investment to provide greater reservoir capacity with nine new reservoirs. They also spend their time, money and attention on fixing the problems of water leakage and pipe leakage now. It is so important that we start at the source to conserve water if, as the noble Baroness says, putting issues such as El Niño to one side, we do not have the water fall that we are expecting.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister reassure me that maximum working temperature is under active consideration? That would be easy for employers and workers to understand, it would drive workplace adaptation and resilience and it would make working temperatures bearable for working people.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My noble friend knows that we have an ongoing dialogue about these sorts of regulations with not only her but trade unions and industry representatives. It is important when we think about climate change adaptation that we think not just about the hard built environment and infrastructure but about the way that we as individuals respond to it, whether that is about safe working temperatures or, indeed, the way that we conserve precious resources such as water.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, with the Government backtracking on EV targets, heat pumps, warm homes, no oil and drilling—for example, Jackdaw—and now proposing more airport expansion, which climate promises are the Government going to stick to?
Lord Katz (Lab)
Where do I start, my Lords? In relation to the reference made by the noble Baroness to Jackdaw and so on, I would point out that Rosebank is in a live quasi-judicial regulatory process that is still to be decided on. We are very clear that Jackdaw was not a new licence; we are not breaking any promises there. More widely, I could go through quite a long list, but will spare noble Lords. The measures that we are taking to adapt to climate change include investing £300 million in natural flood management up to 2035, using the farming road map to put long-term climate resilience at the heart of farming, and £30 million for coastal adaptation pilots to help coastal communities adapt. I will stop there, but I hope that the noble Baroness gets the drift.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, it is clear to our Benches that land management offers significant scope for both reducing and mitigating the impact of climate change. Re-wetting drained land, decanalising rivers, riparian planting and peatland restoration all improve drought resilience, reduce peak flow events in floods and improve water quality. With the right financial incentives, these also improve our food security by underpinning farm businesses. What are the Government doing to incentivise these actions across all our river catchments?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I very much share the noble Lord’s ambition in relation to using nature and our farmers to help us make progress on climate adaptation and resilience. I think it is fair to point to the 25-year farming road map that we have produced. That is a long-term vision for the farming sector, to make it not only a profitable sector but one that can lead on climate change resilience, making sure that we have a sustainable and resilient agriculture sector. We are using environmental land management schemes to support ambitious and evidence-based delivery towards resilient landscapes in the land-use framework; for example, committing to assess climate change impacts on the land and building adaptation into ELM schemes.
Interest Rates
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the recent rise in interest rates and the effect of this on economic growth, inflation and on their borrowing costs.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Lord Pitt-Watson) (Lab)
This is an important Question. Last week, the independent Monetary Policy Committee increased the Bank rate in response to the high inflation that was driven by the conflict in the Middle East. I should point out, however, that the Office for Budget Responsibility noted that higher rates would weigh on activity and increased borrowing costs, contributing, in the projection that we saw with the Budget, to the slowing of growth next year. Of course, higher rates should reduce inflationary pressure, which is itself essential for longer-term growth.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
What does the Minister say to the millions of people whose mortgages will have become more expensive as a result of this rise and, more than likely, further rises in UK interest rates?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
It is a difficult question. We are living in uncertain times and things are difficult for people on mortgages. It will be different depending on the type of mortgage you have: is it a fixed-rate mortgage or a variable-rate mortgage? If it is a fixed-rate mortgage, you might be very pleased, when your mortgage is renewed, that we are getting medium-term inflation down, but I understand that it is more difficult for interest-only mortgages. I finish by saying that the Bank rate in May 2022 was 1%, but by August 2023 it was 5.25%—a 4.25 percentage point increase. I am sure that people who were on the Front Bench in those days will also be able to help answer the noble Baroness’s question.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the chairman of a small bank. Does the Minister agree that it is the market as much as the Bank of England which determines the interest rates which people and businesses pay? Does he therefore agree that the 40 basis points reduction in 10-year gilt yields is probably more significant over the last month than the 25 basis point increase in the Bank rate? Can he reaffirm the Government’s commitment to the fiscal rules in particular and fiscal credibility in general?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
The answer is yes to those questions. How it works will be complicated for different people, depending on the terms they got from the banks. We have an absolute commitment to the fiscal rules.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the OBR has forecast that, by 2031, the Government’s payment on annual debt interest will rise to a staggering £160 billion. Part of the reason for that very high number is that the Government remain, through the Treasury and the Debt Management Office, absolutely addicted to issuing index-linked bonds, which pay not a fixed coupon but a coupon based on the level of inflation and, even worse, on RPI. No other G7 country does this general idiocy and the pension industry, which once benefited from such bonds, no longer uses them. Can the Minister please explain why the Treasury and the Debt Management Office, which is part of the Treasury, continue with this addiction?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
I answered a similar question in the past, maybe as a Written Question, and noted that the issuance of index-linked bonds was indeed falling, but I would be more than happy to write further to the noble Baroness if she thought that was critical.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, since interest rates under John Major were at 15% and under Margaret Thatcher at 17%, are the Tories the best people to advise the Government on this matter?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
How can I answer that? You may say that; I couldn’t possibly comment. I made the point that the Bank rate rose between May 2022 and August 2023 by 4.25 percentage points. If I am doing my arithmetic right, that is 17 times what we have seen in the past week.
Lord Redwood (Con)
Why was the Bank of England recently given permission by the Chancellor not to sell £120 billion of long bonds that it was planning to sell and why is it now seeking permission to sell all the remaining bonds to the Treasury?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
This was the decision of the independent Bank of England, just as the decision on the Bank rate is an independent decision of the Bank of England. I am not sure I can go beyond that in commenting.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, put bluntly, for our debt to decline meaningfully, our GDP growth rates need to exceed the interest rates we pay on our borrowing. Does the Minister agree that this requires an explicit and bold growth strategy? If so, where did this feature in last month’s Budget?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
I go to the view of Kristalina Georgieva, the managing director of the IMF, and quote her on what she thinks about the UK and its management of its debt:
“The UK is actually one country where action to reduce debt and deficit has been taken decisively and we see the UK in that sense enjoying a bit of a better growth prospect”.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, hiking the interest rate is actually a wrong policy. The current level of inflation is caused by profiteering and supply chain constraints, not by excessive cash sloshing around in households. Some 25.3 million people already live below the minimum income standard. The higher interest rate will force households, businesses and government to hand over wealth to banks, boosting their profits without any additional investment. The right policy should be to curb profiteering. Does the Minister agree? If so, what will he do?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
The decision on interest rates is for the independent Monetary Policy Committee, which is part of the Bank of England. If the noble Lord would like to write to it, or write to it through me, I would be very happy to pass his comments on.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
Will the Government not accept that they face a serious debt crisis, which, admittedly, they inherited? We now have public debt at almost 100% of GDP—more than 90%—and a colossal amount of the tax that the Government collect has to be paid on an ever-mounting level of interest. Will the Government stop saying that they will stick to the fiscal rules, which means that they will stop borrowing in a few years’ time, and take some urgent action to win back the confidence of the market by chasing obvious targets, such as cutting the growth of the welfare budget and scrapping the triple lock to start with?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
I agree with many of the noble Lord’s comments. Our debt is way too high and the interest we are paying on the burden of that is very serious. How we go about righting that—as he says, there is a long history, and it is unhelpful to go into it—is a matter of judgment and balance, and it needs to be done over time. I go back to the comments of the chief economist of the IMF: of all the countries it is reviewing, she picks the UK out as the one that, basically, stands out. I hear that there may be some moves a little this way and some a little that way, but I hope that the House will acknowledge the seriousness with which this issue is being treated.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, what analysis have the Government made of the impact of monetary policy on the fiscal deficit and whether there has been too much conflict between the Bank of England’s policy, which is anti-growth by pushing up interest rates, and the requirements of the economy to boost growth?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
This is an interesting economic argument, but the institutional structure in the UK is that we have an independent Bank of England. That is seen as a strength for the UK in controlling inflation and those other economic effects, which in turn underpins growth for the future. I think that, in general, there is cross-party agreement that that is a good way of doing things.
Standing Orders (Private Business)
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That Private Business Standing Order 70(1) be dispensed with to allow the examination of petitions for Private Bills, copies of which Bills have been deposited in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 38, to commence on 17 December 2026.
Courts and Tribunals Bill
Tuesday 10th November 2026
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Courts and Tribunals Bill 2024-26 View all Courts and Tribunals Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 57-I(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (10 Nov 2026)
Baroness Chakrabarti
“(4A) In section 19 (decision as to allocation), after subsection (3), insert—“(3A) If the accused would likely receive a sentence of imprisonment of more than 12 months but not more than three years, is of good character, and has not previously been convicted of an offence, the court must give greater weight to the representations made by the accused under subsection (2)(b) above.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that defendants of good character, without previous convictions, have their representations as to allocation given greater weight, so they are not denied the Crown Court trial a defendant of poorer character with previous convictions would receive.
Baroness Chakrabarti (CB)
My Lords, after such a thoughtful Second Reading debate, as I hope noble Lords agree, and a great deal of engagement between Ministers and noble Lords between then and now, I have the privilege of welcoming the Committee to their places. At Second Reading, many of us were grateful to the Government for some considerable movement since the first iteration of the Bill, but, equally, many of us were concerned that somewhat more movement is required if crucial clauses of the Bill are to inspire the public trust and confidence that are so important for the criminal justice system in this jurisdiction.
The context is, of course, a backlog that Governments of both stripes have struggled with and that many of us on all sides of the House principally attribute to decades of underinvestment. The context is an understanding that the right to jury trial has not been and is not absolute, and that many cases—the bulk of criminal cases—are not dealt with in the Crown Court. However, the context is also that the right to elect for a jury trial, and to have jury trials in many serious cases, is important to many people in our country. Both truths can hold at the same time. That is why this Committee is so incredibly important, and I come to it with slight anxiety, and occasionally a heavy heart, given the responsibility that we have.
Alongside the point about basic legitimacy, trust and confidence, many noble Lords have expressed concerns about exposing judges, and indeed magistrates, to opprobrium in high-profile serious cases, and about the important safeguard that juries provide against the abuse of power in our current system. The first group of amendments, on mode of trial, is therefore incredibly important. It addresses the removal of the right to elect for jury trial in “either way” cases. It is unsurprising that the group contains not one but two clause stand part debates, and it is equally unsurprising that a rather exquisite quartet of noble and learned Lords will be exploring allocation guidelines, given that magistrates are to be given a new and awesome responsibility in “either way” cases.
I have Amendments 1 and 3 in this group, supported by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and my noble friend Lady Goudie, who apologises for not being able to be here because of sad and urgent matters elsewhere. Taking the amendments in reverse order, Amendment 3 seeks to provide a right of appeal against a mode of trial decision. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has tabled Amendment 7, which takes a more detailed approach to providing such a right of appeal against a magistrate’s decision that a case will not be heard in the Crown Court, given the proposed end of the right of election. I think both of our amendments, if I may say this to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, follow the principle that important first-instance judicial decisions ought to be subject to appeal.
Amendment 1, which I share with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, deals with an important and serious but unintended consequence of abolishing the right of election for jury trial. It relates, in particular, to persons of good character. A consequence of abolishing the right of election to jury trial, and of magistrates being more likely to suggest jury trial, as will be their prerogative now—they are more likely to do that if they feel that their own sentencing powers are inadequate and that the likely sentence in a case would be a longer one—is that a person with many previous convictions who would face perhaps a longer sentence for a particular offence is more likely to be allowed a jury trial than a person of hitherto untainted character with no previous convictions.
Take two defendants facing the same offence—one of good character and the other with many previous convictions, perhaps serious ones and similar ones. The Bill in its current form would, in this regard, favour the person of bad character with many previous convictions and not the person of good character. That, I suggest to the Committee, must be an unintended, perverse consequence of the regime as currently drafted in the Bill. That cannot be right and fair. There are differing consequences for people of previous good character from people with many previous convictions—even though the latter may have a longer sentence, the consequences for their life, reputation and so on are perhaps different.
Amendment 1 proposes not a veto for the person of previous good character but a requirement that it should at least be taken into account. Under the circumstances, it is a fairly modest request of the Government. This fairly modest amendment, which I share with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, suggests that, in such a scenario, the magistrates’ court should give particular weight to submissions by a defendant of hitherto untainted character and no previous convictions, and that that should go into the mix when considering whether they might be allowed a jury trial. That has, as noble Lords discussed at Second Reading, been our way for such a long time, and one that was cherished by so many of our people who have trust and confidence in that system.
As we have discussed, so many ordinary people—not lawyers, judges or otherwise professional people—have greater trust in juries than they do in not just other parts of the criminal justice system but other parts of our institutional democracy. That is why this group is so very important. I beg to move.
Lord Hain (Lab)
Can I ask my noble friend to confirm that it was a jury that convicted Russell Brand? The right to jury trial is fundamental and many of the points she is making are extremely telling.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for that rhetorical question, to which I feel the Committee knows the answer. I understand all the points about the backlog, the costs and our concern to speed up justice, which victims are crying out for, but, at the same time, a vindication for someone wrongfully accused or for victims who have been denied that vindication of their rights means that juries really matter to ordinary people in this country. I know that noble Lords in this Committee understand that, because a brief conversation with any number of their friends, neighbours and family members who have nothing to do with the legal profession, or perhaps any other profession, will indicate as much.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness; we agree very often on matters of this kind, and I particularly agree with the two amendments that she has tabled and to which I have put my name. I will make two brief preliminary points before I come to the substance. First, I apologise that I was not able to participate at Second Reading. I am sorry about that, but I had long-standing commitments which would have been very difficult to break. Secondly, and quite differently, although I have practised at the Criminal Bar off and on for around 40 years, I have to admit that I have not been in a criminal court since 2010—although I still practise as a legal assessor to regulatory panels connected with healthcare professionals—so I do not have a professional or technical interest to declare.
At the heart of this matter, which I think my noble and learned friend Lord Keen will address at some length, is the stand part debate on Clause 1. I shall support my noble and learned friend if he moves a Division on Report, because my view is that it should not stand part. He will argue the reasons, which he set out very fully at Second Reading, and I will therefore summarise them only with the greatest of brevity.
The right to jury trial in “either way” offences enjoys widespread professional and public support. There is very little appetite for change. To change it therefore requires the most compelling of reasons, and I suggest that they do not exist. There is a backlog, but jury trials are not the principal, primary or, perhaps, only significant cause of it. As my noble and learned friend said at Second Reading, when he posed a number of questions, the backlog was caused by a number of factors which have now passed: Covid, for example, or, I regret very much to say, the industrial action among junior members of my profession, of which I deeply disapproved. But there were other considerations: the failure of Governments, who I supported, to provide adequate funding for judicial time and appropriate courts. Administrative action could be taken to remedy this backlog, but we are taking measures to remedy it to which the backlog is not related. In any event, it is not self-evidently sensible to displace a backlog in a Crown Court to one in a magistrates’ court. That seems to me rather surprising. So I am against Clause 1, but I have to recognise the possibility that this Government will seek to ram it through Parliament. Therefore, it is the Committee’s business to try to remedy the faults in Clause 1 or to correct its omissions.
I come first to Amendment 1, so clearly moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. It cannot be right for a disparity to exist between a defendant with a long string of previous convictions, who is likely to get a lengthy sentence, and a defendant without convictions who is a person of good character. The former is likely to get a jury trial; the person of good character is likely to be denied it. That cannot be right. The noble Baroness has put down a very clear amendment to address precisely that point, and I was pleased to support it.
Amendment 3, to which the noble Baroness also referred, concerns the right of appeal. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, shares her views on this. I would like to think that, on Report, we could make common cause together and put it to a Division. However, if the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will forgive me one point, her amendment on appeal is somewhat narrowly drawn. I would prefer to incorporate the concept of fairness and the principles of natural justice, but that is a matter for subsequent discussion.
I am a great supporter of Amendment 2 from the noble and learned Lords. It would be very sensible to introduce the concept of guidelines, because otherwise we are likely to see a judicial postcode lottery. We all know from our experience in politics that a postcode lottery will become deeply unpopular, so the concept of guidelines is a very good one, subject to this proviso: I do not read in the amendment, or in anything naturally associated with it, the suggestion of judicial input. I would like to see judicial input into the guidelines. I shall support all these amendments should they be pressed to a Division on Report.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 2, which stands in my name and those of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Phillips, Lord Burnett of Maldon and Lord Bellamy, who very much regrets his inability to be here today.
As its explanatory statement makes clear, this is a probing amendment. It is made in circumstances where the time has come for some further structural change to the cases that go to the Crown Court and those that go to the magistrates’ court. The backlog in the Crown Court has the effect of denying justice, particularly to victims. I do not believe there is any alternative to dealing with the backlog. When I have encountered it in the past, I have found that it gets worse if it is not dealt with, because it has a spiralling effect as people game the system. There is nothing new in making an adjustment, and it is a question of detail as to how this adjustment is best made. I am very grateful to the Minister for his engagement with us to discuss the various amendments put forward in our names.
The purpose of Amendment 2 is to probe two areas. The first is to work out the way of getting the greatest possible consistency across the country on which cases are retained in the magistrates’ courts and which go to the Crown Court. The second is an issue that has not much been debated so far: are the cases that are retained in the magistrates’ courts to be decided by three magistrates or by judge alone—that is, by a district judge or deputy district judges? Before I turn to that in a little more detail, it is important to explain the background. Because these reforms have been put forward without the very detailed and careful analysis that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, put to his recommendations, at present it is not possible to work out the best way to proceed.
I will briefly explain the present position. The position as to allocation is set out in Section 19 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, which simply requires the court to decide whether it is more suitable for trial on indictment or summary trial on the allocations issued by the Sentencing Council. Those allocation guidelines are drafted against the current sentencing powers of the magistrates. In essence, they say that cases should be tried summarily unless the outcome would clearly be a sentence in excess of the court’s powers, after taking into account personal mitigation and potential reduction for guilty pleas. The guidelines go on to say that cases of unusual factual complexity should be tried in the Crown Court. Those are exceptions—the rest are to be tried in the magistrates’ court, if they are within its sentencing powers —and such exceptions are likely to be narrow and rare. So at the moment the guidelines are structured so that the potential sentence is determinative of the way the case should be tried. The question is: is that the appropriate way to continue?
The second issue is the distribution of work in the magistrates’ courts. The way in which work is distributed in the magistrates’ court is governed by the listing practice direction issued by the Lady Chief Justice last month. That direction followed what was, in essence, the product of work done in 2012 by a group chaired by Lord Justice Gross, with representatives of the magistrates present and the senior district judge in HMCTS. It sets out the presumptions for trial by district judges, including long cases. It also provides for a share of routine business and for the occasional sitting of mixed Benches.
The question that arises is: should we say that these are matters for the Sentencing Council and for the practice direction issued by the Lady Chief Justice, or should Parliament prepare guidelines and issue those through the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor? At the moment it is not possible to be more specific about the way in which the guidelines might operate. We do not know at present the basis of the figures that have been used to calculate the savings in time. Is it assumed that magistrates will operate the existing guidelines, primarily determined by the sentencing powers that they have? Secondly, the distribution of work between the magistrates and the district judges and deputy district judges is not clear, because although large numbers of magistrates are being recruited, there is a substantial recruitment of deputy district judges and district judges. Both those issues are important. We need to decide whether guidelines should be made.
In her Amendment 1, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, supported by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has proposed that matters such as good character should be taken into account, but there may be other matters that need to be looked at. For example, one needs to bear in mind that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, recorded at paragraph 38 of chapter 5 of his report, there were concerns about how ethnic minorities would view changes of this kind. That would be a very difficult matter, if it was a matter to be taken into account, to be dealt with other than by Parliament.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I said at Second Reading that I was going to oppose a lot of the clauses in the Bill, and I will be standing up several times today to do exactly that. The first clause I oppose is Clause 1, and I find myself signing up to do so with some unusual colleagues—which is obviously a pleasure. I am against this clause because the Government, in order to make the court system easier to manage, are taking away an important protection from people accused of criminal offences. If we cannot get rid of the first clause, I support the other amendments in this group.
The right to elect trial by jury is an important safeguard. This clause removes that choice and hands the decision to magistrates. I have great respect for magistrates—I know quite a few and I appreciate the work they do—but that is not the issue here. The issue is whether a defendant should lose the choice of having their case heard by a jury. The Government argue that this is necessary to tackle the Crown Court backlog, but as we have already heard, removing rights is not a substitute for properly resourcing our courts. It is not going to work; that is fairly obvious from the debates we have had already.
The Bar Council strongly opposes this provision. It warns that the changes will result in more serious and complex cases being heard in magistrates’ courts, which is fairly obvious. But that concern becomes even greater when we consider Clause 5, which I will also be opposing and which increases magistrates’ sentencing powers. Taken together, these provisions mean that more serious cases can be dealt with in magistrates’ courts, with greater powers to deprive defendants of their liberty.
There is also the equality consideration, which I am disappointed that the Government have refused to address so far. Their own equality statement acknowledges that Black defendants, older defendants and women are more likely to elect for a Crown Court trial. In 2022, 26% of Black defendants elected for a Crown Court trial, compared with 15% of white defendants. The Lammy Review found that many people from ethnic-minority backgrounds had
“more confidence in the fairness of juries than … in the fairness of Magistrates’ Courts”.
So removing this choice risks further undermining confidence in a justice system where trust is already quite fragile.
There are consequences for witnesses and complainants too. Section 28 special measures, which allow eligible witnesses to have their cross-examination pre-recorded, is not available in magistrates’ courts. This is particularly important for children, people with certain disabilities, and complainants of sexual offences. With the current spotlight in our country on sexual offences and the fact that women find it incredibly difficult to get justice, this is quite an important component.
The Government acknowledge that there is insufficient data to establish how many vulnerable witnesses could be affected. How can we press ahead with something when we do not even have the data to see whether it is going to be good or bad? I do not understand. The organisation Justice also supports removing the clause.
A fair trial should not depend on whether the Government want to move one backlog to another. The right to a jury trial should not be treated as expendable and Greens such as me will always defend it.
Baroness Bi (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a partner of Norton Rose Fulbright, a law firm. I start by apologising for missing Second Reading as I was travelling overseas on firm business that could not be avoided. I have, however, read the debate in full in Hansard. I was struck particularly by the important contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, with its cri de coeur at the end of
“if not this, then what? If not now, then when?”.—[Official Report, 27/10/26; col. 1099.]
As a corporate lawyer with no expertise in criminal law, unlike many noble Lords who will contribute today and have done in the past, I want to make the point that the reputation of our criminal courts is important to all of us, as it drives the reputation of our legal system as a whole, and that forms the basis of our success as a leading economy. That reputation is now suffering, and in some cases international clients are choosing to take their commercial cases to our competitor jurisdictions, such as Singapore and Dubai, where they believe they will receive faster judgments. It is therefore not just a matter of justice that we address the crisis in our courts but an economic imperative.
It was generally agreed by your Lordships at Second Reading that the courts are in crisis and that we need not only more money and efficiency but a principled, structural reform of how trials are run. My concern about the amendments proposed to Clause 1 is that they are based on the assumption that the better form of justice is trial by jury and that requiring a case to be heard in the magistrates’ court by removing the right to elect is a denial of a fundamental right.
This assumption is made even though only a small minority of criminal cases are heard by a jury and over 90% of criminal cases are dealt with entirely in the magistrates’ courts. The number of “each way” offences comprised 18% of the cases that were before the magistrates in July 2026, only a minority of which elected for trial by jury. Are we really saying that those whose lives are permanently affected by a criminal conviction, irrespective of the length of the sentence handed down by the magistrates’ court, have had an inferior form of justice, and the only trial worthy of the name has to involve a jury?
Am I the only person to be shocked to read in the impact assessment that the size of the magistracy reduced from over 29,000 magistrates in 2010 to 12,500 by 2022? That was under successive Governments claiming to be tough on law and order. It is not a surprise that we have the backlogs that we are talking about. Very importantly, the Government and the Lady Chief Justice are seeking to widen the diversity of the magistracy and the judiciary, because it is vital that defendants believe they have been judged by their peers, which has been the main argument for a jury trial until now. I take seriously the comment that has just been made about Black and other minority defendants, and I am glad that the Government will commission an independent review of the changes to ensure that they do not disadvantage any groups in particular.
This Bill, including Clause 1, is only one of a number of measures that are needed to ensure that our legal system remains the gold standard internationally, on which our reputation as a good place to invest and do business rests. The Government are bringing into place not just the changes that this Bill represents but a broad programme of hiring further magistrates, judges and court officials to make sure that courts are properly staffed and able to deal with the broad range of the backlog. They are also increasing the number of court days and ensuring that criminal legal aid in the magistrates’ court is increased, which is important to make sure that defendants are fairly treated. For that reason, I reject the amendments suggested to Clause 1, and I hope the Bill continues as it is currently drafted.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with every word that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, uttered earlier. I, too, dislike Clause 1. Like him, if it is pushed unamended, I shall have great difficulty in supporting it later.
I have to take issue with the noble Baroness who has just spoken, because there is a big difference when you are facing a trial as to which you would opt for. Which one of us would opt for the magistrates rather than a jury trial? It is a different standard of justice. I say that without in any way being insulting to magistrates, who are now fully trained—much more than they were in the days when I was still practising, about 20 years ago. They are much better equipped to deal with matters, but the reality is that a Crown Court trial usually has a senior lawyer looking at the file. They may well see the flaws, which may well change the trial’s whole course and indeed lead it to be dropped. I remember—and I do not believe it has changed in view of the number of people on the waiting list at the moment in the magistrates’ court, which is 380,000—CPS representatives doing the prosecuting coming in carrying a huge number of files of different cases, without the time to devote to looking at each one properly. That is what happens.
Also, when appeals from trials in the magistrates’ court go to the Crown Court—there are not a great many of them, so it will not save a lot of time—56% succeed. Something has gone wrong. It may be that the law was not properly presented, or that there is some further evidence, or that it was just wrong on the facts, but that is an indication that things go wrong. They often go wrong because people do not have legal aid and are representing themselves. Sometimes—I say it of my own former profession—they are represented by very junior people, as is often the case in the magistrates’ court, or are not represented at all because no criminal solicitor will take the case on.
I accept that there has to be a look at which cases are entitled to go to jury trial. Some minor matters clog up the courts and could be dealt with in other ways, and I know that comes into later parts of the Bill. We all want to see a solution to this dreadful waiting time which means that people are waiting in custody for a considerable time or are waiting to give evidence in trials. That has to be tackled, but I cannot see the provisions in Clause 1 having the desired effect of reducing them.
If any one of us would choose a jury trial, so would, I suspect, the majority of defendants. To take away a right of appeal about allocation seems a denial of justice. I do not believe that that is something that my Government, the Government who in 1945 brought in the legal aid system, want to see. I hope the Minister will look again at this, because, frankly, it is not right and it is not going to do the job. There are other ways that have been mentioned already, and there are probably a great deal more that we can come up with which will help to cut that dreadful backlog.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
My Lords, the backlogs are now so great, and the delays in trials taking place so vast, that we are talking about cases being listed two or three years in the future, which is a hopeless situation for witnesses, victims, complainants and, of course, defendants. Some sort of structural change is necessary, but the question is what form it should take.
As I made clear at Second Reading, I do not have a difficulty with courts making the decision about where cases should be allocated, rather than defendants. In fact, granting defendants that right is comparatively unusual across the common-law world and does not even exist universally across the United Kingdom. It is not the system that pertains in Scotland, and I imagine your Lordships would all agree that Scotland has a civilised, decent and fair legal system—that is certainly my view, as someone whose parents were natives of Scotland.
My concern, however, as I expressed at Second Reading, is whether the magistrates’ courts can cope with the new levels of work that they are going to receive. I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson of Liverpool, that it is not simply a lack of funding or the Covid pandemic that have caused the backlogs—although lack of funding has been a very significant contributor, and Governments of all persuasions have deliberately starved the justice system of cash because it was an easy target, and it is obviously true that Covid played its part. As the noble and learned Lord said, the increasing complexity of criminal trials and the bulk of evidence—CCTV evidence, DNA evidence, scientific evidence and all the rest of it—have made trials longer and contributed to the backlog.
The obvious flaw in that argument, however, when it comes to the Government’s proposed reform, is this: why would those cases be any less complicated in the magistrates’ court? How is the magistrates’ court to cope with the increasing complexity? There is no doubt at all that most of our magistrates’ courts in greater urban areas are presently in a state of chaos: the backlogs are enormous and growing; we are failing to recruit sufficient magistrates; and we do not have enough district judges. Unless we significantly increase the number of magistrates and district judges, magistrates’ courts will simply be unable to cope with the increased volume and complexity of work that is destined for those courts because of this legislation. The Government are going to have to devote significant funding to this change if it is to work.
All these issues make even more important Amendment 2, in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and other noble Lords, on the question of allocation. It is going to be critical that magistrates’ courts have some allocation guidelines in this area. If not, there is an obvious risk—I speak as someone who knows a number of magistrates—that magistrates simply continue to send everything up to the Crown Court because their courts cannot cope. That will happen if there is not some form of allocation and increased funding for the magistrates’ courts. I do not say any of this with great pleasure. Funding has played a major part in the situation in which we find ourselves, and the lack of funding on the part of many Governments has been reprehensible.
Finally, I cannot support Amendment 1. Why should people of good character have more rights in our justice system than people of bad character? I practised in the criminal courts regularly for almost 40 years. I do not any more; I last did a trial in 2012. Why should defendants of bad character have fewer rights when it comes to allocation? I say this frankly and with due respect to them, but most of the defendants who I represented over my 30 or 40 years at the criminal Bar were people of bad character. I never felt that they should have fewer rights in the criminal justice system than people of good character, but that is what Amendment 1 proposes, and I am surprised that it does so. Allocation should apply according to fair and rational guidelines, regardless of the character of the individual who is being allocated.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I speak in support of Clause 1. At its heart, this clause raises a simple question: do we trust magistrates? Throughout my professional life, I have regarded magistrates as one of the great strengths of our criminal justice system. Every single day, magistrates determine guilt. They pass sentence and make decisions that affect liberty, livelihoods and futures. If they can be trusted to do that, why can they not be trusted to decide where a case should be tried? That is the question I have yet to hear satisfactorily answered by the opponents of Clause 1.
Some argue that magistrates may underestimate the seriousness of a case. My experience suggests the opposite; magistrates frequently err on the side of caution. Indeed, many cases sent to the Crown Court ultimately result in sentences that magistrates themselves could have imposed. If there is a tendency, it broadly appears to be towards caution, not recklessness. With respect to my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti—with whom I agree on almost everything, but not on this occasion—I am slightly mystified by the suggestion that magistrates are going to keep the person of good character in a magistrates’ court but send a serial shoplifter to the Crown Court. My instinct is that rather the opposite is likely to happen. I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, that all those who appear before the courts must be treated in exactly the same way.
I am a strong supporter of jury trial; it is one of the strengths of our constitution. However, it does not follow that every case capable of being tried by a jury must be tried by a jury. If that were the principle, the vast majority of criminal cases presently heard by magistrates would need to be transferred back to the Crown Court, and nobody is sensibly arguing for that. Magistrates’ courts do not provide some lesser form of justice, and lay magistrates, like jurors, are members of the public performing a public duty; both reflect the principle that justice should not be administered exclusively by professionals.
As has been frequently said at Second Reading and during this debate, more than 90% of criminal cases are dealt with in the magistrates’ court, and without lay magistrates the system simply would not function. Throughout my career, I have seen magistrates approach difficult cases conscientiously, thoughtfully and fairly. They have earned the confidence of judges, practitioners and the communities which they serve, and they have earned the confidence of Parliament as well. Clause 1 does not ask the magistrates to undertake some radical new judicial function. It asks Parliament to trust them with a decision that is modest when compared with the responsibilities they already discharge every day. The real question is not whether magistrates are ready for this responsibility; it is whether we are prepared to recognise the responsibility they already shoulder.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, in supporting Amendment 5, in my name, I declare my interest as the director of the Free Speech Union.
I agree with all those noble Lords who have spoken already and expressed reservations about Clause 1, but, if we are going to have to live with Clause 1, I want to suggest ways in which it could be improved by exempting certain classes of offences from it. My amendment would exempt from Clause 1 the removal of the right to trial by jury for those accused of speech offences that are currently triable either way.
The argument for doing this is that whether someone is guilty of one of these offences depends on where the line is drawn, and that question hinges on the meaning of words such as insulting, threatening, abusive, harassment, alarm, distress and grossly offensive, or whether something has a tendency to deprave and corrupt. There are often no hard and fast rules when it comes to understanding or interpreting the meaning of those words, and no unambiguous statutes or precedents that a judge can refer to. Instead, it comes down to a moral judgment about what is and is not socially acceptable. When it comes to making those kinds of decisions, that is properly a matter for a jury, not a judge.
That is not just my view. In Brutus v Cozens, a case heard before the House of Lords in 1973, the Lords held that the meaning of an ordinary word such as “insulting” is not a question of law. It is a question about ordinary language and ordinary standards and where the line should be drawn, and such matters are best left to juries composed of ordinary people, not experts in law.
There is another reason for maintaining the “either way” status of the particular speech offences listed in my amendment. According to research carried out by the Free Speech Union, people charged with speech offences are twice as likely to be acquitted in the Crown Court as they are in the magistrates’ court. That is to say, juries are more tolerant when it comes to what speech is or is not socially acceptable.
I will give an example. In 2024, shortly after the Southport attack, an ex-Royal Marine called Jamie Michael, who was under the false impression that the attack had been carried out by an undocumented migrant, put out a video on Facebook urging his followers to protest outside the offices of elected politicians against illegal immigration. He did not use any racial epithets and he made a point of stressing that such protests should be peaceful. A complaint was made to the police by a member of staff of a Member of the Welsh Parliament, and he was charged with stirring up racial hatred, the maximum sentence for which is seven years in prison. The Free Speech Union found him a good solicitor and barrister, he pleaded not guilty and it took a jury a grand total of 17 minutes to acquit him. Would a magistrate have acquitted him in the same way? I doubt it.
When it comes to our fundamental right to freedom of speech, which is, after all, the most important right, because without it we would not be able to defend any of the others, I urge noble Lords to continue to entrust it to 12 ordinary Britons, who have proven to be a reliable guide to where to draw the line, as they did in the Lady Chatterley trial and have done so often since.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
One answer to the noble Lord is that even good cases sometimes make bad law.
I should apologise, like the noble Viscount and the noble Baroness, that I could not be here for Second Reading. I was able to watch it. My explanation or personal reference does not follow theirs, because my legal practice is very different from both of theirs. I do not know what the collective noun is for a group of those who encompass nobility, learning and a thoughtful approach. If they know what it is, perhaps they can tell me, so I can use it at a later stage. It is really helpful to have their contribution, not just on this issue but later in the Bill. The notion of guidelines is something we must rightly explore.
I am not proprietorial about my Amendment 7. I simply felt that the issue of appeals to allocation must be explored. As the Law Society put it, speed should not be the only criterion where a person
“may be convicted and sentenced to a lengthy period of custody or suffer life-changing reputational damage”.
To me, the issue of reputation is hugely important. We tend to focus on the length of a sentence, but I think any sentence carries a reputational factor. Following a short summary trial, there is a serious risk that efficiency will be perceived to have come at the expense of fairness. Magistrates, as has been said, are very used to deciding whether to send up a case, but the context and their powers will change considerably. What I am suggesting should be addressed is a mechanism for appeal.
While I remember, I will follow a couple of the speakers opposite. I do not like to say “opposite”, particularly in the case of the two noble Lords who have made points. I find it difficult to distinguish between defendants on the basis of character. It is rather like human rights. Somebody can be a really unpleasant person whom you would rather not have to help. However, their human rights are the same as everybody else’s. The amendment seeks to provide for either side, the prosecutor or the accused, with the permission of the Crown Court, to appeal against the decision, a time limit for the appeal to have, in the court’s view, a reasonable prospect of success, and for there to be criminal procedure rules. I know that the issue of the permission of the Crown Court is contentious in some people’s eyes.
Lord John of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, while I have sympathy for Amendments 7 and 3, my concern is that this simply adds another layer of backlog or chaos to the Crown Court system, which we are trying to eliminate. Appeals going from the magistrates’ court to the Crown Court are bound to take some time, delay the decision on where that case should sit and therefore delay justice again in that case. How does the noble Baroness propose that those additional delays are avoided?
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I am not seeking to instil chaos—at least, no more chaos than there may be at the moment. It is a question of the balance between speed and fairness, appropriateness—any of those nouns. I do not think that everything should be subsumed to speed.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I start from the position that we on these Benches support the right to jury trial in serious cases. I expect fully that we will support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, in opposing this clause, should they put it to a vote, as I certainly expect them to on Report.
I agree with every word of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and so many others in respect of jury trial. I agree with all those, in this Chamber and in the country at large, who believe that jury trial is one of the cornerstones of our liberty, and that the right to trial by one’s peers is trusted and relied on as a protection against arbitrary abuse of power. I entirely accept that the public trust juries. By and large, they believe that the secret deliberations of 12 jurors in the privacy of the jury room are more likely to produce a fair and unbiased result than the decision-making of one judge. Judges differ, to our knowledge and experience, in background, influences, prejudices and therefore conclusions, from other judges hearing the same evidence and determining the same case.
I also believe that the jury system democratises our justice by bringing the public into the process of making findings of guilt or innocence. My experience of how seriously jurors take their duty when sitting on juries—although it is a distant experience, because I have not practised criminal law for a long time—reinforces that belief in how seriously they take their duties, as does the experience of talking to members of the public who have served on juries.
I agree with all those who see it as a strange and unjustified position that we should take a step as radical as removing the right of election for an ephemeral reason, such as reducing the Crown Court backlog, when there are other ways of reducing the Crown Court backlog. I accept it is dreadfully serious but it is already being tackled in other ways, and quite successfully. In any event, the evidence that removing the right to elect will have the effect of reducing the backlog is painfully thin.
For there to be a right to jury trial, there has to be a right of election in cases that are serious enough to be indictable only or triable either way. But that is not to say that the classification of which offences should be triable either way or, indeed, indictable only cannot change. Of course it can. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, conceded that point, along with others; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas Cwmgiedd, made the point as well. However, I suggest that we would lose a democratic right of great value if we were to abolish the defendant’s right of election.
I turn to Amendment 1, on the importance of good character in the determination of the appropriate allocation for trial, which is in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, who explained it fully and eloquently, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie. I argued in the King’s Speech debate, at a stage when the likely length of sentence was going to be the determinant of a right to jury trial—now, thankfully, gone from the Bill—that defendants of good character were at risk only of a low sentence and therefore were much more likely to be denied a trial by jury than defendants with serious criminal records.
Of course I accept that justice needs to be equal for everyone and that everyone has the same human rights, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee explained. Nevertheless, I am forced to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, on that point. No one is arguing that not all defendants deserve justice. However, the fact is that defendants of good character are at serious reputational risk from a conviction, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee explained. They face not only the risk of the sentence but risks to their careers and to their relationships, to which one can add risks to their mental health and well-being. For defendants with many previous convictions, the likely sentence would be much higher. The effect, therefore, of taking into account only sentence and treating sentence as the determinant is that the defendants of bad character, or with previous convictions, are much more likely to get a jury trial.
It is idle to suggest that the chances of acquittal in the magistrates’ court are the same as the chances of acquittal in the Crown Court. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, explained the difference in connection with speech offences, but the experience of the public at large and of the legal profession is that defendants of good character, at least, have a better chance of acquittal before a jury than they do before magistrates. It is therefore of great importance that good character is taken into account at the allocation stage, otherwise we would not be treating all defendants equally. We would be according a jury trial to defendants with previous convictions but not to those of previously unblemished character. We ignore that at our peril. Those who say that it is an equal playing field between magistrates’ courts and Crown Courts are drawing the wool over their own eyes.
My understanding, though, is that it is intended in the Bill that magistrates will be guided by the seriousness of the alleged offence and will be expected to leave out of account considerations of character and history. I would be grateful if the Minister would elucidate that, and explain and justify—without reference necessarily to the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and others—the guidance that is expected to be given to magistrates on the criteria for allocation between Crown Courts and magistrates’ courts in contested cases.
I turn to the right of appeal against allocation by the magistrates’ court, which my noble friend Lady Hamwee’s Amendment 7 would provide and which we support. Why should a decision of such fundamental importance be treated as no more than a case management decision for the magistrates alone? Magistrates do not, as a matter of course, have experience of jury trials. They do not know or need to know how jury trials work. The people most qualified to determine whether a case warrants a jury trial are the Crown Court judges who hear jury trials day in, day out. There should plainly be a right of appeal against the refusal of a jury trial. I argue that such an appeal should lie with the Crown Court, with the judge having the right to reverse the magistrate’s allocation decision simply if he or she took the view that it was the wrong decision.
I turn finally to the Clause 2 stand part notice in my name. I have notified the Government that that is not to be pursued. I ask the Minister to treat it as probing and ask him merely to explain how the mechanism in Clause 2 would work. By removing the right to object to the venue for a trial when the case comes before the magistrates, it is proposed that the decision on allocation is for the magistrate alone, but Clause 2 introduces a right to make representations.
I am not objecting to the right to make representations; it is a question of how that right is to be exercised and what the representations can cover. Is a representation to be only on the question of whether the sentencing powers of the magistrates’ court would be adequate to sentence the defendant for the offence? What would the criteria be? How far would they be confined to the nature and seriousness of the offence before the court? To come back to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, would factors relating to character be considered? Would factors relating to the defendant’s circumstances—for example, family ties, housing, children, employment, mental health, addiction and treatment needs, the effect of delaying a trial on sentencing, and the effect of delaying sentence—be permissible subjects for such representations? Would there be a judgment, giving reasons as to why the magistrate’s sentencing powers would be adequate—or why not, as the case may be?
These are important issues as to how this new provision might work. All I seek on Clause 2 is clarity as to what the Government propose and how they envisage that the allocation might work.
Lord John of Southwark (Lab)
The noble Lord spoke about the almost inadequacy of trials in the magistrates’ courts, but it is my understanding that about 90% of all criminal trials occur in magistrates’ courts at this time. Is he saying that those trials are unfair or inadequate in some way?
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
I never talked about the inadequacy of magistrates’ courts. The 90% figure is used a great deal. All motoring cases, almost without exception apart from causing death or serious injury, are tried in the magistrates’ courts, as are massive numbers of low-level shoplifting cases, very low-level violence cases and low-level cases of dishonesty. Thankfully, those comprise well over 90% of criminal cases. The Crown Court cases are the serious cases, and it is about the Crown Court that we are concerned. It is simply not an answer to say that magistrates try the vast majority of cases. People do not necessarily get the same quality of justice, for exactly the reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, explained. Serious cases deserve serious effort and attention. They also deserve everything that the jury gives: the privacy of the jury room, the care taken to the evidence, the guidance of a Crown Court judge and the lack of differential between one judge and another. The reason that people trust juries is, I believe, largely to do with the bald fact that 12 heads are better than one.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I acknowledge the Minister’s willingness to engage with Members across the House to explain the Government’s intentions with regard to this legislation. I express the hope that he will exhibit an equal willingness in answering the very particular questions that noble Lords have now posed with respect to the provisions of the Bill.
I propose that Clause 1 not stand part of the Bill. That clause will remove the right of a defendant to elect for a jury trial in the Crown Court in the case of “either way” offences. I must observe that I was concerned by the remarks made by the Minister for Courts and Legal Services in the other place. She said that
“we need a better system, one in which courts, not criminals, triage cases”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/1/26; col. 284.]
Her characterisation of all defendants as criminals is concerning in itself. It suggests, I hope inadvertently, that Ministers have lost sight of the essential principle that a defendant is presumed innocent unless and until they are found guilty. That principle cannot be lost sight of simply because of a backlog in the Crown Court. I hope the Minister will be able to clarify the remarks made by the Minister in the other place and to reassure us that the principle of presumption of innocence is not being pushed aside just for the benefit of convenience and timing.
On these Benches we will always stand up for the ancient right to trial by jury. It has been a fundamental protection against arbitrary justice for hundreds of years, and it has stood the test of time. More generally, the Bill seems to be driven more by ideology than by evidence, and that is a point to which we will return. Throughout the 2000s, the then Labour Government brought forward a number of Bills that sought to undermine the right to trial by jury. This House opposed such measures then, and we on these Benches oppose such measures today.
The Government have failed to justify their proposals with clear evidence. Indeed, I noted the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that the Government are pressing ahead without evidence. The noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, noted that the evidence in support of these proposals is “painfully thin”.
We have tabled this stand part notice because we need to hear from the Government what evidence there is that these proposals will reduce the backlog in the Crown Court system and are the only necessary route to achieving such a goal. In the absence of that evidence, we remain sceptical about the impact of these proposals. If the Minister could point us to the relevant evidence in his closing remarks, I would be grateful.
Is there evidence that these proposed reforms will reduce the Crown Court backlog in one year, in five years, in 10 years or, more likely, never? If the backlog is cleared, does the Minister accept that the Bill should be repealed? If the size of the backlog is the sole reason the Government are seeking this legislation, surely the absence of a backlog will render it unnecessary. Will the Minister answer that point?
In addition, it seems likely to us that these measures will simply move the backlog from the Crown Court to the magistrates’ court, as other noble Lords have observed. Clearly, other groups in Committee will address the issue of the magistrates’ courts, so I will not linger or expand on that point at this time. However, how much do the Government expect these measures to impact the magistrates’ system and what measures are being taken to avoid that system being overwhelmed by these measures?
Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, alongside my noble friend Lord Hailsham, probes whether the representations of defendants with good character who have not previously been convicted of a crime could be given greater weight. We acknowledge that this is an interesting point, and the noble Baroness is right to question how the treatment of defendants will differ based on their criminal history. It is important to consider whether a defendant with previous criminal history is more likely to receive a jury trial, so I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Amendment 2, in the names of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, Lord Burnett and Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, and my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy, seeks to question what guidelines will be provided as to the allocation of “either way” offences. Clearly, Clause 1 contains a substantial change to the way in which such offences may be tried and there has to be a consideration, if Clause 1 stands, as to how such guidelines would operate.
Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, again signed by my noble friend Lord Hailsham, and Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, seek to question the appeals process. I hope that the Minister will again consider those points and the concerns that have been expressed regarding the appeals system.
Finally, Amendment 5 in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Acton seeks to exempt offences relating to contested speech from the provisions of this clause, so that a defendant’s right to elect for a trial by jury can be maintained. My noble friend makes compelling arguments defending the importance of freedom of speech, and today was no exception. Although I acknowledge his concerns, it might be unusual to make an exception for only one type of offence, but he raises an important point in recognising the value and importance of the jury. I hope again that the Minister will respond to the points made.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Baroness Smith of Cluny) (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an important and informative debate about a fundamental part of the Bill. Given that there is opposition to Clauses 1 and 2 standing part, I will take a moment to set out the principal reasons for them and deal with some general points that have been brought up in the debate, and then I will deal with the specific amendments.
Clause 1 will remove the defendant’s ability to choose to elect for a Crown Court trial for all triable “either way” offences so that venue decisions are made solely by the courts. In doing so, it redresses the balance between victims and defendants by ensuring that they are based on the seriousness and complexity of the case and not the defendant’s preferences. Clause 2 is consequential on Clause 1 and ensures that the written plea procedure will operate consistently with the wider reforms once commenced.
We have heard contributions about confidence in the justice system, particularly in the context of jury trials. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, have raised these issues, while the learned and noble Lord, Lord Keen, raised the presumption of innocence, another foundational principle. The Government are concerned about public confidence, and that is a reason why we are bringing forward the Bill. Those clauses will ensure that Crown Court time is prioritised for the most serious and complex cases, ensuring a more proportionate use of limited court resources and sparing victims unnecessary delays.
Magistrates’ courts are fair, robust and independent, and these clauses recognise that. Safeguards remain: both prosecution and defence can make representations on venue, and defendants retain full rights of appeal to the Crown and High Courts. Fundamentally, the Government do not believe that a defendant should be able to override the court’s judgment and secure lengthy delays in the hope that victims and witnesses walk away and the case falls apart before it is heard.
Some general points that have been raised include concerns about magistrates, particularly the complement of magistrates. This was raised by my noble friend Lady Bi, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen. We are increasing the numbers: we have a target to nearly double the complement of magistrates from a historic low in 2022 by 2028-29. Noble Lords will hear more detail about this from my noble friend Lord Lemos during this Committee, so I will not spend time on it just now.
I wish to address the request for evidence from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen—indeed, it was raised by more than one person. Again, my noble friend Lord Lemos will deal with this subject in more detail, but detailed modelling has been published by the Ministry of Justice showing the impact on the backlog of the measures. I am happy to point the noble and learned Lord in its direction and share it with him.
Before I turn to specific amendments, I want to address the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee: what is the collective term for noble Lords of nobility and learning? I wonder if I might suggest “a wisdom” of noble Lords, or indeed “a wisdom” of noble Baronesses —but perhaps others can suggest different terms as the debate goes on.
Amendment 2, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, would require the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance on the allocation of “either way” offences. He acknowledged that this is a probing amendment. I will address the points that he has raised, and indeed I hope to continue the conversation with him beyond this. The noble and learned Lord raised the question of judicial input. The Sentencing Council is currently the body that issues the guidance that is used. That council is chaired by judges; it has judicial membership and indeed it consults judges. It is of course an independent organisation, which is an important safeguard.
The further question that was raised was: should the sentence be determinative of the factors taken into account? Sentencing is not the only factor, but I acknowledge that it is significant. The noble and learned Lord raised important points that were raised also by the noble Lords, Lord Macdonald and Lord Marks. This debate is a good opportunity for us to consider these issues, and I would be happy to continue the conversation after today’s Committee.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
I am just concerned to question whether the noble and learned Baroness is right in her argument that allocation decisions regularly made by the magistrates are the end of the matter, because, of course, in cases triable either way, the defendant has the right of election. The magistrates may say, “Well, we take the view that this case can be tried by the magistrates”. The right of election then supersedes that to give the defendant the right to choose jury trial, so it is wrong to say that the final allocation decision is taken by magistrates. I do not know whether that does not make a difference. I suggest that it does make a difference to the question of whether there ought to be a right of appeal.
Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)
I wonder if it is simply a question of how you analyse the sequence of the events that take place in court, but I would argue that the allocation decision is made by the magistrates. The fact that it can be displaced by the right to elect does not in any way take away from the steps and the process that those magistrates have to undertake to make the allocation in the first place. The right to elect does not suggest that the allocation decision was wrong; it is simply a right to access the Crown Court. It is not implicit in a defendant exercising that right that the allocation decision was wrong. In my view, the magistrates are already undertaking the task that they will and are doing it very ably.
Magistrates also already make important venue decisions in other contexts, including youth cases, without a bespoke right of appeal against those decisions. Defendants will retain the right to appeal against any conviction or sentence in line with the reform process established by the Bill. The Government therefore do not consider a new appeal mechanism to be necessary or proportionate.
Amendment 1, tabled by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, seeks to give greater weight to the representations of defendants of good character, and where they are likely to receive a sentence of between one and three years if convicted. The Government do not consider there to be a principled basis for this. The court must apply the statutory allocation criteria as set out by the independent Sentencing Council in every case and, as I have mentioned, provide reasons. Our view is that the allocation should be determined by the seriousness of the alleged offending, not by the personal characteristics of the defendant. Previous convictions are an established aggravating factor and it is therefore right that they are relevant to the assessment of likely sentence and case seriousness. There is also no statutory or straightforward definition of good character. This amendment would create different allocation outcomes for defendants based on their personal characteristics, departing from the principle that defendants should be treated equally before the law. I note the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, and my noble friend Lady Levitt in that regard and align the Government with them.
Finally, on Amendment 5, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, we are absolutely committed to upholding freedom of speech. It is a fundamental right and a defining value of our open and diverse society, and our legislation reflects this. The Sentencing Council’s allocation guidelines already take account of the seriousness and complexity of cases, and creating offence-specific exemptions would introduce a different allocation framework for a particular class of offences. This would undermine the principle that the venue should be determined by the court on the facts of the case rather than by the nature of the offence. A key safeguard is a fair trial before an independent court, not a defendant’s ability to choose the venue. Defendants charged with these offences will continue to receive fair and impartial justice, regardless of where the case is heard. This amendment would not support the aim of the Bill, which is to ensure that cases are heard in the most appropriate venue, based on their seriousness and complexity, preserving Crown Court capacity for the most serious and complex cases.
This is a Bill to deal with the acute crisis in our justice system in England and Wales, which the Committee is well cognisant of, but it is also a Bill based on principle. The findings of the review from the noble Lord, Lord Leveson, are much more than a set of practical fixes; they are principled proposals that make sense quite separately from any crisis. Removing the right to elect is the correct thing to do in principle, and I say that as someone who has conducted many criminal trials in a system that has no such right but none the less manages the important rights of defendants as well.
I thank all Members for these amendments. They are an important part of this debate, and I hope the explanations I have given of the Government’s position will allow your Lordships to support these clauses standing part of the Bill.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
Before the noble and learned Baroness sits down, might I raise one point with her? Alluding to the right to elect for jury trial, she described it as the means to “secure lengthy delays”. Are the Government seriously contending that the right to jury trial should be removed because they perceive that it is being abused at the present time?
Baroness Smith of Cluny (Lab)
I am not sure that that is what I did say; if I did, let me correct the record. The purpose of these clauses is to ensure that Crown Court time is prioritised for the most serious and complex cases, ensuring a more proportionate use of limited court resources and sparing victims unnecessary delays.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am so grateful to the Committee and to all who spoke on such important matters so thoughtfully and temperately. In particular, I am grateful to the noble, learned and distinguished silks from north of the border, who echoed that tone on both Front Benches. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, for his support, and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for reminding us of the importance of consistency and of a potential role for guidance, and for his gentle wake-up call to those who celebrate not having judges sitting alone via the front door that that it is a possibility via the back door with the Bill in its current form.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames—another distinguished silk—for his riposte to the suggestion from a few noble Lords that character does not matter, and that I have launched an affront to universal human rights by suggesting that it does. Forgive me, but character does matter. Nobody said that character should not matter in sentencing; it is a crucial factor. As long as sentencing is important, decisive or determinative in mode-of-trial decisions, I am afraid that character will matter. At the moment, it will matter to the detriment of people facing a potential first-time conviction. That is the logic of the Bill in its current form. To say that character is just a characteristic, such as hair colour or even race or sex, is a mistake that will warrant further discussion and thought from all noble Lords and my noble friends in government. With that, for today at least, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd
“(7A) After section 22A (low-value shoplifting to be a summary offence), insert—“22B Reclassification of summary offences(1) Within six months of the day on which the Courts and Tribunals Act 2026 is passed, the Secretary of State must carry out a reclassification of summary offences and in doing so must have regard to—(a) whether the offence carries a maximum sentence of two years or less, and (b) the indicative list of offences contained in Annex G to the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts by Lord Leveson, dated 18 June 2025.(2) The Secretary of State must, by regulations to be made by statutory instrument, specify the offences which are triable as summary only offences following the reclassification exercise in subsection (1).(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.””
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I have introduced—at some length, I regret to say—the problems that have arisen because we do not have enough information to decide the best way of dealing with the current crisis in the courts. This is another alternative put forward to your Lordships for consideration. I intended to give an explanation, but it was left out of the printed paper. The amendment would provide parliamentary authority for the transfer of a greater range of specific offences, as well as greater certainty, while reducing the pressure on the Crown Court.
The amendment envisages the reclassification of summary offences. The origins of this lay in a submission made to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, by the Bar Council, which supported the increase of sentencing powers to two years—although, given its confidence in district and deputy district judges, only if such cases were heard by them. The Bar Council also identified a series of offences that it said should be reclassified as summary-only. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, carefully looked at that and came up with his own view, which is set out in chapter 5 of part 1 of his report.
In essence, he suggested the restriction of the right to elect by removing it from “either way” offences that carried a maximum sentence of two years. In addition, he identified a pool of additional offences based on the average custodial sentence length that they typically received, with other factors pointing to the magistrates’ courts being a proportionate forum. The list of those is set out in annex G and includes possession of controlled drugs up to a certain value, making off without payment—for example, the theft of a pedal cycle—breach of an ASBO, and various other matters. The number of offences is very large and I do not want to take up time by reading them all out.
There is, plainly, a block of offences that could sensibly be reclassified. We urge the Government to consider this, for a number of different reasons. The way in which this proposal is put forward rests on the ways it could be done, but there can be no doubt that the limits in the current summary-only system are out of date and that there is a good case for putting into it a value—for example, in relation to drugs or quantity—which could be used in a number of different ways.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, having listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, I have very little to say on reclassification. I said on the last group that I see no argument that can be mounted to suggest that the borderline between summary-only offences and “either way” offences is unchanging. Of course, everybody sensibly accepts that there are some “either way” offences that could be summary-only. That brings about a need to consider reclassification, as the noble and learned Lord described.
I will speak to my Amendment 51 on out-of-court resolutions. At Second Reading, I pointed out that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, had devoted his first substantive chapter and the first 10 recommendations in his first report to the importance of reaching out-of-court resolutions. His aim was to take low-level criminal offences that could properly be addressed with therapeutic and cautionary responses, aimed at diverting those offences out of the criminal justice system altogether, and address the issues that caused people to commit such offences in the first place. Indeed, he entitled that chapter “Diversions”. That is the issue I seek to address.
At Second Reading, I took as an example the prosecution of parents in unauthorised absence offences under the Education Act 1996, by which parents can be—and are frequently—prosecuted for not ensuring that their children attend school. Very often, the background is that those children are traumatised or unwell and refusing to go to school, however hard the parents, who are the ones ultimately prosecuted, try to get them there. That process and the discord in the home cause real trauma. The prosecutions that result end up in fines that are often unpaid and, in extreme cases, they can result in prison sentences. Often, parents and whole families are dreadfully affected by the process. Many are driven entirely out of the school system and find themselves relying, often unsuitably, on home schooling, or attempts at home schooling, to replace that dreadful cycle. In those cases, what is needed is a constructive and therapeutic approach that helps families with the causes of the non-attendance and addresses the health and social issues causing the damage. So it is with a vast number and range of cases of low-level crime.
In answer to the intervention in the last group, I talked about the cases of low-level crime that went before the magistrates. Many of those cases are suitable not for the criminal justice system at all but for diversions and out-of-court resolution. Many cases of minor dishonesty, including low-level shoplifting, now often do not even get to court because there are not the resources for the prosecution to proceed. A lot of cases of low-level violence, criminal damage and drug and alcohol offences can be dealt with by way of diversion, partly because they originate not in real criminality but in inadequacy or social and personal difficulties.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, looked at and discussed rehabilitation programmes for drug and alcohol abuse. I hesitate to address your Lordships in his presence, when he wrote the report on which I am relying, but the point is that he looked at other health intervention programmes to prevent people being brought into a life of criminality. At the centre of his thinking in this part of his report—he will correct me if I am wrong—was the view, widely accepted by experts in the field and by those in this House who are expert in these areas, that if we can divert people away from low-level crime by addressing the issues that cause them to commit offences then we can encourage rehabilitation and avoid future crime by providing early help. That, of itself, has a huge societal benefit.
The noble and learned Lord’s report and recommendations were addressed chiefly to encouraging the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to divert cases to out-of-court resolutions before they ever get to court, even before charges are laid. We fully support that. Yet there is nothing in the Bill on that. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, for engaging with me and others in discussing this, and for addressing the issue sympathetically at Second Reading, when he said that these are matters that we can discuss. It is very important that we do so.
My Amendment 51 is proposed on the basis that it is not only before charges are laid that out-of-court resolution should be considered but that, even when the criminal process has been commenced, diversion and out-of-court resolution should be explored. If it were not the case that we were going to say, in a defeatist way, that it is too late, we would not then see so many cases in our courts when an intelligent observer feels bound to ask, “Why is this defendant here?” And not only an intelligent observer—the same question is routinely asked even by police officers, as well as by probation officers, families, friends and social workers.
My amendment therefore bites on the first time that a person charged with an offence is required to indicate a plea. Indeed, it would impose a duty on those responsible for prosecutions to consider those prosecutions before the first time the defendant is asked to plead. Clearly, of course, many cases will not be suitable for out-of-court resolution, but the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, and my amendment are based on the proposition that many are, and that greater resort to out-of-court resolutions has the potential to save many from continuing criminality.
The report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, was concerned with reducing the case load in the courts and reducing the backlogs. That was his original target. However, his report needs to be read much more widely than that. Initially, the reduction in the case load would come in the magistrates’ courts because we would be talking about low-level crime, but it would filter up to the Crown Court, as all experience tells us that a life of crime starts with minor offences that are charged, tried and sentenced in the magistrates’ court but continued offending gets worse. We hear about prisons being academies of crime. Whether or not that is the case, the fact is that lives of crime tend to get worse as they go on, and it is the failure to adopt out-of-court resolutions for those cases where early help and early intervention could divert people out of the criminal justice system that is responsible for part of that.
In this amendment our ambition is large: we are trying to stimulate a crime reduction programme born of a rethink of the way that we resort to the criminal justice system—a rethink that is radical and potentially of great social benefit. This amendment is a modest step on that road. It is inspired by the concentration of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, on this aspect. It has the prospect of reducing case loads, but also of reducing crime, focusing our attention on the causes of crime and preventing lives being wasted.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord—wrongly, in my view—disagreed with part of my earlier speech so I want to say how much I agree with his Amendment 51 and with what he has been saying for the last 10 minutes or so.
This is important for all the reasons that the noble Lord has outlined, particularly in breaking a pattern of crime and offending that starts with that first court appearance, and in freeing up space in the magistrates’ courts, which we are told are going to be taking on more serious and more complex cases. He is absolutely right. We all know there are far too many people with addiction issues and mental health issues within the criminal justice system, which is ill suited to deal with them. Much the same could be said about our prison system.
I put in one further plea. A few years ago, in about 2012, I was a member of something called the Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Antisocial Behaviour. We recommended and proposed to the then Government that a programme of restorative justice be implemented across the country. We called and heard a lot of evidence, and went to a number of jurisdictions where restorative justice programmes were in effect. These were wonderfully successful in stopping crime, satisfying the victims of crime and saving the criminal justice system the trouble of trying cases which did not really need to be tried. The noble Lord and this amendment have my full support.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for raising this issue in Amendment 4. As is the case with a number of his amendments, I note he has the support of other noble and learned Lords—the noble and learned Lords, Lord Burnett of Maldon and Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, as well as my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy. It appears to us that the Bill will necessarily require some reassessment of summary offences, so we welcome the point that the noble and learned Lord has raised with the Government.
Should this Bill become law as it stands, even without the original clauses that the Government have already removed, we will be making a significant, indeed fundamental, change to the way many offences are tried. Indeed, should the regulation-making power under Clause 5(1)—that is, the power to increase the magistrates’ maximum sentence—be implemented, we will see a great many more cases, some relating to serious offences, being tried in the magistrates’ courts on a summary-only basis. If the Government are going to proceed with these plans—and we sincerely hope that your Lordships’ Committee is able to demonstrate to the Government how flawed some of them are—Ministers must, as an absolute minimum, undertake a reassessment of the offences that may be tried as summary-only offences.
That said, we have some concerns about subsection (2) of the proposed new Section 22B of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980. That subsection would require the Secretary of State to specify those offences that are triable as summary-only offences. As noble Lords across the Committee will appreciate, whether an offence is triable as a summary-only offence is defined in primary legislation, and it would be concerning to establish a regulation-making power for the same purpose, unless, of course, the regulations made under subsection (2) were merely intended to be descriptive of existing laws set out in primary legislation. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that point.
On Amendment 51, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, with regard to out-of-court settlement, where such settlements are appropriate then they should be considered, and they might well help to reduce the backlog that already exists in both the Crown Court and the magistrates’ court. That said, an additional requirement placed on the courts through primary legislation may not be the best way to promote appropriate out-of-court settlements. I suggest that that is a matter for further and more detailed consideration going forward.
We are a little curious about the proposal that courts be permitted to adjourn a case for a period of up to 28 days to enable an out-of-court settlement to be considered. It appears to us that there is room for that to be abused by more cynical defendants who may find themselves in court. We would have to consider what impact that might have on further delays in both the Crown Court and the magistrates’ court; as all lawyers will know, an adjournment for a period of up to 28 days can transmogrify into something materially different.
Having said that, we understand the force of the point being made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and, while it may not be a matter for primary legislation, it is surely a matter for further detailed consideration.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, as this is the first time I have got to my feet, I thank all noble Lords for meeting me and for the various discussions we have had. In relation to this amendment, I thank the noble and learned Lords, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, Lord Burnett, Lord Phillips and Lord Bellamy, for meeting me yesterday specifically to talk about their amendments. I hope we can continue that conversation.
Amendment 4, from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, seeks to reclassify certain triable “either way” offences to summary-only, in line with the recommendations, as he said, of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, in his independent review. The Government considered the recommendations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, but concluded that they would not result in significant sitting day savings and would carry risks for the wider justice system and public protection. I know noble Lords will say in response to that that the Government are obsessed by backlogs and sitting days, and I shall address that point in my remarks in a moment.
Offences that are triable either way are, by definition, treated as sufficiently serious to warrant the possibility of longer sentences and broader police and prosecution powers, including longer investigatory time limits. None of the noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment has addressed this specific point and it is one that we will need to return to in the discussion of reclassification.
Reclassifying offences as summary-only—as I said, the Government have considered this—would restrict important operational powers and reduce maximum sentences for those offences to six months. This would be particularly concerning in domestic abuse cases, including breaches of protective orders. We do not believe that it would be right to constrain the justice system by restricting the investigative period when the protection of the public and victims is at stake. Tackling violence against women and girls remains a top priority for the Government, of course.
Nevertheless, we recognise the benefits of retaining more cases in magistrates’ courts because of their efficiency, which is why, as we discussed on the first group, we are bringing forward measures to remove the right to elect and to increase magistrates’ court sentencing powers, which we will return to later today. This will deliver many of the same benefits as reclassification without undermining the protections and powers attached to offences that are triable either way.
I want to address comments made by several noble Lords, on this group and the previous one, that the Government’s only concern is the backlog. I want to be completely clear, as my noble and learned friend Lady Smith was: of course the Government are committed to fair trials. That principle is completely intact and inviolate in the Government’s thinking on this. Our concern with the backlog is perhaps better expressed as being about waiting times and their impact on victims’ experiences. The backlog is a problem for administrative reasons, but it is much more important for victims of crime.
We do not think, as a matter of principle, that defendants should choose their own mode of trial. However, I am happy to continue the discussion with the noble and learned Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Leveson, and others, on the suggestion for reclassification.
On Amendment 51, I recognise that the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, is to increase use of out-of-court resolutions, which can provide an effective and robust alternative to prosecution. I do not think the phrase “out-of-court resolution”—or, with respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, the word “diversion”—will travel very well on the streets. We want to ensure that, in the circumstances described by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, justice is done rapidly for the vulnerable people he spoke about, including vulnerable parents. My preferred description, for further revision if necessary, is “rapid justice” that addresses the root causes, which was the point the noble Lord made. I agree entirely with his comments about parents.
The Government are not suggesting, and would not support any suggestion, that the use of out-of-court resolutions amounts to decriminalisation or making those offences irrelevant. That is not our view. Keeping your children from school is an offence but we think it can perhaps be addressed in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, suggested.
The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, referred to youth justice. The Minister in the other place, Jake Richards, is concerned about addressing root causes in his work on youth justice. I thank the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, for their reference to restorative justice, which is an important area where much could be done.
Let me set the position out clearly for the noble Lord, Lord Marks. The Government are committed to strengthening the use of out-of-court resolutions and diverting low-level offenders away from court with conditions that address the underlying causes of crime and therefore reduce the risk of future reoffending. However, the police are already required to assess whether the public interest can be served by an out-of-court resolution instead of prosecution. Prosecutors also make this assessment when making prosecution decisions. Courts also already have the power to inquire about an out-of-court resolution and CPS guidance provides that, where the prosecutor in court concludes that such a resolution is appropriate, the matter should be referred to the police and an adjournment sought.
An additional duty on the court would therefore duplicate these processes—I think this is the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, was making—and may add unnecessary delay. However, as outlined in the Government’s response to the recommendations from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, we are urgently examining the legislative and delivery framework for out-of-court resolutions to ensure that it supports our ambitions and that such resolutions are considered whenever appropriate.
Although I cannot at this stage support the amendments in this group, I was grateful for the opportunity to meet the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and others to have a constructive discussion on these issues. Although the Government have, for the moment, reached a different conclusion on these proposals, I look forward to continuing those discussions and to further discussing the question of out-of-court resolution with the noble Lord, Lord Marks. With these reassurances, I therefore ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I thank all who have participated in this short debate. There are no easy answers to dealing with the backlog. There have to be compromises along the way, which we have discussed in the previous debate and in this one. We appreciate the problems that arise by classifying as summary-only, as regards the way that the police should be required to act with greater expedition, but we did not intend by this reclassification to suggest a reduction in the maximum sentence, which would be below two years if the Government take those powers under the Bill or one year if they do not. However, I am very grateful to all who have spoken about it and I hope we can look at this again.
I am most grateful to the Minister for our discussions yesterday and our continuing discussions in relation to finding an answer, because what is critical is that we end up with something certain, so that we produce the same result in every postcode, and that we do not get appeals. We cannot have appeals on the question of allocation.
Also, on the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, on out-of-court resolution, I think I can recall this subject going back at least 20 years. One of the problems has been in getting some system to bring together the magistrates, the police and the prosecution service. One suggestion—this was probably 15 or 20 years ago —was that magistrates should play a role in looking at the way in which local police forces dealt with out-of-court disposal. That was never proceeded with. There are lots of other ideas, but it is plainly part of the system of justice that we get out-of-court disposals correct. It is not decriminalisation; it is finding a means of an effective deterrent for future criminality, rather than sending people into the criminal justice system. I welcome the proposal raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and hope we can carry it further. With those observations, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd
“Legal aidUnder powers contained in the Legal Aid, Sentencing, and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, regulations made by the Lord Chancellor must provide, no later than the day on which this Act is passed, that—(a) a defendant’s eligibility for legal aid, and(b) the remuneration paid to providers of legal aid services,is calculated on the basis applicable in the Crown Court, irrespective of whether the matter is heard in the magistrates’ court or the Crown Court.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to harmonise legal aid eligibility, and the remuneration of the providers of legal services, irrespective of whether an either way offence is retained in the magistrates’ court or sent to the Crown Court, thus reducing the risk of unrepresented defendants in the magistrates’ court.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I had hoped that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, would have been able to be present today, but unfortunately circumstances have made that impossible, so I am afraid noble Lords are going to have to hear from me again.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
My Lords, first, I agree with the noble and learned Lord that this is a critical amendment. In my limited experience of sitting as a recorder, there is nothing a judge hates more, or fears more, than a litigant in person, because it makes the case longer, more difficult and more complex to manage. I commend to your Lordships a recent paper published by the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory on the impact of litigants in person in the family courts relying on AI for their pleadings and arguments and refusing to accept the rulings and judgments of judges on the basis that Claude says something different. I would foresee a quite chaotic situation in the magistrates’ court were there to be an absence of lawyers to represent defendants facing terms of imprisonment.
The noble and learned Lord is quite right that, if there is a disparity in payment between the magistrates’ court and the Crown Court, those who currently have mixed practices will stop going to the magistrates’ court and people will stop practising in the magistrates’ court. I suggest strongly to the Government that the sort of equalisation of fees that this amendment speaks to is absolutely essential if their reforms are to work.
Lord Shamash (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a founding partner of Edwards Duthie Shamash. We are principally a legal aid firm with a substantial commercial aspect. I have been in the legal aid business for a very long time: more decades than I care to remember. The problem we have now is that we are operating under a graduated-fee system and a fixed-fee system. Under a fixed-fee system, you can find yourself doing an awful lot more work, and you are stuck. Just before this debate started, I spoke to one of the partners, who said that you can get down, sometimes, as low as £10 an hour. The average rate, and the fixed rate, is about £60 an hour in the magistrates’ court. It is a bit higher in the Crown Court. It was mentioned that, being a lawyer, you sometimes make advocate because you want a bit more money. In this case, I would certainly welcome this amendment.
One of the other points that has been touched on is recruitment. Recruitment of young lawyers to do crime is incredibly difficult. I speak from personal experience. I hope it does not reflect on my firm, but we have had adverts out for a very long time for young criminal lawyers. You are competing with the salaries that you can earn in the City: over £100,000 for a newly qualified lawyer. We cannot even begin to think about paying that sort of rate. It is very difficult, because somebody who comes to do this work has to be politically, with a small ‘p’, very committed to the work they are doing. It is extremely difficult to find the right sort of person to do that. Not least of which, these days, most students who have gone through the education process have ended up with enormous debts. Many noble Lords will be aware of this, having grandchildren or whoever who are at university ending up with considerable debts to be paid at the end of their training. So this is incredibly serious.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, asked: what are we doing with this? We are going to find ourselves very short of young criminal lawyers. We can see that ourselves. What is going to happen then? Coming back to the debate we had earlier about the number of people waiting to come to trial in a magistrates’ court, sometimes, even at the current time, the wait is two years. In the Crown Court, we have cases that are waiting to be heard in three years’ time. It is complete madness. What is going to happen? I am genuinely very concerned at the situation that we are now confronted with.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the remaining amendments in this group. Amendments 8, 67 and 75 essentially agree with the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. I draw the Government’s attention to their own equalities statement. It says that
“if more cases are dealt with in the magistrates’ courts, it is likely that an increased proportion of these defendants may be ineligible for legal aid when they would otherwise have been eligible if their case had been heard at the Crown Court”.
That is a pretty big admission, and I think it is something that we have to take into account. I hope that the Government will remember their own words, because it means that they are well aware that their reforms will mean more people going through the courts without a lawyer.
Many of us raised this at Second Reading. The income threshold for criminal legal aid in the magistrates’ court is much lower than in the Crown Court. As Justice points out, someone working full time on the minimum wage will not qualify for legal aid in the magistrates’ court. So the Government are moving more cases into a court where fewer people qualify for legal aid. They know this will happen. It says so in their own assessment.
Justice also points to research by Transform Justice, showing what happens when defendants have to represent themselves. They may not understand the charges, they enter the wrong plea, they struggle to question witnesses or fail to put forward information that could reduce their sentence. The consequences become even more serious when the Bill increases magistrates’ sentencing powers to two years in prison. Someone could face a substantial prison sentence without having had access to a publicly funded lawyer.
Victims can also be affected. In some cases, including assault cases, defendants are allowed to cross-examine witnesses themselves. More unrepresented defendants could mean more victims having to face questioning by the person accused of the offence. The Institute for Government has warned that unrepresented defendants can make hearings longer and more complicated. That does not sound like any sort of efficiency saving that the Government are hoping to achieve.
At Second Reading, the Minister acknowledged these concerns, and the Government’s answer was that they would look at the new income thresholds after the reforms had been implemented, depending on funding and operational considerations. I want to make sure that they are addressed before these huge changes come into effect. The Government know there is a problem; they know that more defendants will be in the magistrates’ courts, where the legal aid threshold is much lower, but they want to press ahead with the court reforms and leave the question of whether people can afford legal representation until afterwards.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, and the Justice Committee have recommended increasing the income thresholds. My amendment, supported by Justice, would make sure that the financial eligibility criteria in the magistrates’ courts are brought into line with those in the Crown Court before the relevant provisions come into force. People should not lose access to legal representation simply because their case is now being heard in a different court. The Government should get this right before they bring in the reforms and not wait until people have already suffered the consequences.
Lord Jabbar (Lab)
My Lords, this is an area in which I am particularly informed by my own professional experience assisting defendants and appellants in court matters. I declared my interest at Second Reading as the executive director of the Death Penalty Project.
I want to make a small comment. Effective defence representation is not peripheral to an efficient criminal justice system; it is one of the things that makes the system efficient and possible. At Second Reading, I distinguished between access to court and access to justice. Getting someone to a courtroom more quickly is of limited value if, once they are there, they cannot obtain proper legal advice, understand the proceedings or participate effectively. There is also a practical point. A properly prepared lawyer can identify real issues early, deal with evidential problems, narrow what is evidently in dispute and help ensure that a case is ready to proceed. That benefits the defendant as well as victims, witnesses and the courts. When a hearing is ineffective, everybody loses: court time is wasted, victims and witnesses may have attended unnecessarily, and practitioners have to return, and another case then goes back to an already overcrowded list. This is why I have considerable sympathy with the amendments.
Criminal legal aid is not simply about remuneration; it is part of the infrastructure of the criminal justice system. If we want cases to be resolved earlier, we need effective advice early. If we want trials to proceed when listed, we need advocates who are available and properly prepared, and, as my noble friend Lord Shamash said, they must be sufficiently remunerated so as to attract lawyers to the work. We need the next generation of lawyers and practitioners who want to be involved in these kinds of cases. If more serious work moves into the magistrates’ courts, as discussed earlier, that work does not become less serious or less complex just because the venue has changed.
I support the Government’s objective in reducing delay. It is precisely because I want these reforms to succeed that I regard sustainable legal aid and effective representation as part of the reform programme.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, these amendments are all designed to address a painful reality: that the proposals in this Bill will send more cases and more difficult cases into the magistrates’ court which would otherwise have been heard in the Crown Court. The fact is that the legal aid entitlement in the magistrates’ court is presently far more restricted than it is in the Crown Court. The rates are so low as to deter solicitors and counsel from undertaking work in the magistrates’ court, as we have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Shamash and Lord Jabbar.
It follows that defendants are at a serious disadvantage in the magistrates’ courts, and are consequently often unrepresented, which makes the cases more difficult and less likely to achieve just outcomes, making the disadvantage worse. That threatens in turn to stimulate a vicious circle of injustice flowing from this Bill. These amendments are entirely justified. The Government must address properly the issues of legal aid that they raise before this Bill comes into force.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, these amendments address what has been universally acknowledged in this Committee to be a critical issue for the magistrates’ court and the implementation and possible success of these proposed changes to the law. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, has therefore put forward an amendment which poses a simple and unambiguous question for the Government. I hope that we will hear from the Government a simple and unambiguous answer.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
My Lords, my answers are always unambiguous.
Amendment 6, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, would apply Crown Court legal aid financial eligibility rules and pay Crown Court-level fees to providers for triable “either way” offences, even if that case takes place in the magistrates’ court. Amendments 8, 67 and 75, from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, would extend the same financial eligibility criteria which were applied at the Crown Court to proceedings heard at the magistrates’ court, and provide for these changes to come into force before implementation of the Bill’s wider provisions. The noble Baroness laid some emphasis on that, as did the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and I heard the strength of feeling on this subject at Second Reading.
These four amendments are not limited to triable “either way” offences impacted by the removal of the right to elect a Crown Court trial. The effect would therefore be to apply Crown Court rules on legal aid financial eligibility to all defendants and cases in the magistrates’ court, including all summary-only cases. Under current financial eligibility rules, the majority of defendants—something that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, referred to—charged with triable “either way” offences would be eligible for legal aid at the magistrates’ court. That tells you something about the social make-up of who appears in our magistrates’ courts.
For individuals who do not financially qualify for legal aid, there are already measures in place in the magistrates’ court to provide support. The hardship review mechanism can provide legal aid to some individuals who fail the means test but face higher than usual outgoings. In addition, unrepresented defendants may access the free magistrates’ court duty solicitor scheme, which may provide legal representation at the first hearing for those charged with an imprisonable offence.
None the less, we have been listening carefully to the concerns raised at Second Reading around eligibility and the potential impacts of reform on litigants in person, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald. We have accepted in principle the recommendation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, to increase the legal aid income thresholds at the magistrates’ court. In so doing, we recognise the importance of ensuring that legal aid is available for those who need it most, and the financial eligibility thresholds reflect this. I think that is fairly unambiguous. Once court reforms introduced by the Bill have been fully implemented, we will be better placed to take final decisions on income threshold levels, subject to future funding decisions and operational considerations. I have no doubt at all that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and others will press us on that point, but I am repeating the formulation that I used at Second Reading. We are also examining the measures that are currently in place for litigants in person and considering additional options for support.
I think noble Lords would acknowledge that amendments to align Crown Court and magistrates’ court eligibility would add complexity to the magistrates’ test through the introduction of a contributory system which assesses income and capital. This may negatively impact efficiency in the magistrates’ court and create additional administrative burdens. I spent some time this morning reading about how this works, and it was interesting.
In relation to remuneration for legal aid lawyers in Amendment 6, I am afraid that, with regard to the point made by my noble friend Lord Shamash, I do not think that we will be paying legal aid lawyers the same rates as lawyers in the City are paid—but then the job is much more interesting. I say that as someone who worked in the City for quite a long time.
Fee schemes are specific to the court where the case is heard and are designed to reflect the differing processes and nature of work in the magistrates’ court and Crown Court. The magistrates’ court fee scheme is designed to be simple to administer and for providers to use, reflecting the greater speed and case volumes through that court. There is also a non-standard fee route for cases in the magistrates’ court, which ensures that work on complex cases is appropriately remunerated. I hope I have set out where the Government stand on that and demonstrated that the Government have listened. With that, I would ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken of the importance of this point—the noble Lords, Lord Macdonald, Lord Shamash, Lord Jabbar, and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen. Although we welcome what the Minister has said, we all regard it as imperative that, if the more serious work is being transferred, that should be done simultaneously with a change to legal aid. That is critical. We cannot wait, because it will cause problems in the magistrates’ courts and with magistrates’ courts recruitment—a point particularly made by the noble Lord, Lord Shamash. It is getting very much more difficult to find people prepared to do magistrates’ courts solicitors’ work. Of course, the Government could not afford to pay City rates; that is out of the question. But at least pay a decent rate for the hard job people do, to encourage them to come into that part of the profession. I agree with the Minister: much of the work is far more interesting than working on infinitely uninteresting schemes in the City.
I wish also to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her amendments and also for pressing the point about getting eligibility brought into line. Maybe the answer is to look at the complexity and see whether that can be simplified as well. With those remarks, I thank noble Lords and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Hailsham
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would limit judge-only trials to situations where all of the defendants are to be tried on indictment for one or more offences listed in Schedule 3ZA.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 9, I shall also speak to a number of the other amendments I have tabled in this group. I apologise for the fact that there are 14 such other amendments. I will therefore, I am sure, be forgiven if many of my arguments are summarised very briefly and if I rely on the explanatory notes that appear on the Order Paper.
Behind this set of amendments, of course, is one’s anxiety about “judge only” trials. That is indeed a very important issue that we are going to address, I think, in group 6. I share the very serious reservations about “judge only” trials, but the arguments will be deployed in group 6. I shall not deploy them now. But it would be prudent, against the possibility that the Government will press ahead with “judge only” trials in certain circumstances, for this Committee to consider how faults and omissions within the present Bill can be remedied. That is what my raft of amendments is designed to achieve.
I will start with Amendment 9, which is the lead amendment in this group. It is designed to ensure that “judge only” trials can be ordered only when all the defendants on the indictment are charged with the relevant offences. It seems to me to be rather hard that a defendant who is not himself or herself charged with a relevant offence should be swept up into a “judge only” trial, because other defendants are. That seems to me to be bad news and I would like to see it addressed by my amendment.
I turn to Amendments 14 and 15. I am deeply concerned with the proposition that a “judge only” trial can be ordered when a court is satisfied that, because of the length or complexity of the trial, it is more appropriate for the trial to be conducted without a jury. As a Minister of very long standing—I was a Minister for 13 years—I know that the word “appropriate” is a weasel word. It is used by Ministers, the Executive, civil servants and, no doubt on occasion, the judiciary to cover anything they want it to cover. It is a bad word to use and it is not, in my view, a judicial word.
What I have tried to do in Amendment 14 is ask myself what one is trying to address. I suggest what one is trying to address is when the length or the complexity of the case is such that it cannot reasonably or fairly be tried. That is different from “appropriate”. It is a judicial concept, a concept of justice, which I very much hope would commend itself to your Lordships’ Committee.
Rather similar observations arise in the context of my Amendment 15. Looking at the substantive bit of the Bill, we see that judges are required to determine whether it is not in the public interest to hold a jury trial. But, again, the “public interest” is not really a judicial concept. What we should be doing is determining in this context whether it is fair to a defendant to have a jury trial. That is what Amendments 15 and 16 are designed to do. I hope that that might commend itself to the Committee.
I am conscious that I am standing on a raft of many amendments, and I do not want to weary the Committee. So, I will just summarise in brief the other amendments in my name, pointing to the explanatory note wherever possible. Amendment 18 is a procedural amendment designed to ensure that a defendant can make full representations, oral and written—a hearing if required—when this issue has to be determined. That seems to me to be wholly fair: very difficult to argue against, I would think.
Amendment 19 concerns the filter of the Lord Chief Justice or a nominated judge; this, again, is a very useful protection. Amendments 20 and 28 concern rights of appeal—I know the noble Lord, Lord Marks, is at one with this. Amendments 23 and 24 deal with the circumstances in which an order can be revoked. Again, we should be considering questions of fairness and justice; that is what my amendments are designed to do.
I come to Amendments 26 and 27. These, though procedural, are very important. The purpose is to ensure that a defendant has an early statement of the outcome of the proceedings. In the general run of cases, the defendant is entitled to know the outcome within not more than seven days of the conclusion of the proceedings, and they are entitled to a full and proper written judgement. These procedural requirements are not apparent on the face of the Bill.
Having gone through my amendments at a bit of a scamper—it was a broad raft and I am conscious that 14 amendments is an awful lot—I conclude by expressing the hope that some at least might find favour in the eyes of this Committee. I beg to move Amendment 9.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I support the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, on his raft—if that is what it is—and thank him for the succinct and self-deprecating way that he spoke to all his amendments. I have signed some and not others, but that should not be indicative; I support him generally.
The public interest is a much broader and more amorphous concept than the interests of justice. This Committee is in the justice business. The public interest is about the economic well-being of the nation, national security, et cetera. Given the Government’s arguments for this Bill, and given what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said about “judge alone” trials, the front door and the back door, let us be mindful that this is not the magistrates’ courts, which have the lay element; this is the “judge alone” trial. It should at least be about the interests of justice rather than some broad, rather vague, very difficult to probe—let alone review or litigate—concept of the public interest.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, in this group I have Amendments 17, 21 and 25. All these amendments are against the background that “judge alone” trials in the Crown Court are intended by the Bill as drawn, subject to a later debate, to be as per the list of offences in part 1 of the new schedule in Schedule 1. This is restricted to cases of financial crime that are genuinely of real complexity or inordinate length.
I say at the outset that there are many cases of serious and complex trials, some of substantial length, which in the end turn out to involve what I would characterise as jury issues. These are cases where the shape of the fraud or the scheme involved, usually to get substantial sums of money, may be difficult but not so difficult that a competent prosecution team could not present and explain it using sensible presentational aids and technology—not Claude, I hasten to add—to a jury. It is dangerous of us to underestimate the collective understanding of juries. Certainly, 12 heads, which I said are better than one, involve a collective decision-making and mutual information-giving exercise. They discuss the case in the jury room as it is going along. In the end, I do not believe that they miss much.
My point is that, once the nature of the fraud is understood, questions of the guilt or innocence of individual defendants, on individual counts on the indictment, even usually boil down to very human questions of fact. These are essentially jury questions: did he sign that document? Did she tell him that she knew what he was doing? Did she know what he was doing? What did he know or believe? Was he or she dishonest in what they did? At Second Reading, I heard those who said that dishonesty is essentially a matter for a judge, but I believe that questions of dishonesty in serious cases are generally better tried by juries. Then there is the weighing-up exercise: what is it in the evidence that drives the conclusion on any given point?
Frankly, I do not believe that there are many cases that cannot fairly and comprehensively be presented to a jury. If any are to be tried by judge alone, they should be genuinely of such complexity and length that they are unlikely to be comprehensible to a jury. I say that those cases are rare; it is indeed possible that they exist.
We believe that the decision to try a case with a judge alone should be appealable. Although there seems to have been some antipathy to appeals from magistrates’ allocation decisions, this is a decision of a different quality altogether. It is a decision on whether a trial of huge complexity and length should be tried by a jury or a judge alone. That ought to be reviewable. It is of the essence of our system that wrong decisions in serious cases, on serious questions of substance, should be reversible on appeal. Whatever the criteria for “judge alone” trials—if they happen—are ultimately to be, these are serious decisions of substance. A wrong decision should not, in justice, be allowed to stand. I support the noble Viscount on the basis that decisions should be appealable. That is my Amendment 21.
Furthermore, if a defendant is convicted, and then if, following that conviction, when the judgment is available—let us remember that there is bound to be a written judgment in “judge alone” trials—it is apparent that the decision on the trial being by a judge alone is found to be wrong, then that decision on the mode of trial should be appealable at that stage. That is the aim of my Amendment 25. Those amendments are sensible and certainly necessary in the interests of justice.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am interested in probing the noble Lord’s remarks about judge points and jury points on questions of dishonesty. I wonder whether he shares my concern, if there were to be a perception that white-collar crime is for the judge alone while other people’s crimes of dishonesty are not, about trust and confidence in the system and equality before the law?
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
Yes, I share that concern. Actually, it goes further. I do not believe that issues of dishonesty divide neatly into white-collar issues and other issues. Just as juries are told that dishonesty is a matter for them, that they know the ordinary meaning of dishonesty and they recognise it when they see it, I believe that is true of juries at any level. Ultimately, when questions of dishonesty are tried in relation to white-collar crimes that may be complex, ordinary citizens, and a jury of ordinary citizens, can nevertheless tell whether that individual defendant is being dishonest just as well as a judge can. That is certainly so when the wisdom of 12 is combined.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I support the noble Viscount and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, on the distinction between the public interest and the interests of justice. The public interest is a matter of political judgment while the interests of justice are what we are here to serve. I thank both noble Lords—the noble Baroness being a noble Lord for this purpose—for raising this.
I also agree with the noble Viscount about the term “appropriate”. This term has seemed to me, over many years, to have been often used by social workers. I do not intend to disrespect them for this; it is often useful when they use it. I do not regard it so much as a weasel word but rather as one that is appropriate to certain contexts, but not this one.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I have lent my name to Amendment 10, but I recognise that my noble friend Lord Hailsham has provided what he describes as a raft of amendments which are intended together to establish a bulwark that will give a stronger safeguard against the removal of jury trial. In that sense, they are a secondary defence to the provisions in this Bill. We would rely on the primary defence, which is the retention of jury trial as it presently exists, but I acknowledge the reasoning behind my noble friend’s amendments—I just hope they will not be required because the Government will see sense with regard to the primary position.
We will come on to discuss related issues in the next three groups, and in particular whether we should see these fundamental changes to the justice system coupled with Henry VIII powers as reflected in Schedule 1 to the Bill. This is an ecosystem. All these elements are interconnected and if you interfere with one, you have an impact on the other.
Finally, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the important distinction between public interest and the interests of justice. I would add only that the interests of justice can be seen as being orientated towards the interests of the defendant in a way that the public interest will not necessarily be, and therefore that distinction is important.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, for meeting me beforehand and setting out his views in trenchant form, not just on this set of amendments but on the Bill as a whole. All these amendments seek to add new safeguards to Clause 3: “judge alone” trials for complex or lengthy fraud and financial cases. That clause already contains robust and careful safeguards, and it is important that I go through them. Cases can qualify for the policy only if they involve a scheduled fraud or financial offence and do not involve excluded homicide or indictable-only sexual offences. That is a very important exclusion. A preparatory hearing must have been ordered for the case, something that can happen only to manage exceptional seriousness, complexity or length—to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, made. The case must be sufficiently complex or lengthy that jury trial cannot be in the public interest, and judges can decline to make an order for any other reason where jury trial is more appropriate. It is Crown Court judges who will be making these decisions and the Government’s view is that we trust them to apply the test set out by this policy properly.
Amendment 9 would allow an order to be made only when all co-defendants in a multi-defendant case were charged with an eligible fraud or financial offence. Amendment 10 would mean that every defendant would have to be charged only with fraud or financial offences. Ancillary offences, such as theft, would make a case ineligible—the link with theft is important. Defendants involved in the same alleged criminal schemes are often tried together, even though they are charged with different offences. Defendants in large-scale fraud and financial cases often face related charges, such as theft, that should, rightly, not be scheduled offences on their own. Severing charges, as these amendments suggest, or defendants, would not in the Government’s view be an efficient use of court time by requiring another separate trial. These amendments could encourage artificial charging decisions or unnecessary changes to the indictments to circumvent the statutory test.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, and certainly before the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, stands up, I would just question the Minister’s assertion that, because there is an appeal against a conviction that would continue, Amendment 25 is otiose or not needed. Under new Section 42A(5) on page 6 of the Bill, there is no right of appeal against a decision to make or not to make an order. If it is intended that a decision to make or not to make an order under this section could be raised as a ground of appeal in the Court of Appeal following conviction, how is that clear in view of the bar on appeals under new subsection (5)?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an interesting and important point, and we can certainly discuss it. However, as I have said, the Government’s view is that the designation of these trials is protected very carefully and thoroughly, and that should be sufficient.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, after 40 years in Parliament, I have come to revere the guidance given by St Brevita and the wise words of Father Concision, both of whom are doubtless known to the present occupants of the episcopal Bench, so I shall confine myself to three points. First, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for her support. I always welcome it; we very frequently think along the same lines. Secondly, I am glad that Members of your Lordships’ Committee focused on the words “appropriate” and “public interest”. That is a matter of some concern and perhaps one that we should refer to later. Lastly, these amendments—all the occupants of the raft—raise a number of serious issues which we may well revert to on Report. That said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(2A) The court may make an order under this section only on the application of all of the defendants, and may not make such an order of its own motion or on the application of the prosecution.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that an order for trial without a jury could be made only on the application of all of the defendants, and not of the court’s own motion or on the prosecution’s application.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, this group is primarily concerned with one central proposition which was raised at Second Reading, not really opposed and notably supported by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew—that it should be open to a defendant to opt for a “judge alone” trial in the Crown Court where the trial would otherwise be a trial by jury.
Amendments 12 and 13 are alternatives. Amendment 12 would prevent an order for a “judge alone” trial being made on the application of the prosecution or by the court of its own motion. We all spoke at length on that in the previous group. Amendment 13 is different: it would permit a defendant to apply for a “judge alone” trial in a case which comes within Clause 3, even if otherwise the trial might have been tried by a jury.
There may be cases—we can all think of some—where a defendant might think that a trial by judge alone might be more objective than a jury trial, notably where there has been extensive pre-trial publicity and the defendant might feel prejudiced by its effects. Amendment 32 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, mentions other factors that might affect the interests of justice. Exceptional complexity is one, although in a sense that is tautologous because within Clause 3 exceptional complexity ought to be a given. Another factor is the risk of jury intimidation. National security considerations may appear far-fetched but, in view of some of the things going on at the moment in the national security field, they may be important. In such a case it is argued, and I think not seriously gainsaid, that it would be illogical to deny the defendant the right to seek a trial by judge alone even where the case would otherwise come under Clause 3. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to the amendment in my name, supported by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Burnett of Maldon and Lord Bellamy. Ours is a much simpler amendment: it seeks to enable a defendant, where the conditions are met, to apply for trial by judge alone. If the judge is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice, the defendant should be accorded that right.
There are parts of the Commonwealth, in particular Canada, where defendants like trial by judge alone. If a defendant wants a trial by judge alone, why should he not be entitled to it, if the judge thinks that it is in the interests of justice? The protection of a jury trial is for the defendant’s protection, by and large; the public interest, if the judge were to give accord to trial by judge alone, would be satisfied by detailed reasons being given. There may be many reasons why a person would like a trial by judge alone.
It seems to us that this amendment should at least be considered, if a defendant wants it and if it is in the interests of justice. The reason for the latter restriction is to counter the point made by the Government that it is for the court to decide the mode of trial. If the court is entitled to decide it by reference to the interests of justice, then it is the court’s decision.
There is a second reason for that. It would be possible, as the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, sets out, to specify a number of circumstances. Generally, in my experience, if we are embarking down a route such as this, it is better not to lay down tramlines or even fairly tight guidelines but to allow the law to be developed by the courts. However, there are cases where someone may properly decide that this is the case they would like heard by a judge and it is not a case where it would not be in the interests of justice for that request to be acceded to. I find it difficult to see why, if someone wants a trial by judge alone and the judge, in accordance with principles that have developed, decides that that is right, he should not be entitled to that if it is in the interests of justice.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)
My Lords, perhaps I may add a word in support of this amendment. Most who support the right to trial by jury do so with regard to the interests of the defendant. That is implicit in the term “right to jury trial”. The right protects the defendant from the politically motivated prosecution or the judge who favours the prosecution.
The Bill proposes removing the right to jury trial in the case of fraud trials and other trials that are going to be lengthy and complex. It does so because of the procedural disadvantages that flow from having to present to the jury a case that involves complex financial transactions that may well fall wholly outside their experience. Those disadvantages are also felt by the defendant. A trial that goes on month after month is a nightmare for them.
There is a further point: a jury trial ends with a simple verdict, guilty or not guilty, but a “judge alone” trial ends with a reasoned judgment. When I was a judge, I asked a number of my colleagues whether, if they were wrongly charged with serious fraud, they would prefer trial by judge or trial by jury. Unanimously, they opted for trial by judge. That choice reflected in part a concern that a jury might not be able to understand the facts relating to the alleged offence, but it was also motivated by a desire for a reasoned judgment: if they were going to be convicted, they wanted to know why. Why should a defendant not have an option to choose trial by judge alone if, as our amendment proposes, trial by judge alone is in the interests of justice?
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to my two noble and learned friends who have just spoken and to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for their comments in support of the principles behind these amendments. I should say that my Amendment 32 goes further than the other amendments because it is intended to allow such applications to be made by a defendant for trial by judge alone, and not just in lengthy and complex cases.
My amendment asks for a new right to apply for—not to select but to apply for—trial by judge alone. Many noble Lords who have spoken in the debates today and at Second Reading strongly support the right to elect trial by jury. If we have such enthusiasm for the right to elect trial by jury, why not allow defendants to elect trial by judge? That would set out a level playing field. It seems entirely logical and something that we have overlooked. Speaking only for myself to this extent, I have been waiting a long time to find a Bill in which the proposal in Amendment 32 is in scope. It is not entirely dependent—it is not dependent at all—on the rest of the Bill, but here we have the vehicle to create this new right that would save time and money and give a greater sense of justice.
In a very dusty basement in my inn of court, Gray’s Inn, there were two shelves full of the manuscript notes of every single case that I ever did from 1971, when I started practising at the Bar. Later, they were reduced to computerised form, which really put me in my place, because the expert who reduced them, every word of them, managed to put them on a single stick, which I have in a drawer at home. I am able to access this very personal library of all the cases that I have done. I do not do criminal trials any more, but one thing that I always used to do was to make a note at the end of my notes about what I as an individual—not just as a barrister but as a person—thought was the right or wrong result of the trial. On a number of occasions, only a few cases but significant ones, I placed words like, “Wish we’d been able to have judge alone”. In a number of others, I placed the words, “Made a mistake —we did not apply for trial in the magistrate’s court and should have done”.
There are many cases where trial by judge alone, or indeed trial not by jury but in the magistrate’s court, is not only in the best interests of the defendant—and probably of the witnesses and victims, because of the reduced machinery required in presenting the evidence in court—but is actually in the interests of justice. In one of those cases, an appeal took place, in 1988—16 years after I was junior counsel in a murder case in which our client was convicted. There were no court records whatever, but I was able to provide from my library of notebooks the only record that the Court of Appeal could use. I had to redact a limerick that I had written about a rather pesky judge, but otherwise it was the record of the case. It was not a case in which I would have advised asking for trial by judge alone, but I had written at the end, “Maybe without the jury he would have been acquitted”. It took 16 years for him to be acquitted by the Court of Appeal, and there are such cases.
I have great respect for jury trials. As a prosecutor or as a defender, if you like that sort of thing, there is nothing like making your story the one that the jury hear, enjoy and adopt. An advocate in jury trials is working with a jury; it is quite a different discipline from working with a judge. When you have a trial in front of a judge alone, you have a much more mechanical process—that is not to criticise judges for being mechanistic, but it is just a fact—in which the judge looks at the issues and tables them on one side of the page, as it were, and on the other side of the page tables the issues that have to be determined by the court. I am looking at the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, opposite, whose husband is an experienced and highly respected judge in the north-west of England.
I have great respect for jury trials, but for some cases there are disadvantages about them. There is the potential lengthening of the case in front of a jury. I once did a case in London in which my client, a respected chartered accountant, was accused of fiddling the VAT in relation to some somewhat dubious services provided in a basement club somewhere near Soho. He had to wait a very long time to be acquitted in a case in which the judge quite plainly, if trying the case alone, would have said, “There just isn’t the evidence here. Why have we wasted all this time?”
As well as potential length and complexity, there are issues that have already been mentioned such as the publicity, the unforeseen consequences of publicity and, above all, the absence of written reasons for a verdict. As I mentioned at Second Reading, in Northern Ireland there are courts that deal with cases—admittedly, a special kind of case, cases involving terrorism issues and matters arising from the Troubles—that are heard by judges. I reviewed them for the Government during the time that I was Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. The acquittal rate in those courts in Northern Ireland is higher than the acquittal rate in front of juries in so far as you can describe comparable cases. With a judge in an appropriate case, you have a reasoned judgment explaining why the judge has reached a particular decision. That is applicable especially in historic sex cases and in accountancy-heavy cases, and, as Northern Ireland has shown, it can often leave a defendant more satisfied that he or she has had a fair hearing.
I suggest that this is a simple amendment which would probably save some time, which would ensure that the right to jury trial was extended or removed in a proper way and which would add something creditable to our system which is replicated in some Commonwealth countries that have almost exactly our systems of trial.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I want to make only two brief points. First, I find the arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, very compelling. I would like to associate myself with them, and I very much hope that the Minister will give them serious consideration. Secondly, and differently—I hope it will not be thought by the Committee that I am making an unfair point—I revert back to group 4, where we discussed the meaning of the words “appropriate” and “public interest”. I am sure the Minister will note that, in Amendment 32, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, he used the phrase “interests of justice”, and in Amendment 22, the same phrase was used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. Neither used the word “appropriate” and neither used the words “public interest”. I wonder why.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I find myself in the quite awkward and unhappy position of having serious reservations about amendments proposed by noble Lords and noble and learned Lords who I so respect.
In the context of the proposed scheme, whereby there will be no right of election in “either way” cases for jury trial any more, it is proposed that there should be a right not to elect for a “judge alone” trial but to apply for one. The arguments have, of course, been put eloquently. However, I ask the Committee to think about how this might be received. I do not need to pepper my brief comments with references to particular high-profile cases, recent or historic, but how might it be received if, for example, in a high-profile case of misconduct in public office, a sex-offence case, or another case involving people of significant standing, around which there perhaps has been some publicity, they apply for a “judge alone” trial rather than face 12 members of the public? How might that be received in such a high-profile case, in the light of what I suggest is a current crisis of trust in democratic and rule-of-law institutions in this country? I ask the Committee to reflect for a moment on how it might go down.
Further, in the interest of protecting the judiciary, how might it be if, in response to one of these applications in a high-profile case—it could be fraud, misconduct in public office, sex offences, et cetera—it is decided to welcome that application and agree that the case be heard by a judge alone? In the case of a high-profile acquittal, with which no doubt the defendant would be very happy, what protection will there be for the judge alone, and for the judiciary in general, given the context of how the public have been feeling in recent years about the institutions of our state? I ask the Committee to pause and reflect on that. That is my concern.
Lord Leveson of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak at all in this debate. My views, for what they are worth, are set out in 1,000 pages, all available to your Lordships to consider to such extent as they wish. However, I must deal with the comment made by my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, in relation to high-profile cases. The judge is not bound to accept a decision to try a case alone, and I could well understand circumstances in which a judge would feel that it was not appropriate—for all the reasons that the noble Baroness identifies—to try a case alone.
This is a system which is well tried in Canada, where there is a right of trial by jury, and overwhelmingly defendants choose to be tried by judge alone. It is available in Australia and New Zealand—other common-law countries that have developed their jurisprudence based on ours. I am afraid it is all set out in the report and so I will say no more. It is a matter, of course, for the Government to consider how they proceed, as they have decided how to proceed with the other recommendations I made in my report. However, I offer that view on the basis that, at the end this week, I will leave the country and will not be back until Christmas.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, the temptation to leave the country is there, but I shall seek to resist it.
The amendments in this group—in particular, Amendments 12, 13 and 22—appear to us to be intended to try to find a halfway house that would give some protection to the right of jury trial, while giving the Government some opportunity to reduce the number of cases that are tried by a jury. We disagree in principle with the Government’s overall approach, and so it would be difficult, and indeed inappropriate, for us to support the ideas that underpin these proposed amendments. It is in these circumstances that we express no particular support.
I note the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. It is an issue that has been raised before and that might be subject to further consideration in the light of the evidence from other common-law jurisdictions, but it is not one that immediately arises in the context of this group.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 12, 13, 22 and 32 all relate to allowing defendants to apply for trial by judge alone in the Crown Court. Amendments 12, 13 and 22 would introduce a role for defendant applications into Clause 3, which provides for “judge alone” trials in certain complex or lengthy fraud or financial cases. Amendment 32, from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, would allow any defendant in the Crown Court to apply for trial by judge alone, so that goes significantly further, and he set out the case very eloquently.
Amendment 22 would allow defendants to apply for the court to make an order under Clause 3. The court would have to apply an “interests of justice” test —the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, made that clear—before accepting an application. All co-defendants in a multi-defendant trial would have to apply, and the prosecution could not apply. Amendments 12 and 13 would make defendant application a mandatory condition of “judge alone” trials for complex or lengthy financial cases. The court could not move on its own to make an order, and neither could the prosecution apply.
Any defendant in the Crown Court would be able to apply for “judge alone” trial under Amendment 32. It is not limited to fraud and financial offences. The exact process would be set out in Criminal Procedure Rules. The court would determine the application by applying an “interests of justice” test, but must have regard to various matters including exceptional complexity, prejudicial publicity, national security considerations and other named criteria. I recognise that it is similar, as he has just said, to a recommendation made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, himself.
However, the Government are unable to accept this proposal. The Government agree with the conclusion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, that court choice, rather than defendant choice, should determine the appropriate mode of trial. This central principle runs through the Bill and we wish to maintain it, so I am making almost exactly the converse of the case made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, with the same sense of consistency.
The Government’s view is that we must redress the balance between defendant and victim. We have heard from victims that they feel the balance is currently tilted in favour of defendants, who get too much control over questions of venue or mode of trial, when victims have no say in this. Our reforms would achieve the right balance by placing the decisions on mode of trial squarely in the hands of the court. Decisions should be based on whether a case meets the statutory test, not the preference of a defendant.
Let me be clear that this is not to say that the views of the defendant would be absent entirely under Clause 3. Parties must be given the opportunity to make representations on a potential order and the court must take those views into account when determining whether to make an order.
I thank all noble Lords for a fascinating debate. I am sorry to hear that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, is leaving the country, but I hope we will hear from him again before he does; surely, it is not that bad. Given this position, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to those who have spoken in this short debate. I am bound to say that, at the moment, I am disappointed by the position taken by the Minister. I can see his reasoning, but I am not sure that there is a great deal of understanding of the position of defendants or the arguments put particularly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, and in relation to Crown Court trials generally by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I appreciate that goes much further than my amendments do. Nevertheless, that may be something we can continue to discuss. I would envisage further thought on whether jury waiver by defendants would not be appropriate in the Clause 3 cases. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in the name of Lord Marks, would ensure that only trials that would be both of sufficient complexity and length, with an agreed estimated length of at least 5 months, would qualify for trial without a jury.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, in this group I have Amendments 13A, 13B and 15A. I have spoken on the principles associated with complexity and length in previous groups, and indeed my amendments echo my Amendment 17 in group 4, on which I have already spoken. The amendments would require, before a “judge alone” trial were ordered, that the case would genuinely be of sufficient complexity to warrant a trial by judge alone and would have a potential length of at least five months.
A great deal has been said about complexity, but I would just like to make some points about length. I do not accept that the likely length of a trial is itself any reason for abandoning a jury trial. First, it is the universal practice of judges to ask potential jurors when the jury is empanelled whether a very long trial would cause them serious difficulties. In the event of an affirmative answer from particular jurors, they are generally not required to serve for that trial. Indeed, I have never heard of a judge forcing a juror to attend who has serious difficulties on the ground of length and not accepting that reasoning.
Secondly, I suggest that jury expenses could be increased to permit jurors after a set number of weeks to serve on longer trials without significant financial disadvantage. If there were significant financial disadvantage, that would bring into play the judge forgiving the juror the right to attend that I mentioned earlier. Thirdly, I do not accept that length of trial, of itself, makes a trial unworkable in the absence of other factors. The very fact that we have had so many very long trials over recent years successfully tried and concluded with juries bears that out.
Finally, the length of trials can be, and I think often should be, better controlled by ensuring that charging decisions are made with a view to ensuring that unnecessary charges are not brought or pursued to trial, particularly when they would not lead to longer sentences, and evidence and the presentation of evidence are planned, contained and carefully organised with a view to keeping the length of trial under control. It is a relatively new idea that length of trial, of itself, should be a reason for dispensing with a jury and, frankly, without a great deal more evidence, I would reject that notion.
In view of our position generally on “judge alone” trials being ordered and, in particular, in view of what is going to be debated in forthcoming groups about the type of offences being added to, at this stage we will certainly be supporting the stand part propositions from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, in this group. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I should advise the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed, I cannot call Amendment 14 by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I wonder whether at this point I might make a general point about the issues we are discussing. If ever I have seen a case of having your cake and eating it, this is it. Having listened to the Minister’s response to my Amendment 32, it is breathtaking to see the Government’s response to that compared with Clause 3. The amendment of Section 42A in Clause 3—on page 6 in subsection (4) —allows the prosecution and the defendant an opportunity to make representations. So the Government want to allow the defence, if they feel like it, to make representations that there should be a trial by judge alone. As it happens, I am with the Government on this; I agree with them on Clause 3 in broad terms. But I suggest that calling on principle as the justification for what they are doing in relation to these sorts of cases and the broader range of cases I referred to in my Amendment 32 is pretty hypocritical.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I will say a very brief word or two on the Clause 3 stand part debate. I know that my noble and learned friend will advance the arguments very fully, so I will say only some very brief words. I am very concerned about the concept of a “judge only” case. I have practised off and on at the Bar for 50 years. I am bound to say that I was only ever a jobbing barrister; I do not claim to have the legal distinction of many noble and learned Lords in this Chamber. But, when I started at the Bar, and it truly was 50 years ago, there were many judges whom one did not want to appear in front of. One went to great effort, if one could, to move the case from judge A to judge B, because one knew perfectly well that judge A was likely to convict. That may well have improved a great deal, and I will accept that it has, but judges, even in an ideal world, become case-hardened, and one needs to keep that in mind.
I have one further point, if I may. I still practise as a legal assessor to regulatory panels connected with the healthcare profession. Those panels comprise three panellists. It is very much in my mind that frequently it is the collective decision of three that leads to a fair decision. Had there been just one panellist, I am conscious of many cases where I think I would conclude that the judgment was unfair—so I am very much in favour of collective decision-making. That is what a jury is about and not, of course, what the single judge is about.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, I had not intended to speak. Commonwealth countries have been referred to. I originally come from Uganda, and I did a bit of law there. Although Uganda follows the British system to the letter, it chose not to have jury trials. All the trials are done by judges, and in more serious cases the judge sits with two assessors. I have not seen any failure to deliver justice properly. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is a halfway house, in which trial by jury is still affirmed but, in some cases, “judge alone” would be the order of the day. The same would be true for some senior magistrates’ cases.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
The noble and right reverend Lord has uttered what amounts to blasphemy in this Chamber. He said that tradition must be renewed. Had your Lordships’ Chamber been full, he would have been booed soundly. I think that tradition has to be renewed, but sadly this House tends to resist.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I will briefly speak to Amendment 31 standing in my name and those of other noble and learned Lords. It seeks to add to the category of case that could be tried by judge alone, and we put it forward for consideration. There are offences that take a long time to try in the Crown Court: health and safety at work is one example, and environmental protection is another. We would have added trading standards had the legislation not been so complicated that the amendment would have taken a lot of paper to put all the bits of legislation down. We therefore put forward these two examples as illustrative only.
We restricted this amendment to cases where the defendant is a corporation. These are offences that, in effect, turn on issues of fact and expert evidence. If one is concerned only with a corporate defendant, the concerns about removing trial by jury are much less. As the whole Bill is directed at trying to improve our system of justice, can we look at this as another means of reducing pressure on the Crown Court? It is something that we ought to consider. We put this forward as one of the ideas that ought to be put into the melting pot, because we are surely in a melting pot situation. I will say no more about this amendment, but may return to it at a later stage.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I oppose Clause 3. I am particularly concerned that the Government are presenting it as a practical measure to tackle delays when the evidence suggests that it will make very little difference. The Government’s own impact assessment estimates that these provisions will save just 200 Crown Court sitting days a year—around 0.18% of current Crown Court capacity. That is a tiny return for such a huge change to the way that criminal justice is delivered.
There is also no good reason to assume that removing juries will necessarily make these trials shorter. Judges sitting alone will still have to consider the evidence and, in complex fraud cases, they may have to produce lengthy reasoned arguments. Juries also provide an incentive to keep trials properly focused and evidence clearly presented. Fraud cases often turn on questions of fact, including whether someone acted dishonestly, and juries are well placed to judge dishonesty. The independent review by Jonathan Fisher KC found that juries can deal with complex fraud cases when trials are properly managed and presented. He warned that removing juries from serious fraud trials would send the wrong message about the seriousness of fraudulent misconduct.
There is something else in this clause that really concerns me, which is the power of the Secretary of State to add further offences to the list. In your Lordships’ House we get a little fed up with statutory instruments that bring in more and more power to a Bill that we have already passed. Although these initial provisions cover financial crime and related offences, the scope can be widened through secondary legislation. It is a very real risk that restrictions on jury trial will extend beyond the cases the Government are currently talking about. Jury trial is not an obstacle to be removed whenever a case becomes difficult or lengthy. It is an important protection against the concentration of judicial power and a vital part of public participation in the justice system.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, these amendments relate to issues we have already discussed at some length this evening, so I will try to keep my remarks relatively brief.
Clauses 3 and 4 would initially—I emphasise the word “initially”—apply to cases of fraud, meaning that those cases would be determined by a judge alone. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, has already articulated, there are problems that the clause presents when one addresses exactly what is meant by “lengthy”, for example, or “complex”. Indeed, we believe that just because a case may be lengthy or just because there may be some element of complexity, that is not an appropriate basis for excluding a jury. I note that these provisions are not supported by the Bar Council, for example, or, perhaps more significantly, the independent reviewer of fraud, Jonathan Fisher KC, who has concluded that there is no justification for removing juries from fraud cases.
I began by referring to the fact that these clauses would “initially” apply to cases of fraud because, of course, there is no guarantee that the provisions would stop with fraud cases. We will be addressing that in the next group of amendments when we come to look at the Henry VIII powers and the issue of using statutory instruments, which was touched upon a moment ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
We recognise that there is a backlog in the Crown Court. We recognise that there is also a backlog of cases in the magistrates’ court. However, we do not consider that this provision—which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, pointed out, would have a miniscule effect upon Crown Court sitting times—is the way forward in order to resolve those backlogs.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
My Lords, this measure is about reducing the ask we make of members of the public. I think we can all agree that being required to serve on a jury, not for the typical two weeks but for months, could have significant consequences for someone’s personal and professional life, and the impact is likely to be worse for someone self-employed or with caring responsibilities.
Clause 3 follows a long line of similar recommendations made by distinguished judges and independent reviewers, including Lord Justice Auld, in 2001, and Lord Roskill, as far back as the 1980s. Fraud and financial crime have continued to evolve since then, becoming enormously more complicated and with vast volumes of digital evidence, which are still dramatically increasing. That means that, for a very small number of cases, we need a new model that is fit for the modern age.
In relation to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I want to make it clear that we are not suggesting this is going to save an enormous number of court days or reduce the backlog. This is about the jury experience, as I said in relation to the last group; it is not about jury competence. We do not think that there will be many of these cases. This is not about who can understand dishonesty better but about reducing the burden on ordinary people’s lives from sitting on long trials, with which I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, would agree, at least in principle.
I agree that disclosure and the case management of fraud cases must improve, and this Government have agreed in principle to many of Fisher’s part 1 recommendations and others made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson. However, even after effective case management, some trials are likely to remain highly complex or lengthy. This is for those exceptional cases—and I stress the word “exceptional”.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful for that comprehensive reply. I do not suggest that my amendments are the last word on this, nor do I accept that the absolutist position taken by the Minister is the last word. It may be, therefore, that, between now and Report, we can come to an accommodation. In that hope, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill
Tuesday 10th November 2026
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill 2026-27 View all Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to open today’s debate on this short, straightforward but important Bill, which comes to this House following its passage, with cross-party support, in the other place. The purpose of the Bill is simple: it removes historic legal barriers that prevent individuals who profess either the Roman Catholic or Jewish faiths advising the sovereign on certain Church appointments or making such appointments in their own right where their office gives them that function.
It would be helpful to look at the historical context, because I know this House has a deep appreciation for our constitutional history. To understand why the Bill is necessary, we must briefly look back at where it all began. Following the Reformation, it was widely believed that religious unity under the Church of England was essential for maintaining peace and security. As a result, a number of restrictions were imposed on worship outside the Church. Parliament only gradually removed these restrictions, as well as limits on the role of non-Anglicans in public life.
In the 19th century, Parliament passed the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the Jews Relief Act 1858, removing many of the long-standing restrictions on the participation of Catholic and Jewish people in public life. Those Acts were major steps forward to establish the rights and freedoms of Catholic and Jewish citizens. However, these Acts also retained certain restrictions on some of their rights and freedoms. Those are the provisions with which the Bill is concerned.
During the Bill’s passage in the other place, Members reflected on that longer history of emancipation and reform, invoking great figures such as Daniel O’Connell and recalling the constitutional importance that earlier generations attached to these questions. As William Gladstone recognised in his own efforts to dismantle remaining religious tests in public life later in the 19th century, maintaining statutory discrimination against specific faiths is incompatible with a modern, representative democracy.
Over the past two centuries, successive Parliaments have slowly but surely removed almost all the remaining restrictions imposed on the holders of political office as and when needed. I recall being a Member of the other place when, in 2001, Parliament removed the restriction on Catholic priests to sit and vote in the House of Commons. The late David Cairns then became an MP, having previously been a Catholic priest. Most recently, noble Lords will recall our debate last year, when Parliament passed legislation to ensure that Lady Elish Angiolini could become the first Roman Catholic to hold the office of Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. I also confirmed in that debate that further legislation would follow, and a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord True, the Leader of the Opposition, welcomed such small, focused Bills to address this issue.
The specific provisions restricting advice on Church appointments remained on the statute book not out of deliberate policy but simply because they had never been tested by reality. It may seem surprising, due to the diversity of our country, that until now we have never had a Prime Minister who professed the Catholic or Jewish faith. Nearly two centuries since those 19th century emancipation Acts were passed, the House is now asked to remove from the statute book provisions that discriminate between faiths in a way that cannot be justified today.
Under Section 18 of the 1829 Act and Section 4 of the 1858 Act, individuals professing the Roman Catholic or Jewish faiths are restricted from advising the sovereign in relation to certain Church appointments. Until this year, those provisions had not had a practical effect on the exercise of prime ministerial functions. Following the appointment in July of a Prime Minister who professes the Roman Catholic faith, they now do.
To ensure that Church appointments could continue without interruption, the Government have put in place temporary administrative arrangements so that the relevant responsibilities are currently exercised by the Lord Chancellor. However, it would not be right or proper to continue these interim arrangements indefinitely. In the 21st century, one’s religious beliefs should not be a barrier to carrying out the full constitutional responsibilities of political office. The Prime Minister is the sovereign’s principal adviser and must be able to advise on all matters.
I am particularly aware, looking to the Lords spiritual—I am pleased to see the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester in his place—that any legislation touching on the relationship between Church and state requires careful consideration. I therefore want to make it clear that this is a narrow Bill. It does not reopen wider questions about establishment, nor does it alter the constitutional relationship between the Crown, the Government and the Church of England.
The Bill proceeds instead from a simple proposition: that where the Prime Minister has a constitutional role in advising the sovereign, the law should not single out Roman Catholic and Jewish people alone and prevent them undertaking that role. That is especially clear when the law has never prevented Prime Ministers of other faiths, other Christian denominations or no faith providing such advice.
Questions were raised in the other place about the precise nature of the Prime Minister’s role in Church appointments, including the appropriate level of involvement. The Government’s position, as set out in response, is that although, in practice, the Prime Minister does not generally take an active role in selecting clergy, it remains an important constitutional principle that the Prime Minister, as the sovereign’s principal adviser, should be able to advise on these matters without discrimination on grounds of faith.
The Bill achieves this through two short clauses. Clause 1 repeals Sections 17 and 18 of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and repeals the Jews Relief Act 1858 in its entirety. In doing so, it removes the statutory restrictions on Ministers advising on or making Church appointments. It also removes outdated restrictions relating to rights of patronage exercised by officeholders such as the Lord Chancellor. Crucially, it removes the restrictions affecting Roman Catholics and Jews in the same way, ensuring parity and equal treatment. Clause 2 deals with the extent, commencement and short title. The Bill extends across the United Kingdom and will come into force on Royal Assent.
Finally, as I mentioned, last year we passed the Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Act to resolve a similar historical anomaly. With the passage of the Bill before us, I assure the House that the job is complete. There will be no remaining statutory religious restrictions affecting Ministers and other individuals appointed by the Crown, and we are entirely confident that no further action of this kind will be required.
This is a simple, straightforward and short Bill. Although it will take up only a few lines on our statute book, it will remove an outdated, archaic and unacceptable restriction. It will ensure that our constitutional arrangements reflect a modern, equal society where no Prime Minister, now or in the future, is restricted from advising the sovereign simply because of their faith. I hope the Bill will receive support from all sides of the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
I am pleased to support the Bill and am especially pleased that it has the support of the Church of England, although I wait to hear from the right reverend Prelate—perhaps I will be corrected. Rightly, it has attracted support from across the political spectrum.
My involvement in the Church of England and its organisations has been various. In the 1990s, while the Prime Minister, John Major, handled the archbishop appointments, I was the Secretary of State handling the bishops’ and other appointments because the Home Secretary, Michael Howard—now my noble friend Lord Howard—was Jewish. I was brought in to handle those. Indeed, that included presenting my respected friend, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres, to Queen Elizabeth on his appointment as Bishop of London. I was a lay canon at Guildford Cathedral for many years, when Victor Stock served as dean. In my executive search capacity, I have assisted with the selection of a great number of non-clerical roles for the Church of England. Before that, I was on the council of the Church of England Children’s Society.
I came to have enormous admiration for the Church and for the seriousness with which it approaches the selection of those who are to take on leadership roles. An ecclesiastical appointment is quite unlike most others. Of course, the qualities of leadership matter, but there is something more profound involved. A bishop is being entrusted with the spiritual life of a diocese, with the pastoral care of its people and with the responsibility of representing the Church in the wider community. I find the process of discerning who might best fulfil that calling unique.
I am a strong supporter of the Church of England and its established position. I believe its relationship with the Crown and with Parliament is a central part of our national life, and one which serves this country well. It is not the subject of our debate today, but I really do welcome the Lords spiritual—although I would like them to remove their white gowns. I think they would look more appropriate if they just wore purple; only the person presiding over Prayers needs to wear a white gown—the Bishops know my view on this.
The Church has a presence in communities where few other national institutions remain. Its schools educate children from every background—and extraordinarily well; all my grandchildren went to Church of England primary schools. Its clergy are often among the first people called upon when a community experiences tragedy. When there is some terrible train, football or other disaster, it is almost always the Anglican priest who is called as the community leader. The contribution the Church makes to our national life extends far beyond those who attend church on a Sunday, as we all witnessed so clearly yet again on Remembrance Sunday.
I want to see this position protected and I am reassured that the Bill does nothing to undermine it. The legislation before us addresses an extraordinary historical anomaly. As the Leader said, the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the Jews Relief Act 1858 were, in their time, important advances in religious freedom, yet both retained restrictions preventing Roman Catholics and Jewish people advising the sovereign on appointments to the established Church. The penalties attached to these provisions were severe, including permanent disqualification from holding office under the Crown. It is striking that such language remains part of our law nearly two centuries later.
There is an interesting Conservative history to this. It was the Duke of Wellington, working with Sir Robert Peel, who secured Catholic emancipation in 1829, despite enormous opposition. Neither man was naturally inclined towards radical constitutional change. They understood, however, that there comes a point when an established institution is served better by reform than by the preservation of an injustice. I think there is something in that for today’s debate.
The present position is plainly tough to defend. A Prime Minister who is Muslim, Hindu or of no religious faith may advise the sovereign on Church appointments, but a Prime Minister who is Roman Catholic or Jewish may not. We cannot defend that. Of course, this has become a practical issue under the present Prime Minister, who has had to make alternative arrangements for the discharge of this responsibility, in the same way that my noble friend Lord Howard did in my time. I cannot see any reason why someone should be prevented from carrying out a constitutional duty of their office simply because of their religious faith.
Let me spend a moment on the appointments process itself, because I suspect that this is where some of the concern about the Bill may arise. The relationship between the Prime Minister and the Church in these matters has changed significantly over the years. It was not always thus. Gladstone thought the most important part of his job as Prime Minister was appointing bishops. Palmerston packed the Bishops’ Benches with Low Church evangelicals. I am looking forward to my noble friend Lord True giving us some very interesting Trollope as background; I hope he has done his homework. More recently, Margaret Thatcher had distinct views on, and her favourites in, the Church of England. John Major was restrained in his interventions —this was the time when I was supporting the process of bishops’ appointments but not archbishops’. Tony Blair was the last PM to exercise the power of veto. Gordon Brown ended the veto, in effect.
In 2007, following agreement between the Government and the Church, the arrangements were revised so that the Church’s own selection process became decisive. The Crown Nominations Commission now identifies the preferred candidate for an archbishopric or diocesan bishopric. The Prime Minister’s responsibility is to advise the sovereign on the appointment. It is a constitutional function, rather than an opportunity for the Government to choose whom they would prefer—tempting though that might be.
Having been involved in these appointments, I recognise how much thought the Church gives to this question. It is a particular characteristic of the Church of England: its breadth, its involvement in the wider community. Many people find a home in the Church of England, despite often disagreeing and having profoundly different views and prejudices, almost.
I believe strongly that the Church of England must continue to lead in the appointment of its bishops. I was pleased to read the statement by the Church Commissioners confirming that the Bill will leave the arrangements agreed in 2007 entirely unaffected. The same process will apply whatever the religious beliefs of the Prime Minister. A Prime Minister who belongs to the Church of England has no greater personal discretion over the choice of candidate than one who belongs to another faith.
The Bill also leaves untouched the position of the sovereign as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. It does not affect the requirement that the sovereign be in communion with the Church and safeguards the position between Church and state.
I welcome the Bill. It removes discrimination. It is a great step forward and I add my support.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I must add to the noble Baroness’s very interesting speech that Tony Blair, the last Prime Minister actively to be involved in the appointment of Church of England bishops, had a Roman Catholic adviser on faith, Francis Campbell, who later became the first Roman Catholic to be our representative at the Vatican.
The Bill reflects how far Britain has come from its historical anti-Catholic foundations. We still celebrate the Glorious Revolution of 1689 and its Bill of Rights, although we have forgotten the latter’s strongly anti-Catholic language, which states that
“it hath beene found by Experience that it is inconsistent with the Safety and Welfaire of this Protestant Kingdome to be governed by a Popish Prince or by any King or Queene marrying a Papist”.
We have also forgotten that Bonfire Night is an anti-Catholic festival.
As a Liberal, I rejoice that this country has in my lifetime become so much more tolerant of different approaches to faith or lack of faith. When I was a chorister at Westminster Abbey, we were all aware of political appointments within the Church of England, not only of bishops: one of our canons, it was whispered, had been appointed, controversially, by Ramsay MacDonald; and then of course there was the “Red Dean” of Canterbury.
I absorbed an instinctive suspicion of Roman Catholics from the children’s books I read; in particular, those of Charles Kingsley, an Anglican priest as well as a professor of history at Cambridge. The first Catholics I met, however, were the choristers of Westminster Cathedral when we played them at cricket.
In the past half-century, we have made great strides towards understanding and tolerance, not only among the different Christian denominations but towards other faiths. In 1953, the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster preferred to watch the Coronation procession from a gallery outside Westminster Abbey, rather than directly witnessing this heretical ceremony. Fifty years later, his successor read the first lesson at a service commemorating the Coronation, with representatives of Britain’s other faiths sitting in the transept in front of him. Not long thereafter, the Pope himself visited the abbey, and one of those who welcomed him was the abbey’s first female canon.
Therefore, this short Bill marks another small step towards a more open and mutually tolerant national society. Our Prime Ministers are drawn from diverse backgrounds. The relationship between the Church of England and the state is a dynamic one, which changes as our society evolves.
My party has long been in favour of disestablishment and carried that through in Wales and Ireland. I remain an antidisestablishmentarian because, like the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, I see this as a national Church, involved in local communities and playing the role of a national Church in the most inclusive way that it can. It represents our Christian heritage and the values that that has embedded in our democratic life.
The relationship between politics, religion and identity is contested and complicated. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, said, Margaret Thatcher was shocked, as Prime Minister, that the Archbishop of Canterbury included a prayer for the Argentinian dead in the thanksgiving service after the Falklands War, and she later intervened to block bishops who might be as forgiving as him.
Danny Kruger, in the Commons debate on this Bill, condemned our current bishops as “left wing”, while Sir Edward Leigh accused them of spouting “woke rubbish”, but it is the responsibility of faith leaders to remind us of the values that underpin society, even when the message is uncomfortable. I first learned about political values, I think, from listening to sermons in Westminster Abbey on the social message of the Christian gospel. The current Pope, like his predecessor, reminds his flock and the political leaders whom he meets that the poor and the marginal deserve help and respect. I am sorry that some consider such a message left wing or woke.
We have not entirely lost the prejudices against outsiders and heretics that marked previous generations. Elements of antisemitism still drift around the edges of our society. Prejudices against Muslims have replaced prejudices against Catholics and Jews, and there are some politicians who are twisting the Christian faith to promote nationalist and racialist division in Britain, the United States and elsewhere. Happily, our Church of England is a broad church and works hard to be inclusive. I have sat next to the president of the Bradford Council for Mosques in Bradford Cathedral and I have listened to the choir of the Belsize Square Synagogue in Westminster Abbey at a service in which the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, gave the sermon.
Mutual tolerance and interfaith dialogue play an important part in holding our diverse national community together. This Bill takes us a step further in that direction by removing now archaic discrimination against Jewish and Catholic Prime Ministers. It leaves us with a set of arrangements for Church and state that are a bit eccentric and still rely on conventions and understandings to work successfully, but that is how our unwritten constitution is supposed to work.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, I fear I will strike a slightly different note. I welcome the Bill and particularly the use of the word “discriminatory” in its title, but I will take this opportunity to ask why we cannot go further and completely eliminate ancient, archaic religious discrimination or favour from every part of the UK’s constitutional settlement.
More than 200 years ago, in 1787, the newly independent United States embraced a constitution that affirmed that religious affiliation should never be a requirement of public office. More than 100 years ago, in 1905, our neighbour France separated church and state, and there is no religious barrier or privilege in the constitutional frameworks of Germany or Italy. Iran is the only country in the world, besides the UK, that embeds clerics of one religion in a position of political power. Half the members of Iran’s highest legislative body are clerics appointed by the Supreme Leader.
Bishops appointed by right to this House represent only one faith and only English dioceses. As we are all well aware, bishops from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have no representation in our ranks. This is surely wholly inappropriate in a modern Britain of many faiths and no faith.
The most telling data about real religious conviction in the United Kingdom comes from Scotland, where humanist marriage, unlike in England, is legal and where couples of any faith and no faith can exercise real choice about where and how they marry. With that choice, nearly half of Scots choose a civil wedding, 30% choose a humanist wedding and only 5% opt for the Church of Scotland, which, of course, is part of the Anglican Communion. The final 20% of Scots marry according to other religious faiths.
Lord Birt (CB)
I am sorry, but the right reverend Prelate is speaking after me. I ask him to say whatever he wants to say then, as I am making an argument.
There can be no case, in a country of many faiths and no faith, for a single English Church to be embedded in our Parliament, although I stress that clerics of distinction of any faith—I have encountered many in my life and, indeed, in this House—would always be welcome in this House as individuals of merit.
Finally, I am a strong believer in the monarchy as a unifying institution, representing and articulating our highest and most consensual values, but in modern Britain we should not maintain a requirement from the Bill of Rights 1689 that the monarch cannot be a Catholic but rather must be a Protestant and in communion with a Church from only one part of the United Kingdom.
All this is an unwelcome tangle, a legacy of a troubled and divisive past well captured in the Leader of the House’s opening remarks—a past spread over many centuries. Does the noble Baroness the Leader of the House agree that it is now time to consider how that legacy can be disentangled and to identify exactly how we can best secularise the British state and constitution?
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, whether or not my robes add to or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, asserts, detract from my contribution to the debate, I am pleased to speak in support of the Bill. I hope that my words will not be deemed left wing or “woke rubbish”, whatever may have been said of bishops in another place, or archaic, as the noble Lord, Lord Birt, just averred. I can, however, assure the noble Lord that I am no ayatollah. As he would not give way a few moments ago, I also need to assure your Lordships’ House that the Church of Scotland is not part of the Anglican Communion. Indeed, it does not have bishops.
This is a modest but important Bill that brings our constitution to closer alignment with the values of modern Britain. The restriction preventing those who profess the Catholic or Jewish faiths from advising the crown on church appointments has its origins in a very different period. I and other Christians believe that God created humans equally and in his own image, each of us with inherent value and purpose. In a democracy, this is reflected in equal opportunity for participation in public and civic life—a right that must be defended regardless of faith or creed. The strength of our UK democracy is derived from the unique diversity of its participants.
As a Member of this House, it is my proud vocation to support the interests of thriving and vibrant communities right across the diocese of Manchester. Manchester is a place where people of all faiths and none come together to participate in community life. If our democracy and communities are to continue to thrive, there can be no justification for retaining the discriminatory provision that the Bill seeks to repeal. That is why I am so pleased to support it. Indeed, it is precisely these principles that it is the duty of the established Church to uphold—a duty that is facilitated all the more by the unique relationship with the state that it has had since Reformation days.
In practice, the appointments process for bishops will be unaffected by this Bill. The process is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, assured us, led by the Church. Although the Prime Minister’s role in advising the sovereign is a constitutional duty, it does not, and has not now for quite some time, involve the exercise of personal choice between different candidates.
However, that does not mean that the Prime Minister and his office are out of the picture. Their interests, on behalf of the nation, are represented on the Crown Nominations Commission through the Prime Minister’s appointments secretary. This person, though a non-voting member, is fully involved in the wide-ranging consultations that take place ahead of a nomination, and is present and able to participate fully in the conversations that take place during the commission’s meetings. I have every confidence that Manchester will be much blessed over the coming months, as I head towards my retirement, by the involvement of the Prime Minister’s appointments secretary in helping the city of Manchester and its surrounds to identify the right person to be the next bishop for that diocese.
Considerable Downing Street involvement at that stage in the process is the proper route to ensuring that candidates can serve wider society at both diocesan and national level, while also serving the structures of the Church. I have been through these processes myself, 13 years ago. No process is perfect, but I think they are at least as robust as those by which Lords temporal arrive in your Lordships’ House.
Once a name has emerged, with that Downing Street involvement, the secretary will convey it, together with a detailed rationale for the nomination, to the Prime Minister. The PM then seeks the assent of the nominee, before concluding it by forwarding the nomination on to the Crown. Those final processes may be formal, but they remain important because they are an expression of the constitutional relationship between Church and state. They do not require the Prime Minister personally to espouse any faith. Indeed, they are neither strengthened nor weakened by the religious affiliations of the person who happens to hold that office on any particular day.
This establishment relationship is not designed for the Church of England to secure special privileges for itself. The established Church exists to serve people of all faiths and none; to create space for freedom and coexistence; to build bridges across diverse communities; and to encourage a mutual sense of responsibility to our neighbours, our communities and the wider world around us. I am not sure that that is what the ayatollahs in Iran do. In my diocese, I have chaired the Greater Manchester police ethics committee, a large housing association, the Manchester Homelessness Partnership, the GM faith and community leaders group and numerous other non-Church bodies. I will not even go into the things I have done at national Church level. My local church has worked to inspire social action, to foster belonging and to protect the free practice of all faiths in the UK.
Beyond the appointment of bishops, as we have heard, there are certain other ecclesiastical appointments, such as to Crown livings, that may belong, primarily by patronage, to the First Lord of the Treasury, the Lord Chancellor or some other government or parliamentary officeholder. In practice, Downing Street officers exercise those functions on a day-to-day basis and take an active part in the proceedings. I or any of my colleagues—my right reverend friend the Bishop of Norwich is here with me—would be glad to bore noble Lords in the bar on some other occasion if they have interest in that amount of detail, but I would argue that it does not present your Lordships with any matters of concern. It is through its relationship with the state that our established Church is uniquely empowered to fulfil this vocational service.
The repeal of this discriminatory provision will strengthen not only the important relationship between Church and state but the constitution itself, by better reflecting the principles of religious freedom and equal citizenship. I welcome the opportunity to support this Bill tonight.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I do not wish to sound curmudgeonly or to cause any offence. I am speaking entirely personally, of course, and as a Roman Catholic. While I do not actively oppose the Bill to the point of wishing to table amendments to it in Committee, I am not entirely supportive of it either. The noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal said that it was a narrow Bill and I propose to treat it narrowly and look at what it says, unlike some other noble Lords who have helpfully and illuminatingly spread their speeches across a broader canvas.
My first concern is to do with rushing constitutional legislation through Parliament. There is no need for this rush. We have had too much constitutional change over the last 30 years—too much of it ill considered and some of it rushed and not properly connected. A great deal of it should be reversed. Here we have another pattern of rushing ahead with a piece of constitutional change. I will come back to this question, but what is the reason for the rush? The Explanatory Notes say that it is because the Prime Minister is a Catholic. He is on the verge of exercising his constitutional duty and, if we do not pass this legislation, he will be precluded from exercising it.
So what change is the Bill going to make? We have already had it explained to us that, in effect, the Prime Minister acts as a postbox between a careful and cautious selection process carried out by the Church of England on the one hand and the monarch on the other. Is all that is going to happen that the postbox moves from one desk to another? If so, I ask myself, what is the import of the religious denomination of a postbox? It seems to me of no significance whatever. On the other hand, it is possible that there will be change. We have not explored this question because the arrangement reached with no public consultation—this is part of a pattern—by Gordon Brown that changed our constitutional arrangements on this matter is something that could be reversed. If it were to be reversed, I can see that the Prime Minister would be doing something where the denomination of the person doing it could have some significance. We have not quite been told: is there any intention to change current practice? If there is no intention, given that the function is essentially no more than a postbox, what is the rush?
No Catholic, as far as I am aware, has called for this change. This would be nowhere in the list of priorities that Catholics would like to see Parliament engage with, ideally on an urgent basis. Off the top of my head, there are about half a dozen things that I could think of, but one instance would be a greater level of support for our Catholic schools and their expansion. That would be highly appreciated by Catholics, since they suffer to some extent from a rather suspicious eye cast on them by a secular bureaucracy. That would be a priority for the Catholic Church, but this would be nowhere. No sensible Catholic would ever want to be involved in appointing Anglican bishops. I am not sure who would.
I say no Catholic would want to, but there is the possibility that there is one Catholic who has been asking for this to happen. The Prime Minister has said that he professes the Catholic faith. We do not entirely know how much he is personally the driver behind this Bill because, as the noble Baroness said, the process could easily be said to have been set in hand back in March 2025—it is part of a process. But then again, where is the urgency coming from in all of this?
I turn to what I think were the original intentions of those who made the legislation in the 19th century when they admitted Catholics to Parliament for the first time in a couple of hundred years—I will come to Jews later, if I may. Essentially, the Test Act that excluded Catholics was the post-Titus Oates one in the 1670s. Catholics could sit in Parliament until then. Then it was reversed in 1829, as has been recounted. I think the original intention was to try to ensure that, from that point, the monarch would still be advised by someone who was of the Anglican faith, or at least a Protestant Christian. Nobody at that time—it was a failure of the imagination, if you like—could conceive that there might ever be a Hindu or a Muslim Prime Minister. In 1829, Jews were still excluded from sitting in Parliament. In fact, atheists were also excluded until well into the 19th century and the Bradlaugh case. They were excluded by the oath because they could not take it, and the Charles Bradlaugh case changed that. In 1829, there was no prospect of an atheist Prime Minister any more than there was, in practice, of a Hindu or a Muslim Prime Minister. So the idea that you preserve the role of advising the monarch on Anglican appointments to an Anglican Prime Minister and adviser, or at the very least, a Protestant Christian, seems to me to be a sensible one.
The Bill, rather tendentiously, includes “Discriminatory” in the Short Title, but is it discriminatory? We discriminate all the time. It is bad and reprehensible discrimination if we exclude someone on grounds that are irrelevant, such as saying they cannot vote because of the colour of their skin, but is it really discriminatory to say that somebody advising on Anglican matters should be an Anglican? That seems pertinent to me.
None of my remarks relate, of course, to people of the Jewish faith, and I look forward to hearing my noble friend Lord Wolfson on that. However, I have some concerns, and I hope that some of my questions might be answered.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
I very much like listening to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, but I cannot agree with him on this occasion. He says that no Catholics want this change—well, I am one who does, although I do not personally expect to benefit from it.
Some 24 years ago, Tony Blair appointed me to become Northern Ireland Secretary, and of course I was a Catholic then as I am a Catholic now. My predecessor, my noble friend Lord Reid, was the first Catholic Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It had been the convention ever since the creation of that office that a Catholic should not occupy it, for obvious reasons, but the world had changed by 2002. In fact, when I was Secretary of State, the late Ian Paisley used to call me the Apostle Paul, and that would not have been said 30 years before—something much more robust would have been the nature of his commentary then on a Catholic Secretary of State.
I very much support this Bill, because 200 year-old Acts of Parliament really need to be repealed for the Catholic and Jewish communities in our country. When you look back on the religious faith of quite recent Prime Ministers, Harold Wilson was a Methodist; Jim Callaghan, despite his name, was a Baptist; Mrs Thatcher started out as a Methodist and became an Anglican, and, as we have heard, was very interested in appointing bishops; Rishi Sunak was a Hindu; and Keir Starmer was an atheist. However, all of them had the right to appoint Anglican bishops, even though none of them, perhaps with the exception of Mrs Thatcher, is likely to have taken it that seriously. Since 2007, quite rightly, it is for the Church of England itself to determine who should be the bishops and the archbishops.
When I discussed on many occasions these matters in the other place, I reminded my fellow Members of Parliament that I was a Welshman representing a Welsh constituency, where the Church is disestablished. I therefore excused myself from taking part in legislation, for example, on women priests, on the basis that, first, I was a Catholic and, secondly, I was a Welsh Catholic and the Church is disestablished. However, I made it absolutely clear down there, as I do in this place, that I believe that the presence of the Church of England Bishops in this Chamber is a good and right one. They bring great wisdom and compassion to this place, always contributing excellently to our debates. I am personally in favour of the continuance of the Bishops of the Church of England in the House of Lords.
I must say that it has taken too long for this legislation to emerge. It may be a little too quick for the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, but it is absolutely the right thing to do. I hope it goes through quickly and that perhaps, in years to come, any remaining archaic legislation shall be dealt with in a similar way.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to follow the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen. I welcome this short Bill, but sometimes the shortest Bills close the longest chapters.
The Jews Relief Act 1858 was a landmark in the emancipation of British Jews. My own family came to Britain after its passage, settling in Tredegar, just up the road from the birthplace of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, in the south Wales valleys, and, within a few generations, one of their descendants could sit in this House and serve as a Minister of the Crown. The Act therefore marked a decisive change in the relationship between the Jewish community and the state. It represented not merely toleration but the promise of equal participation in the public life of this country. That is a story about this country of which I am immensely proud, but Parliament had not quite finished the job.
Section IV of that Act still prohibits anyone “professing the Jewish Religion” from advising the sovereign “directly or indirectly” on certain Church appointments. The penalty for doing so, as my noble friend pointed out, is “a high Misdemeanor”. It carries permanent disqualification from any Crown office, both civil and military, and the prohibition is in very sweeping terms. It is not confined to a Prime Minister tendering advice to a sovereign; “directly or indirectly” would reach advisers and other Ministers involved in the process.
This is not merely a historical curiosity. When I served as a Minister at the Ministry of Justice, my responsibilities included the Crown dependencies. However, because I am Jewish, I could not advise the Crown on appointments of Anglican clergy in the Crown dependencies. I therefore have the unusual distinction of having been personally inconvenienced by an Act of Parliament passed in 1858. It is an odd experience to find that a provision enacted in the middle of the 19th century still has a practical bearing on the duties of a 21st-century Minister. That illustrates why the repeal of obsolete discrimination is more than a matter of tidying up the statute book.
The serious point is that discriminatory laws matter even when they are rarely invoked. The objection is not that this law is old; many old laws are actually good laws. It is that the law makes a person’s religion determine whether he may discharge the responsibilities of a secular office. The anomaly, as we have heard, is striking. A Muslim, Hindu, Sikh or atheist Prime Minister may advise, but a Jewish or Catholic Prime Minister cannot. Of course, Disraeli himself, our first Prime Minister of Jewish birth, escaped the strictures of this Act only because, as a child, he was converted to Anglicanism. As a matter of short interest—I do not have time to go into it—that was because his father had fallen out with the local synagogue. Some things do not change. It illustrates that the distinction was not only, so to speak, between Jews and Catholics and others; the distinction was even between somebody born Jewish but who later converted to Anglicanism and somebody who continued to profess the religion of his ancestors.
There is an important constitutional distinction as well. The Church is perfectly entitled to impose religious qualifications for religious office, but advising the sovereign is a constitutional responsibility of the Prime Minister, not a spiritual function, and the religion of the officeholder should not determine whether that responsibility may be discharged. There are respectable arguments to be had about the proper place of politicians in church appointments and about an established Church itself. Neither question is raised by this Bill and neither needs to be resolved this evening. The short point is this: so long as Parliament gives the function to the Prime Minister, it cannot sensibly make its exercise dependent on whether the Prime Minister is Jewish or Roman Catholic, or neither.
When the late Lord Sacks of blessed memory was Chief Rabbi, he was a notable defender of the established Church. He memorably compared the Church of England to the host at a cocktail party whose responsibility it is to make everyone else feel at home. The serious point is that he believed, as I do, that minority faiths are at home and flourish best not in a society which banishes religion from public life but in one which gives faith a recognised and respected place. For him and for me, the establishment of the Church of England is not a threat to religious minorities but is, in fact, a protection for them. He also argued that establishment could secure a place for religion in the public square for the benefit of faiths beyond the established Church, which is a very important point.
The provisions by which the 1858 Act achieved Jewish emancipation have all long since been superseded or repealed. The Promissory Oaths Act 1871 removed restrictions on Jews holding public office. The Patronage (Benefices) Measure 1986 repealed the earlier part of Section 4, concerning rights of presentation to ecclesiastical benefices. The point of the present Bill, therefore, is not to undo emancipation, but rather to remove the last discriminatory remnant of the legislation that helped to achieve it. I therefore have just one question for the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal, which might in fact be the easiest question I will ever ask her. The Bill repeals the Jews Relief Act 1858 in its entirety, as she said. I ask only, given the Act’s historical significance, will she therefore expressly confirm that its repeal removes no surviving right or protection enjoyed by Jewish citizens, but instead removes the last remaining disability imposed by that legislation?
The Jews who came to Tredegar, including my family, sought a country in which their religion would not determine the limits of their citizenship. The 1858 Act had been a great step towards fulfilling that promise, but Parliament had left the job unfinished. This Bill, nearly 170 years later, completes that job.
Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Lab)
My Lords, I speak warmly in favour of this historically significant Bill and follow some remarkable and distinguished speeches. I start with an aside. My noble friend the Lord Privy Seal and I have had a debate about the number of pages per Bill, which has grown remorselessly over the last 70 years. I am glad to congratulate her on introducing a Bill that will bring the average down.
As we have heard, we are amending the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the Jews Relief Act 1858. Both, at their time, were significant advances in toleration. Catholic emancipation, as we have also heard, had been a major theme of controversy going back decades, but every time proposals reached anywhere near this Chamber, they ran into the formidable barrier of that strong English Protestant identity going back to the Armada.
What changed in 1829 and ensured that the Roman Catholic Relief Act reached the statute book were two things. First, the great Daniel O’Connell, who they called the Liberator, had run a huge and peaceful campaign over the previous years among Catholics, largely in Ireland. He won a by-election in County Clare in 1828 on the issue of emancipation, but, under the existing laws, of course, was unable to take his seat in Parliament. Secondly, the Duke of Wellington, revered victor of Waterloo and, by 1829, the Prime Minister, feared civil war in Ireland unless the law changed. Such was his authority at the time, along with Peel’s, that he was able to turn a deeply held Tory opposition to change into reluctant support, so the Bill passed.
However, as Wellington said in introducing the Second Reading, he was committed to a Church of England monarchy, which in his view meant that the advice that the monarch received on Church matters needed to be from people who explicitly shared that faith—hence the sections of the Act we are repealing today. Even so, at the time, not everyone in this Chamber backed the Bill. The Bishops at the time were divided. Both Archbishops opposed the entire Bill because, as the Archbishop of Canterbury put it, it was their “duty” to protect the Protestant religion.
As soon as the Bill had passed, Daniel O’Connell, to his credit, began advising British Jews on how they might make similar progress. It took a while, but ultimately was far less controversial. Thus, today we are completing that process of Catholic and Jewish emancipation—surely a proud moment for all of us.
The passage of this Bill today would signify three ways in which our society has changed wholly for the better in the two centuries since 1829. First, the Church of England itself has changed radically. Not only is the Archbishop of Canterbury a woman—unimaginable to the Duke of Wellington—but throughout the institution, as we have heard, there is an openness to and inclusivity of diverse perspectives. In addition, since Faith in the City in 1985, and even as far back as William Temple, the Archbishop of Canterbury in the 1940s, the Church of England has become a regular advocate of social change. In my time working in the Blair Administration, working with the Church of England on the biggest expansion of Church of England provision of education for many years was a great privilege and pleasure.
The second change is that, in parallel, our whole society has also changed radically for the better. Over the decades, first of all, intolerance became tolerance, and then tolerance itself was replaced by an active commitment to diversity and inclusion, as in today’s Bill. We should be collectively proud of that and resist any signs of retreat from it. By the way, responding to the noble Lord, Lord Birt, with whom I had the privilege of working in past years, I would not swap what they have in the US, France, Germany or Italy for what we have here, for the relationship between the Church and state and for the diverse and inclusive society that, for all its faults, we have been able to build.
Thirdly, in passing this Bill, we can congratulate our current Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, on successfully defying his distinguished predecessor the Duke of Wellington. As Daniel Maclise’s epic painting in the Royal Gallery over there illustrates, not even Napoleon managed that. I like to imagine that, somewhere beyond his grave in Dublin, there is a gentle smile this evening on the lips of the Liberator, and I commend this Bill to the House.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. We are debating what may become the first Act of Parliament under Prime Minister Burnham, which is perhaps appropriate given the personal nature of it.
This has been a characteristically interesting debate. I knew that it would be, given the speakers’ list. I enjoyed the curmudgeonly contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I am a beneficiary of the Oaths Act 1888, which he referred to. However, I did reflect on the fact that he said it was a rushed measure, which the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, referred to. In my experience, criticism of change is often levelled by those most reluctant and resistant to it. They say it is not the right time or that it is rushed or premature—only to find out, after a little bit of research, that it was previously debated in 1869. In the debate we had not long ago on breaking the automatic right of someone with a peerage to sit in this House until they die, the criticism of haste was presented. I remarked that we had passed a resolution on this very aspect in 1910. Therefore, this Bill cannot by any reasonable measure be described as premature or rushed. It is appropriate. It is just 200 years out of date.
The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, in his excellent contribution, was right to point out that, if discrimination is on the statute book, it still has an effect simply by being there, and we are rightly changing. The Leader of the House, in her excellent opening of this debate, said that we have been moving over time, slowly but surely. It was a bit more of the slowly than the surely. There was an excellent House of Commons briefing for the proceedings there. I liked a part of it which referred to a debate almost to the day a century ago. The House of Commons was debating Church of England legislation. George Lansbury said that the fact that
“a Jew, an infidel, a Turk, a Buddhist, a Christian Scientist, or a Theosophist may have the right to appoint these people when a Roman Catholic is not allowed this privilege … is perfectly absurd”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/1926; col. 1575.]
That was 100 years ago. So, yes, we have been debating this for quite a while. He was right then. We are right now. Seeing the change is appropriate.
I live north of the border. I will not intervene on the previous discussion with regards to structure of the Kirk. However, for over 100 years, since the Church of Scotland Act 1921, we have had the spiritual, structural and organisational independence of the Kirk. I miss dearly my friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who found no distinction between his political, public and religious life as Moderator of the General Assembly. He to me was a model. We disagreed, because I am not spiritual, but I miss him deeply. I am sure that he will be turning in his grave when he hears what I am about to say with regard to disestablishmentarianism.
Interestingly, another of my predecessors as Liberal leader, Viscount Samuel, High Commissioner of Palestine, also was able to bring that public and religious combination together: a Jewish commissioner with a role in the appointment of the Grand Mufti and the Chief Rabbinate at that time. We can learn from history how there can be religious tolerance in organisations. However, fundamentally, I do not believe that faith should ever be the means by which we decide whether that person is fit to hold public office. The only reason why this Bill is needed now is that the Prime Minister of the day, whoever they are and whatever they believe, still plays a part in choosing bishops in the Church of England. It is establishment that creates the problem, not the discriminatory nature of the relief Act.
That is notwithstanding what my noble friend eloquently called his antidisestablishmentarianism. I have been waiting to say that word in Parliament, so I am glad to have the opportunity. His great sincerity highlighted the fact that there are some who believe that there should be establishment. I do not take that view. I believe that in our legislature there should not be reserved places for clerics. As the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said, we are anomalous in the world with regard to that. This is for another time, when it comes to the overall aspect.
Religion should always be an issue of private conscience and never a matter of public policy. I do not believe that the state is bound to profess a religion. Therefore, I do not believe that the political leader should advise on religious affairs, nor that clerics should have reserved places in a legislature. However, since we are not rushing that aspect, in the meantime this Bill needs to pass and we should remove this anomaly. The issue of the wider aspect is for another day, but I hope that day will come.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I enjoy bonfire night and am sorry that it is being supplanted by an alien American festival. I have never seen it as anti-Catholic.
I thank the Lord Privy Seal for setting out the purposes of the Bill so clearly. I agreed with almost everything that she said. The purpose is simple. It removes a discriminatory bar which applied to Roman Catholics but not to Scottish Presbyterians such as Ramsay MacDonald and to Jews but not to English Hindus such as my right honourable friend Rishi Sunak. It retains a role for the Prime Minister as the sovereign’s principal advisor on matters relating to the established Church. How far that role should run has attracted different opinions in this very interesting short debate, but, from the point of view of His Majesty’s Opposition, that role is important and should remain.
We have noted that the Prime Minister, unlike Tony Blair, is an avowed Roman Catholic while in office. Boris Johnson was baptised as a Roman Catholic, but confirmed as an Anglican—no doubt to the great spiritual joy of his loving brother in faith, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. There are, then, fluidities in these matters, but they are relevant only because of the past anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish legislation. With the passage of this Bill, which we on this front Bench support, they will be relevant no more.
That said, I know that some outside the House, and perhaps here, take a different view. They ask, as my noble friend Lord Moylan did glancingly in a typically thought-provoking speech, why politicians who are of no faith or profess other faiths, such as our previous two Prime Ministers, should have a say in critical matters affecting preferment in the Church, but the Anglican Church has been the established Church for five centuries.
The question of the established Church is an issue, as we have heard, that is long dear to many in the Liberal and Liberal Democrat parties and to humanists. Indeed, one of the first uses of the Parliament Act by Asquith was to force the disestablishment of the Welsh Church in 1914. We heard this position adumbrated again, honestly, by the noble Lord, Lord Birt—even though he brooked no intervention on his argument—and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, in his elegant submission. I respectfully disagree with both of them.
There is a role for an established faith at the heart of the nation, as affirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, in a thoughtful and very á point—can I say that in the House of Lords?—speech. It was also cogently expressed by my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, who told us not only that had he been a target of the legislation we are appealing but of Chief Rabbi Sacks’s strong view on the place of an established faith at the heart of the nation. That was a view shared by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, from a different perspective in his speech. I agree with them.
However, with establishment comes a core constitutional role for the sovereign as the Supreme Governor of the Church. It is his Church and the bishops are his bishops, as we are all summoned here as his temporal barons. The sovereign’s principal adviser must have the lead constitutional role in advising the sovereign in relation to appointments that lead, potentially, to membership of this House. The leadership of the established Church matters and there is a wider public interest in that.
The role of the Prime Minister, as some have said, used to be wider, and I for one do not rule out that issue being re-examined. Perhaps I can be curmudgeonly for a second, but we should reflect on this. Since the restriction of the Prime Minister’s role by Gordon Brown in 2007, average Sunday attendance has declined by 41% and average weekly attendance by 39%, despite the welcome uptick since the pandemic. In any organisation suffering with humility such losses, there must be legitimate questions about leadership and how it is selected. Bishops, after all, are pastoral leaders. Three times it was said, “Feed my sheep”. Is the present system working to promote leaders who are as keen to nurture our parishes and as effective in increasing the army of the faithful as they are in construing the details of social security regulations?
Why is the present system, however worthy, as my noble friend Lady Bottomley so brilliantly explained, so cumbersome? Recently, the Times reported that there are currently 12 sees vacant, not counting suffragan bishops. Liverpool has been vacant since July 2025 and Bristol since September 2025, although there are interims. Guildford has been vacant since we were all so greatly saddened by the death of Bishop Andrew in March. The process of replacement is advertised to complete next summer. Consultation, as we have heard, is fine, but why must it be so long? Is that conducive to the public good and the good of the Church? Since Catholicism is in the air this evening, it is reasonable to point out that Pope Leo XIV was elected 17 days after the death of his predecessor.
I do not expect the noble Baroness to have the answer to this question this evening, although I would be grateful if she could place a note in the Library, as it is relevant to the question of the role of the Prime Minister. Can she tell the House how many of these delays in new appointments arise because appointments are being held up on a Prime Minister’s desk and how many from other aspects of the Church’s selection timetable?
Like others in the debate, I have strayed a little wider than the central simple point, which is removing discrimination and enabling the King’s principal adviser to act. I congratulate the noble Baroness on bringing forward this important piece of legislation. I support the objective she set out. I pray with confidence that Mr Burnham will exercise his role wisely. I ask others to give this short Bill a very fair wind.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a genuine privilege to listen to this evening’s debate. It has been thoughtful and at times thought-provoking as well. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. I have to say that I was at one point reminded of Prime Minister Jim Hacker in the “Bishop’s Gambit” episode of “Yes, Prime Minister”, where he is given a choice of two candidates. One, he sees as a radical Marxist; the other he describes as an ultra-conservative member of the Church of England—a “rigid traditionalist”, I think he called him. He does not like either of them. Sir Humphrey runs rings around him trying to find a suitable alternative that is to the benefit of Sir Humphrey. I am sure that such a thing would never happen today.
It is an interesting perspective that this is of great interest to many people. It is no surprise that, as we have heard in this debate, Members of this House are interested in the historical perspective as well as the practical application. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for sharing his experience on this. It does address a live practical issue. I have to part company with the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, in the same way as did the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about the rush. When we look back at the previous legislation that amended both those Acts, of 1828 and 1858, I think “rushed” is probably not the adjective that most of us would use in those circumstances.
It is completely wrong for any Prime Minister, whatever faith they profess, to be stopped from fulfilling their full constitutional duty under the law because of their religion. That is something we cannot accept in any circumstances. We should never give a constitutional responsibility to any Minister or Prime Minister and then make that responsibility conditional or discriminatory. That is the basis of the legislation here.
We have heard many interesting recollections. The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley of Nettlestone, told us about Robert Peel and the Duke of Wellington, who changed their minds and moved on this issue, splitting the Conservative Party of the time down the middle, with long consequences for future elections. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, made some observations on religious discrimination, both generally and on how we face, for example, antisemitism in society. It would not reflect well on Parliament if we were to criticise that kind of discrimination yet fail to do something ourselves when we were able to do so. I am grateful for the comments that the noble Lord made on religious tolerance as well.
The views of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, are well recorded in the House on this issue. I would say to him that, although the separation of state is in the US constitution, when American Presidents are sworn in, they place their hand on the Bible and say at the end, “So help me, God”, even though they have the opportunity to affirm. I do not know whether other noble Lords have a similar recollection to myself, but it seems to me that American politicians are judged far more on issues of religion and are expected to engage with religion far more than elected politicians in the UK. Still, the noble Lord made his point and the House heard what he had to say. In the same way, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, made the point about disestablishment of the Church of England. I do not agree with him, but both noble Lords shared their views in a respectful way.
I particularly welcomed the support of the right reverend Prelate. I welcomed the comments he made and thank him for his support. The noble Lord, Lord True, asked at the end about the reasons for delays in appointing bishops. That is a matter for the Church of England and its own process for appointments. I can assure the noble Lord that in no way has the Prime Minister failed to take up his responsibility or caused any delays. Those responsibilities have been fulfilled by the Lord Chancellor but, normally, from a political point of view, it would take a couple of weeks to make those decisions.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, who will forever be known as the Apostle Paul, for pointing out the religious faiths of previous Prime Ministers. That is at the heart of this. Singling out those who are Jewish or Roman Catholic in a way that no other person of faith or no faith has been singled out is the issue we are trying to resolve.
The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, asked me whether this was the last remaining discrimination in that legislation and whether it removes any relief. I know that lawyers never ask a question to which they do not know the answer, and I can confirm that the answer to his easy question to me is yes, that is the case, and he was right to ask that. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Chittlehampton, for a thoughtful contribution. I am glad he raised the contribution of Daniel O’Connell. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, also mentioned Charles Bradlaugh. My understanding of Charles Bradlaugh is that he did not profess any faith. He was an atheist and wanted to affirm: that is what caused the delay, in the same way as the oath of office affected Lionel de Rothschild, who got elected as the first Jewish Member but was not able to take his seat. That, again, was the matter of the oath.
These things take too long. It is a gradual process, but today we have completed a process in which everybody in this House can take pride, whatever their views on the wider issues. There is clear cross-party consensus. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is unhappy with the legislation, but I understand that he does not intend to propose any amendments. This is a Bill of two small clauses and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Barber, for his understanding of how it is possible to do short Bills that have a major impact. This has great symbolic significance. As a lot of people, including the noble Lords, Lord Wolfson and Lord Murphy, described, it matters to all of us, but particularly to those who are Jewish or Roman Catholic, that we should not have discriminatory legislation on our statute book. It does not disturb the current arrangements we have with the Church of England and with the Crown and it ensures that our statute book is fair. It allows Ministers of the Crown to discharge their full constitutional duties whatever religion they profess and ensures there is no discrimination.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. To have support from the noble Lord, Lord True, on the Conservative Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and across the House, shows that we go forward on this largely united on an important piece of legislation.
Courts and Tribunals Bill
Tuesday 10th November 2026
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Courts and Tribunals Bill 2024-26 View all Courts and Tribunals Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 57-I(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (10 Nov 2026)
Lord Keen of Elie
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I will move my Amendment 29 and address the question of whether Schedule 1 should stand part of the Bill. Amendment 29 seeks to remove the Henry VIII power to amend the list of offences considered complex and lengthy by only secondary legislation. To change the cases for which a “judge only” trial is permitted with a statutory instrument would, we suggest, be a completely unacceptable step and the Government have set out no reasoned basis for why such a step would be necessary.
The report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was published last week. It described the power to amend part 1 of the new Schedule 3ZA as an “inappropriate delegation of power” and recommended its removal. Indeed, as evidenced by the number of Peers tabling amendments to that effect, there is cross-party consensus that this is not a good use of delegated powers. Allowing the Secretary of State to add any offences to this list and to broaden the list to include crimes beyond the current scope of fraud and financial crime is a significant power that requires more scrutiny than the affirmative procedure for secondary legislation would provide for. The fact that there are only very narrow exemptions for the offences that could be included is also highly concerning.
At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne referred to this as “a Joseph Stalin clause”. He was certainly right to point out how far this power extends. I hope that the Minister will listen closely and take account of the concerns expressed by noble Lords on all Benches.
Even if we were to support removing juries from fraud cases, which we do not, your Lordships cannot be asked to effectively scrutinise such a significant provision when we have not been told of its scope. I beg to move.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I have two comments. I entirely agree with what my noble and learned friend said. Although I always welcome the affirmative procedure rather than the negative procedure, one has to recognise that the affirmative procedure does not provide proper parliamentary control for the fundamental reason that statutory instruments are not amendable. I have never, in 40 years, understood the reason of principle why statutory instruments are not amendable by the House. I recognise that it is for the Executive’s convenience, but that is not the same thing.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Once more I find myself in unity with the Privy Council Bench opposite. My friend may be only a mere Viscount but I join him in his campaign against Henry VIII. I declare an interest as a council member of Justice and a member of your Lordships’ Delegated Powers Committee. In that committee, the spirit of the late, great and learned Lord Judge does not just sit but is always in the room. He would do this better, more swiftly and more powerfully, but the committee was in total unanimity when it found this to be a completely inappropriate delegation of power. The committee said:
“It confers on the Secretary of State a significant power to amend, by order, principal aspects of the policy contained in the Bill. We are unconvinced by the Government’s justification for the power in the Memorandum”.
It should be removed. It was not a debate about procedure but a unanimous assertion that the power should be removed.
I am conscious that, on an earlier group, my noble friend the Minister made an argument that is often made in relation to Henry VIII powers: “This is the 21st century. There is technology, there is AI, so further offences might be created that we might want to add to this list that would potentially be appropriate for a trial by judge alone”. With respect, those offences would likely be created, I hope, by new primary legislation. That legislation could deal with the appropriate mode of trial. This is a completely unacceptable power.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 29, moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and I am delighted to endorse everything that he and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, have said about it. I am delighted to join the noble Baroness in her campaign against Henry VIII. I am bound to point out that he had six wives, so there is no reason why he should not have as many critics and more.
The amendment would leave out part 2 of new Schedule 3ZA and therefore remove the power to add or remove offences to the list by order of the Secretary of State. That amounts to a pernicious Henry VIII power to add any offence to the “judge alone” list. No one has read it out, but I remind the Committee that the “judge alone” list in the Bill as drafted is just financial crime: conspiracy to defraud and offences under the Fraud Act; tax and VAT evasion; false accounting; insider dealing; money laundering; terrorist funding; bribery; historic fraud offences under the Theft Acts, including deception and going equipped to cheat; and ancillary offences. Those are financial crime, and that is what we had all envisaged the judge-only provisions would be about. However, it is not what is now proposed when there is a power—fettered only by the need for a preparatory hearing, effectively—to add further offences of whatever sort, provided that they are not the offences, excluded by the primary legislation, of homicide and serious sexual offences.
The Delegated Powers Committee, on which I once served—I agree with the noble Baroness about the worth and value of the work that it does, if often unlauded—described those provisions in its report on the Bill as being concerned with
“offences of serious economic crime such as fraud, bribery and terrorist funding”.
The committee summed up the principle in the 2021-22 report Democracy Denied?, which the noble Baroness cited:
“The appropriate threshold between primary and secondary legislation should be founded on the overarching principle that the principal aspects of policy should be on the face of a bill and only its detailed implementation left to delegated legislation”.
That neatly and elegantly sums up one of the cardinal rules on which parliamentary democracy is based: that the Government are accountable to Parliament and Ministers introduce a programme of legislation, but it is for Parliament to pass or reject it as it determines.
Vesting a Minister with the power to enable trials without a jury of any offence triable on indictment other than excluded offences, provided only that a relevant preparatory hearing has been ordered, would be a radical departure from that principle of parliamentary sovereignty. We will oppose it and we will vote against it on Report. While we are prepared to give the Government time to consider their position between now and Report, Ministers should be in no doubt as to the seriousness with which we view this threatened abuse of constitutional principle.
On the merits of adding further offences to Clause 3, we see little reason, as I have explained, for judge-only trials as a matter of principle, unless applied for by a defendant. We see no reason whatever for them in other cases in the Crown Court, unless sought by the defendant, and will continue to oppose these provisions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, Schedule 1 is an inherent element of “judge alone” trials for complex or lengthy fraud and financial cases, as it stipulates those offences that are in scope of the measure, and therefore should stand part of the Bill. I have heard concerns that Part 2 of Schedule 1 could be used over time to expand broadly the scope of Clause 3 —noble Lords have spoken very clearly and firmly about that. Let me be clear: it is already the case that amendments to the schedule can be made only through the affirmative procedure—and I note the comments that have been made about that—which requires a successful vote in both Houses. Offences cannot be added to the schedule without Parliament’s consent.
Amendments 30, 63 and 64, tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, would prevent the addition of further offences to the schedule. Amendment 29, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, would go further by preventing any changes to the schedules at all, whether additions or deletions. As I have said, the purpose of this provision is to allow the system to respond flexibly as fraud and financial offending evolve over time. Technology continues to evolve rapidly, including developments in artificial intelligence. Cases involving any added offences will always have to comply with the other statutory safeguards for an order under Clause 3: a preparatory hearing, a public interest test, exclusions for homicide and indictable-only sex offences, and judicial decision- making.
I have noted the comments of the Delegated Powers Committee, and I understand that we will return to this on Report. With those comments, I ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, it occurs to me that the Minister may have missed his vocation: he is able to advance an unstatable case with at least a scintilla of conviction. We cannot accept the explanation advanced. I note the support across the Committee for removing Part 2 of Schedule 1. The suggestion that it might be required to introduce further new laws unknown at the present time was met eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, who pointed out that such laws would almost certainly be introduced by way of primary legislation anyway. I make it clear that we will be returning to this on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the provision allowing the Secretary of State to change, by regulations, the general limit on custodial sentences in a magistrates’ court for either-way offences to 6, 12, 18 or 24 months.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I have Amendment 33 in this final group of the day. This amendment would remove the power of the Secretary of State to amend the Sentencing Code as proposed in Clause 5(1) of the Bill to substitute periods of 6, 12, 18 or 24 months as the general limit for magistrates’ court sentences for “either way” offences, currently with 12-month limits. Amendment 35, from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the clause stand part notice from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, would have the same effect.
There are two broad headings for our objections to this proposal. The first is that it would hand to the Government another unacceptable Henry VIII power, giving the Secretary of State the power dramatically to increase by secondary legislation the sentencing powers of the magistrates’ courts. The use of Henry VIII powers for such a purpose is particularly egregious, because sentence lengths are concerned with the liberty of the subject and so are pre-eminently matters of policy for Parliament and not matters of implementation by Ministers.
The Delegated Powers Committee expressed itself trenchantly on this issue, as it did on the issue in group 7, saying:
“‘Henry VIII powers are controversial, and for good reason. Every such power, and its scope, must always be fully justified’ … we consider that the Government has failed to justify the … power in clause 5(1) and we recommend that it is removed from the Bill”.
The Government seek to support the new power by reference to an alleged requirement that
“adjustments to magistrates’ sentencing limits can be made swiftly where operational pressures or changes in case volumes necessitate a rebalancing of work between the magistrates’ courts and the Crown Court”.
The Government referred then to responding
“flexibly to fluctuations in demand, ensuring that cases are allocated to the appropriate court without the delay that would result from requiring amendment via primary legislation”.
I have no wish to be flippant because this is a serious issue, but that attempt by the Government at a justification sounds more appropriate to a supermarket chain resolving its grocery distribution issues than to the impartial administration of justice where sentence lengths for individual offenders are at stake.
The nature of the Government’s attempted justification of these changes demonstrates just how important it is that Parliament should retain control of these significant policy questions and that they should not be subordinated to ephemeral, practical, operational difficulties. The extent of government overreach on this issue is accentuated by the Bill providing for the negative resolution procedure only. At least Amendment 34 from the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, would right that obvious wrong.
The second area of objection to the proposal to enable sentences to be increased by Ministers by regulations is both principled and practical. The combined effect of the proposals in this Bill would be to draw criminal cases into the magistrates’ court and away from the Crown Court. That would have the effect, as we have discussed, of depriving many defendants of a right to a jury trial. Indeed, that is the Government’s stated aim, expressed as directed towards reducing the appalling Crown Court backlog. However, as I said earlier today and as has been said by others, the evidence that this would actually be achieved is thin. The backlogs in the Crown Court are stabilising as measures have been introduced to address them. As I said at Second Reading, although we can argue about the exact figures, the Criminal Bar Association’s figures show that, over the first six months of this year, the Crown Court backlog rose by less than 0.5%. In the magistrates’ court, on the other hand, the backlog in June, excluding single justice procedure cases, was up 16% in a year to about 169,000. We have heard a great deal today about the magistrates’ courts being as clogged up as they are and the difficulties that this Bill could present, because those figures are before any of the proposals in this Bill have taken effect.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
I advise the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 34 because of pre-emption.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendments 69, 71 and 72. My concern is that already expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. Once Clause 1 is enacted—if it is—and the sentencing powers of the magistrates’ courts are increased, there will be a very large increase in the business of magistrates’ courts and they will be overwhelmed. The effect of the amendments I have tabled in this context is to limit the ability of the Government to implement the clauses unless the magistrates’ courts have increased the number of magistrates to 21,000, which seems to be the figure generally accepted as sufficient to handle the increased business. My amendments also provide that, in the event of the number of magistrates falling below 21,000 for a sustained period of three months, the statutory instrument will lapse. The purpose is to try to ensure that there are sufficient magistrates. I have grave doubts that there will be, and that is why I tabled these amendments.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I oppose Clause 5. It will allow the Government to increase the maximum custodial sentence that magistrates can impose from 12 months to 18 or 24 months. As we have heard, it will also give the Secretary of State the power to make that change through regulations rather than through Parliament, which would allow us to consider the matter through primary legislation. My concern is about not just the length of sentences but the combined effect of this clause and Clause 1. The Bar Council has warned that this is a “dangerous experiment”, particularly at a time when prisons are already at capacity and the backlog in magistrates’ courts is growing. Increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers does not address the underlying problems of an underresourced justice system.
Like many other noble Lords, I am also concerned about the delegated powers in this clause. The House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has specifically recommended that Clause 5(1) be removed. Its chair warned that the clause oversteps the proper limits of ministerial discretion. We should not hand the Government such a significant power to change sentencing limits without proper parliamentary scrutiny. The Government have not made a convincing case for this change. If they think magistrates should have greater sentencing powers, why will they not justify that proposal to Parliament instead of leaving the decision to future regulations? I told the Minister that I would not say this, but, while he is extremely emollient in trying to calm our fears, I am afraid he has not done so. The Government are faced with opposition from all around the Chamber. The Greens are linking with the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib Dems. Might that give the Government pause to think that perhaps they have got it wrong?
Amendment 35 and my consequential Amendments 58, 70 and 71 would replace Clause 5 with a single, simple provision. It removes the Henry VIII power of the Secretary of State to change by regulations how long a magistrates’ court can send someone to prison for, for an “either way” offence. At Second Reading, I said that I could not support expanding magistrates’ sentencing powers. This amendment offers the Government a constructive alternative, taken directly from the review on which this Bill is built.
Paragraph 14A of Schedule 23 to the Sentencing Act 2020 is a Henry VIII power. It allows a Minister to rewrite an Act of Parliament by statutory instrument, subject only to a negative procedure. That is appalling. We are not a democracy when that sort of action gets taken. Since 2022, the limit has been raised from six to 12 months, cut back to six months in March 2023 and raised to 12 months again in November 2024. That is three changes in under three years, driven by Crown Court backlogs one year and prison capacity the next. Clause 5 widens this even further. It allows the Secretary of State to set the limit at 18 or 24 months, up to double today’s maximum—again, by regulations.
The Minister told your Lordships’ House at Second Reading that the Government intend to raise the limit to 18 months next year, depending on Royal Assent. That is not what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, recommended. In recommendation 15 of Part 1 of his independent review of the criminal courts, he recommended that the power to change magistrates’ sentencing powers by statutory instrument be repealed and that the 12-month maximum should be made permanent. My amendment, therefore, does exactly what recommendation 15 asks.
I absolutely despair of this Government, in the sense that they seem to be backtracking on all the democratic ideas they had when they were in Opposition. I sat here and listened to all the colleagues here on the Labour Benches when they were in Opposition, saying wonderful things that I could agree with. Now, I just see the other Tory party sitting over there. It is very depressing to sit over here these days.
Baroness Sater (Con)
I rise to speak to Amendments 36 and 68 in my name, which seek to ensure that magistrates’ courts are properly prepared for the extension of their sentencing powers and that the impact of these reforms is reviewed within 12 months of the Bill coming into force, and annually thereafter. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting with me, together with his officials, and for the constructive discussion and helpful follow-up information.
The Government’s intention is to relieve pressure on the Crown Court. However, we need to be confident that the magistrates’ court will have sufficient capacity to absorb the additional work that noble Lords have discussed today. Amendment 68, which would extend the commencement period from two months to six months, seeks to probe whether the proposed timetable allows sufficient time to ensure that all necessary preparations are in place.
There are several areas I would like to explore with the Minister. First, on recruitment and retention, I welcome the fact that recruitment has almost doubled. In the year to March 2026 1,663 magistrates were appointed, compared with 898 the previous year. However, as mentioned at Second Reading, 988 magistrates also left during that period, which was a 20% increase on the previous year. In August the Magistrates’ Association highlighted that at this rate it would take a further 9.2 years to reach the Government’s target of 21,000 magistrates in post, which they aim to achieve by 2028-29. This really concerns me. Given the assessment, can the Minister give us the confidence and reassurance that the Government will be able to meet their targets?
We must also ensure that progress on diversity is maintained and strengthened along the way. The Government’s own figures show that 17% of new appointments in 2025-26 were from ethnic minority backgrounds, compared with 14% of serving magistrates. Can the Minister assure me that this is being closely monitored and that the Government remain focused on continuing to improve the diversity of the magistracy? Increasing numbers must go hand in hand with ensuring that the Bench reflects the community it serves, and does not get left behind.
One area I did not mention at Second Reading was my concern about whether there would be sufficient experienced magistrates to act as presiding judges. The Government’s own figures indicate that around a third of serving magistrates are currently presiding judges. Have the Government assessed whether this proportion will be sufficient to meet the additional demands arising from these reforms, in particular taking into account the expected departures and retirements? What steps are being taken to ensure that there are enough experienced presiding judges as the magistracy expands?
Secondly, the Lady Chief Justice raised concerns about the additional need for training, following the previous extension of magistrates’ sentencing powers, describing it as
“a huge amount of additional … need”.
As many noble Lords raised at Second Reading, the extension of these powers will create further demands. I understand that the Judicial College has already begun planning for the additional training requirements and that further funding has been made available. What assessment have the Government made of the Judicial College’s capacity to deliver this training alongside the ongoing training needs of the existing magistracy? Is there contingency funding available should demand exceed the college’s current estimates?
The Government have said that the extended sentencing powers will not come into force until sufficient magistrates, legal advisers and district judges have completed the necessary training. How will the Government determine whether this requirement has been met and what do they consider to be sufficient?
Thirdly, as we already know, legal advisers and court staff play a vital role in the effective running of magistrates’ courts. The Government have highlighted that they have appointed additional legal advisers and are recruiting further staff. However, how many additional legal advisers do the Government estimate they will need to support the increased case load, while trying to take into account the numbers that will leave?
I understand that HMCTS is still developing its package of pay, progression and career development reforms to address retention challenges. When do the Government expect this work to be completed and are they confident that these measures will be in place in time to support the additional demands?
Finally, I welcome the Government’s investment in additional sitting days, but these can be delivered only if there are sufficient magistrates, presiding judges, legal advisers and court staff. Taken together, these are significant practical challenges. While I recognise the steps the Government have outlined, I question whether two months will be sufficient to complete the necessary preparations. What assessment have the Government made of the preparations still required and what evidence supports their decision that a two-month commencement period is sufficient when there are so many variables and unknowns? I am not suggesting that six months is necessarily the only possible timetable, nor am I seeking to delay these reforms unnecessarily. The central issue is that these reforms must not come into force before the magistrates’ courts are ready to deliver them effectively, or we risk creating an even bigger problem.
Briefly, Amendment 36 would require the Government to publish a review within 12 months of the Bill coming into force and annually thereafter. Even with the necessary preparation, the practical realities of implementation may differ from the Government’s projections. Having this review and annually thereafter would allow us to assess how successfully magistrates’ courts are managing the additional case load, identify any challenges arising from the reforms and consider whether further support is needed.
Having served as a magistrate, I know that greater powers bring greater responsibility. We must ensure that magistrates’ courts are properly equipped to exercise these powers, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness has raised so many variables and unknowns—a term that she used—and I am very glad she did so. She speaks from experience, which I cannot, but I have been very uneasy about almost everything she has mentioned and I have some amendments which we will come to next week on the same subject. So I am generally supportive of what she is saying.
My name is on Amendment 69. I will not say I added my name because it got added by the Public Bill Office disaggregating one of my amendments and adding my name to that of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. This is a bit of a stretch. I do not know whether you would call the noble Viscount, the noble and learned Lord and me an unholy alliance but, on the subject of collective nouns, I have had an email from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, saying that the term coined by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, of an “exquisite quartet”—this is for future reference, your Lordships understand—is one that he can live with.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, the Clause 5 stand part notice is in my name. We have a number of diverse amendments in this group, but they all direct attention at the same issues, they are all sounding the same warnings, and they come from across the Committee.
There are two essential elements. The first, as remarked upon by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, is the improper constitutional mechanism of Henry VIII powers being exercised by the negative procedure, with the result that the length of imprisonment that can be imposed upon those citizens who appear before the magistrates’ court may be increased. The second is the unrealistic assumptions that are being made about the ability of the magistrates’ courts to cope with the increased pressure that is going to be placed upon them, not only in regard to their ability to accommodate “each way” cases but by the transfer of further cases, which will be listed as and when sentencing powers are extended.
I am struck by the observation made by my noble friend Lady Sater, repeated by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the reference to variables and unknowns. There is a complete lack of evidence from the Government as to how these changes will impact upon the present capacity of the magistrates’ courts to accommodate the increased load that is being placed upon them.
It is in these circumstances that we will return to this on Report and we will support those further amendments that seek to challenge the Government’s ability to circumvent Parliament—because, in essence, that is what is being done here—by way of the negative procedure to increase sentencing powers.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
My Lords, Clause 5 provides powers to increase magistrates’ court sentencing powers to 18 or 24 months should future circumstances require it. These powers provide important flexibility to respond to changing pressures across the justice system and to ensure that court resources are deployed proportionately. Drawing on the experience of the past few years, responding to changing pressures across the justice system, including in the prison system, is a very high priority for the efficient management of justice which commands public confidence.
The Crown Court continues to face significant pressures, and many cases sent there for sentence can be dealt with fairly and effectively in the magistrates’ courts, as I have said in earlier groups. Extending magistrates’ court sentencing powers will allow more cases to be appropriately retained in the magistrates’ courts, freeing Crown Court capacity for the most serious and complex cases.
Reducing delay is not simply a matter of efficiency. Timeliness is an essential ingredient of fairness and justice, and freeing Crown Court capacity is critical if victims are to receive justice within a reasonable timeframe. The backlog is one question, and noble Lords have cited various statistics about the backlog in both the Crown Court and the magistrates’ court, but the backlog in the magistrates’ court is dealt with much more quickly than the backlog in the Crown Court, for all the reasons that are obvious. The waiting times in the magistrates’ court are less than half the waiting times for the Crown Court. That matters to victims in particular.
Amendments 69, 71 and 72 from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and Amendment 34 from my noble friend Lady Goudie seek to make these reforms subject to the affirmative procedure and prevent them taking effect unless a prescribed number of magistrates is maintained. The Government do not consider this additional procedure necessary. Parliament is already being asked by this Bill to take the substantive policy decisions, including approving the full range of magistrates’ courts’ sentencing powers that may be exercised in future. Once Parliament has established that framework, it is proportionate and consistent with existing practice for changes within those limits to be made by regulations. I know that is not what many noble Lords wanted to hear, but it is our view. The negative procedure is the established approach and has been used previously, both to reduce and to increase magistrates’ courts’ sentencing powers in response to the changing pressures across the justice system, which have been vividly recounted in recent months.
Nor do we believe that the implementation or continuation of these reforms should be made contingent on a single workforce metric. The Government fully recognise the importance of magistrates’ courts’ capacity, which is why we are increasing sitting days and undertaking a national recruitment campaign with the aim of increasing the size of the magistracy to around 21,000, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, noted, by 2028-29. However, operational readiness cannot be reduced to a single numerical threshold. It depends on court capacity, workforce deployment, case volumes and wider pressures across the criminal justice system. Amendment 72 would make commencement and continued operation dependent on a prescribed number of magistrates being maintained, regardless of the wider operational position of the justice system. The Government’s view is that such decisions should be guided by evidence and operational need rather than a single workforce measure.
Amendments 36 and 68 were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sater—I thank her for meeting me in such a constructive spirit, and we have provided her with more information since. I take seriously all the points that she made about the things that needed to be true, if I can put it like that, for these reforms to succeed. I pay tribute to her experience and collaborative spirit. The Government have already committed in Clause 20 to post-implementation monitoring and review of the reforms, and therefore we do not consider that a further statutory review requirement is necessary. Amendment 68 would delay commencement beyond two months after Royal Assent. We do not consider that necessary either. The Bill does not increase magistrates’ courts’ sentencing powers. Magistrates will continue to operate at their current sentencing limits unless and until a future decision is taken to exercise the power. Any future decision to increase sentencing powers will be informed by operational data and engagement with key partners across the criminal justice system, including HMCTS, prisons and probation, the CPS and the judiciary.
Since sentencing powers were increased to 12 months in November 2024, fewer cases are being committed to the Crown Court for sentence, and magistrates are retaining more cases to hear. I reject entirely the comment by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, that the Government have provided no evidence. We have published a magistrates’ capacity plan; I have commissioned a fact sheet that I think the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, has seen, and we have published our modelling. There is a good deal of data out there already. I have spent a good deal of time, including this morning, going over progress on magistrates’ courts’ capacity, recruitment and retention, so I am afraid I simply do not accept that characterisation.
We are going to increase sittings days to 131,000 in 2028-29. A national recruitment campaign is under way to increase the number of magistrates and recruit additional legal advisers and district judges. We are committed to rebuilding the magistracy. We have already made 1,500 new appointments across England and Wales since April. In 2025-26, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, noted, 17% of new appointments were from an ethnic minority and more than a third of new recruits were under 50. Women account for 55% of the new appointments.
I heard the concerns from the noble Baroness about the capacity and funding of the Judicial College. We will monitor those carefully but, as I told her when we met, we have significantly increased the funding to the Judicial College. That is an important aspect of making a success of these things—as is the need for new magistrates to have the mentoring and support of more experienced magistrates, as we have discussed. We have a detailed implementation plan. I would be very grateful if the noble Baroness, given her experience, would continue to work with us on making sure that is a reality. We all have the same ambitions here. I have a good deal of confidence in our efforts to expand the capacity of the magistracy. I am happy to share that with the noble Baronesses, Lady Sater and Lady Hamwee, and others.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
The Minister referred to Clause 20, which talks about a review of equalities issues and, regarding the appointment of reviewers,
“any other matter specified in the appointment that relates to the effect of the relevant criminal justice provisions”.
It would be helpful to know what other matters the Government have in mind. We have been talking about some quite specific issues. I would be glad of a reassurance that that is what the Government intend to look at in a specific and detailed way to report to Parliament.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
The review that is promised is specifically on the question of disproportionality as it affects Black and minority-ethnic people. The provisions that we have made for the appointment and so on of the reviewer relate to that. That said, we also intend to review and publish progress on magistrates’ capacity, because we see that as central. It is not the same review, but both of those things are in play.
Of course, the readiness of the magistrates’ courts would be assessed before any decision to increase sentencing powers is taken. The decision would be informed by operational data and engagement. A fixed statutory delay would, therefore, reduce our flexibility without providing realistic additional assurance on operational readiness. It would also delay commencement of the statutory independent review of the structural reforms—just mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—and provisions for when the Crown Court sits in the City of London, despite there being no equivalent operational rationale for doing so.
Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, together with Amendment 35, and consequential Amendments 58 and 70 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, would either restrict the sentencing powers of magistrates’ courts to the current possible limits of six or 12 months, variable by regulations, or remove altogether those existing powers to vary their sentencing powers by regulations. The Government do not believe that would be the right approach. Parliament is being asked through this Bill to decide whether magistrates’ courts’ sentencing powers may in future be increased to 18 or 24 months. Clause 5 does not itself increase those powers. Parliament is taking the substantive policy decision about those limits through this piece of primary legislation and setting the limits within which any future regulations may operate. The purpose of Clause 5 is to continue to enable flexibility and any future decision to exercise the power would be informed by that evidence.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I do not share the despair of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, at everything that this Government do. They have done some good and brave things, not least in the area of criminal justice, many of which we have welcomed. However, they have shown themselves to be capable of serious misjudgments. The power to extend magistrates’ sentencing powers—doubling them—by regulation, by a Henry VIII power, subject to the negative procedure only and on minimal evidence, is a radical misstep.
I note the Minister’s reliance on government modelling as providing the necessary evidence. However, that modelling depends on a number of imponderables and unprovable predictions about the future. With only the negative resolution procedure available to air the issue, the problems with this provision remain unsolved. The Government are right that the position that I and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, take means that primary legislation would be required to increase sentencing powers. We say that that is right. Parliamentary scrutiny in Committee is intended to enable the Government to step back before such missteps, as I characterise them, cause serious danger.
In the hope that the Government will withdraw from this misstep before its consequences may be felt, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment—but I too expect the matter to return.